Anybody have any thoughts on these?
I've used these on several of my factory hunting rifles and have never had any problems. I particularly like being able to reposition the quick release levers after the rings are tightened.
Would they look too terrible or cheap on a full custom?
Dave

I have them on several guns. I would put them on a custom for sure.

Geronimo

I used Warne Maximas one one of my early rifles, they looked chunky and the powder coated finish was tacky. Apart from that they were very solid.

The powder coated finish is out of place on even a factory rifle. I might use them on a cheap and dirty gun but that is about it.

I have not used them and won't; I think they are investment cast and look cheap.

Jim

IMHO, I don't think they would do a full custom any justice. I do use them on a lot of my rifles though. It's nice being able to index the levers out of the way.

quote:

Originally posted by +Templar+:
IMHO, I don't think they would do a full custom any justice. I do use them on a lot of my rifles though. It's nice being able to index the levers out of the way.

You can do the same with the Talleys and they look and are made much better.

Yup, I have Talleys too...

Dave,
I used them some early on as the original bases were very low and gave a good iron sight picture, but they have changed that now, but I wasn't wasn't pleased with them anyway..

The problem I had was I had to use them on the right side of my Mausers as the bolt release interfers with the levers when turning them, and on my .338 Win. so had to use them on the right side. Recoil allowed them to jump position on several occasions on one particular hunt and almost cost me a couple of nice trophy animals as the levers jumped and positioned themselves to interfered with the bolt lift. .I taped them up after the second go around and continued the hunt without incident, but I'm surprised you didn't hear my cuss'en from across the big pond...

I think a stronger spring would remedy the situation but I was ticked so I traded them all off to Belk and been using Talleys mostly, and a few old Weavers, still a good functional setup...

The old Len Brownells are the very best I have used as they are the only bases that give you a clear view or your barrel mounted irons. Surprised the makers didn't learn that from Len since Talley and Warne more or less copied them it appears, but hey in todays world of gundome, Irons don't seem to be of concern.

I have to use a Talley peep with Talleys bases as their cover up the barrel mounted sights unless you use a really high ramp and that's butt ugly IMO. The Talley peep is a nice set up on a DG rifle IMO...

Just my two bits but its from field advise not guess and by gosh.

The current Warne rings are MIMed parts, made by using powdered metal.

The problem with the old Brownell and Kimber of Oregon bases is that some of them only left .025" under the screw head, and when the screw was tightened down to the receiver is when the problem raised its ugly head. So they made the base taller to add another .050" to the base so the screw would not bend the base section under the screw.

J Wisner

The pair of Warne QR rings and bases I have on my 9.3x62 seem fine, but are really heavy. After buying that set I went with the Talleys.

BTW, bought your book through Wolfe when they republished it - sorry, I couldn't hack the $100 price tag on eBay before that!

Dave,

The Warne's work great on a hunting rifle and I've used them on calibers up to our 600 OK with no structural problems. I think you could finesse them to make them a little more pleasing to the eye. I like the adjustable lever system also.The finish they put on them is a bitch to get off. It takes a long time in the blast cabinet.

If anyone is interested, I have a set or two of the Wisner bases I purchased a while ago and never used.

quote:

Originally posted by J Wisner:
The problem with the old Brownell and Kimber of Oregon bases is that some of them only left .025" under the screw head, and when the screw was tightened down to the receiver is when the problem raised its ugly head. So they made the base taller to add another .050" to the base so the screw would not bend the base section under the screw.

J Wisner

I am trying to understand this.
I don't understand why the base would bend under screw tension if the base was correctly fitted to the receiver?

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:

quote:

Originally posted by J Wisner:
The problem with the old Brownell and Kimber of Oregon bases is that some of them only left .025" under the screw head, and when the screw was tightened down to the receiver is when the problem raised its ugly head. So they made the base taller to add another .050" to the base so the screw would not bend the base section under the screw.

J Wisner

I am trying to understand this.
I don't understand why the base would bend under screw tension if the base was correctly fitted to the receiver?

I was scratching my head on this one as well.

IMO on most hunting rifles detachable mounts are superfluous and so are the iron sights they provide access to. Put a modest scope in a modest and simple fixed mounting system with a back up scope in tow if you must.

Chuck Nelson,
Really, I'm surprised you would think so, but to each his own..I would not own a rifle without iron sights, at least for back up and I have had instances wherein they saved the day. A couple of close calls with Buffalo and being able to point and shoot, and on more than a few rainy days on the side of an elk mountain in my home state of Idaho, several times when packed 20 miles back in the wilderness and scopes took a lick or fogged up or the cross hair pinged, lots of pluses to being able to finish a back country hunt..Most outfitters like to keep gear to a minimum and an extra rifle doesn't always sit well even if they don't say anything about it. Just another point of view.

As to bending a set of Brownell or old Kimbers, my old Brownells have never shown any indications of that, they are steel and fitted to the receiver flush, there is nothing to bend by tightening the screws unless your receiver is out of square with the world, all mine are surface ground as its an assist to exact return to zero. Being able to utilize your iron sights is the ONLY legitimate reason for a QD mounting system. If not then I would go with double dove tails for a permanent mounting system and a low power scope.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Chuck Nelson,
Really, I'm surprised you would think so, but to each his own..I would not own a rifle without iron sights, at least for back up and I have had instances wherein they saved the day. A couple of close calls with Buffalo and being able to point and shoot, and on more than a few rainy days on the side of an elk mountain in my home state of Idaho, several times when packed 20 miles back in the wilderness and scopes took a lick or fogged up or the cross hair pinged, lots of pluses to being able to finish a back country hunt..Most outfitters like to keep gear to a minimum and an extra rifle doesn't always sit well even if they don't say anything about it. Just another point of view.

I've never been on an outfitted hunt, but have assuredly hunted for days on end at least a days ride from any lightbulb. I have hunted without irons for long enough to know that scopes fogging (I've seen it once on a buy a pair of pants and get a scope free deal at gander mountain I took advantage of when I was 14), and outright scope failure in the field (I've seen it once) are so rare as to consider sights a lot of hassle for nothing. I'll bet good money that more stocks are broken on hunting trips than scopes and yet I have never heard of anyone carrying an extra one of those along.

With most hunts that are away from home there are generally more than one person along and in many of these cases an absolute firearm failure can be remedied with a shared firearm. In the case of the failed scope above, it was a cheap piece of junk and when the problem reared it's ugly head I merely handed the individual my rifle and he successfully clobbered his Mule Deer with it.

A spare scope can be brought or in many cases a spare rifle makes better sense.

I'm not saying it might never have been a good idea to have backup irons on a rifle, but I'm not sure the whitetail woods of name your location is one of them.

I have Warne rings and piccatiny base on one of my .308 Win and never expzerienced a problem after 2200 shots.

Chuck,
Under your circumstances that's probably a good analogy..

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:
IMO on most hunting rifles detachable mounts are superfluous and so are the iron sights they provide access to. Put a modest scope in a modest and simple fixed mounting system with a back up scope in tow if you must.

That rifle is such a lovely dichotomy!

You have the beautifully done custom bolt handle and the beautifully done custom bottom metal with the beautifully done custom fiberglass stock. All on a common Winchester action with very common Leupold bases and rings.

And somehow it all looks just "right".

Patrick Holehan used those on his early rifles, now he uses Talley (on his custom bases with a return to zero function). I have one of his early .416 Rigby and had him refinish 2 sets of the older Warne to use on a Pre War .375 H&H and on an extra scope to be used interchangeably between the 2 rifles. While not a fan of vertical split rings (I am a Conetrol guy) I see no real difference between the older Warne and the Talley I have on other rifles. As long as they'd take a finish I doubt a customer would be able to tell the difference. I can't remember if indexing the levers is any easier between the two; regardless, just as with the initial PITA of setting up of Conetrols once it's done you never have to touch em again.

I have no experience with the new ones.

As an aside, I finally sucked it up and got glasses at 49. I only have iron sights on my Rigby, the H&H and my brush/hog .44 Lever rifles. I do not have any sights on my open range cartridges as I'd be hesitant to pull the trigger on game at over 100 yards even with my glasses. That's just me. I've taken spills, had rifles taken even worse spills and all I've ever had to do was re-sight in a rifle.

It is unfortunate Warne discontinued the original Premier rings. They looked good and had the indexing feature you mentioned. I just don't like the look of the current Maximas. I have a few sets of Premiers lying around and some Premier bases if anyone needs some. I ought to do an inventory and offer the works as a lot in classifieds.

The older Premiers were nice rings, they even made rear bases with an integral peep sight for a while that worked well, you can still occasionally find this stuff on eBay.

I have a bunch of bases here but Warne changed their parts numbering so many time they can't even tell me what some of the bases are for.

The new stuff, Maxima's and the 9.3 series, not so much.

The difference in Warnes and Talleys is the Talley have higher bases and block the iron sights on the barrel as a rule, the old Warnes were low and didn't do that..The Talleys are much better made and the levers are way more finished..I like the talleys real well but I only use the talley slide on peep..

Also it is easier to fit the metal to metal with the thicker Talleys if you do that..I fit all bases by hand and on surface ground receivers, and when you do that you get a real return to zero as opposed to a "well that's close enough for government work" return.