(Posted this in Optics on another forum and got very little response, so maybe it belong in Gunsmithing since it's a mechanical question...)

I've been using Burris Signature Zee rings on most of my rifles, but recently went to the new XTR Signature rings for my Remington Police rifle. Compared to the Signtaure Zee's, the XTR's are much larger, heavier, much longer (ring length), and higher. Everything I didn't want. They are massive, but I'm wondering if all this strength is really necessary?

Has anyone ever done or is aware of any testing showing how much force or what kind if impact it would take to dislodge normal mounts? Are these massive tactical setups really doing anything or are they just for show? That is, at some level of impact your scope is not going to point where it did before (if it even works), so what is to be gained by having a mount that can take a much heavier impact?

Testing? None that I know about.
My experience is that most any rings are stronger than the scope when subjected to an impact.
The difference coming in when you remove and replace them, which I almost never do anyway.
The so called, Tactical Rings, are over kill. But I sometimes like the look.
You answered your own question with your experience with the lighter rings.

I've used Burris Signature rings for all my rifles; several RUM's and have never had a problem with the rings. I have experienced problems with the windage adjustable rear bases that are available and for that reason I only use Dual Dovetail bases. I would use a rail also but haven't yet.

God Bless, Louis

What gets me about so many 'tactical' mounts is that no matter how strong the rings are, if the base connections to the rifle are only two inches apart they are more susceptible to bumping leverage than mount bases four inches apart.

Is this a reasonable concern or do I not understand the physics of leverage?

Dual-dovetail mounts may be stronger than those with windage, youngoutdoors, but they really only exist because the matter has been consigned to an articulated erector tube - an even bigger concern IMHO.

One never has to worry about Ruger mounts.

By far the strongest out there.

I used a lot of mounts hardly ever had problems besides screws coming loose.

I've always used Redfield one piece bases with Redfield rings, never had any problems even with hard kickers like the .338 Winchester Magnum.

Interesting question, and I've never seen an instance of a properly mounted scope in "non tactical" mounts coming off. IMO, the new chunky tactical rings that are on everything are purely for show. This is true even more so when you consider the majority of these rifles are simple 223's that generate hardly any recoil. It's another case of more not being more.

I have regular Signature rings on most of my rifles, in both DD and Zee configurations as appropriate, and have yet to have an issue with any of them. One set is mounted on a 340WM and hasn't moved at all in more than 10 years.

On top of the lack of additional functionality - they're UGLY!