I'm converting an existing rifle over to a lightweight stock and want to ditch the Redfield base/ring combo on there now. I need detachability so that I can use the open irons in case of scope damage on an extended hunt (this has happened...). I have used the Weaver alloy bases and either Weaver rings or Zee rings on other rifles without trouble and its a light weight, low mounting setup.

I want this rifle to be a do all, dead dependable tool. Has anyone ever had Weaver alloy bases fail in any way, especially over a hard kicking Magnum? The only potential problem I could see is maybe having steel Zee rings or base screws "eat into" the alloy bases over time and loosen or change POI though this is just pure theory.

I'd love to hear experiences and recommendations. Its only about 2.5 oz difference between these and the Warnes or Leupold Weaver style bases but they cost and weigh more.

Oh, and I know they're fugly, I'm OK with that for this one.

Other base ring recommendations?

Thanks for the help guys.

Had Weaver bases on my 6 lb 7 ounce 375 H&H. They never once let me down. In my opinion they are the best,lighest and least expensive base out there. Every rifle I own has them on except my Rugers.
When mounting them to the rifle I always use some acraglass underneath. Even after I remove the screws I will often have to smack them with a plastic mallet to get them to come off.

I've used mny weaver aluminum bases and can't find any reason to fault them ever. They just work!

Weaver also make the cross slot bases in a steel version (Grand Slam)which I use for the same reason you are comtemplating. Having said that I have never had any problem whatsoever with the aluminium versions using either the Weaver rings or the Burris Zee, even on hard kickers.

quote:

Originally posted by snowcat:
Has anyone ever had Weaver alloy bases fail in any way, especially over a hard kicking Magnum?

My father & I have had them on our Ithaca Deerslayers (M37 Lightweight) for over 30 years each.

You can't get much more punishing than 12 ga slugs out of a lightweight gun.

Never had a single problem with either of them.

Never a problem with Weaver bases or rings-they constitute one of the strongest mount arrangements you can have, plus being light in weight. The only problem I ever encountered using Weaver mounts was the difficulty of getting the reticle to stay square with the rifle when tightening up those rings due to them having screws on one side only-this causes the scope tube to rotate when the screws are tightened. For this reason, I prefer a set of rings that has screws on both sides for even tightening, even when using Weaver bases.

I believe Weaver has finally recognized this problem, as I believe they are now selling a set of Weaver split rings with screws on each side.....

i've used the alum bases and millet "angle lock" rings... seems to hold up pretty well

jeffe

I have never had a problem with the alloy bases from Weaver. I have been using the Weaver bases with Burris Signature Zee rings as my primary mount system for a long time. It is an inexpensive, hard to beat combination in my experience. Plateau Hunter

I've used them for years on my lightweight 458 Win with nary a problem. We even used some of them on .50 caliber M-2 machine guns in Vientam.
they are simple, lightweight, tough and as reliable about returning to zero as most QR mounts.

If you have any hesitation whatsoever, spend the couple of extra bucks and get the steel weaver bases(grand slam)installed.

I have had 2 rifles (a 9.3x62 and a 7x57)done with these and Warne QR rings.

I have been very satisfied - the 9.3 holds zero with no problems so far.

Not an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by snowcat:
I'm converting an existing rifle ...

Hey Jay, If that "existing rifle" happens to be an older M7 Remington, then the Weaver Base doesn't work worth a clinton.

It is the only place I've ever had a problem with any Weaver Base or Ring. The original M7s have "1-screw" at the back, so Weaver only sold a 1-piece Base for it. The problem is that the Rear of the Receiver is MUCH Lower than the Front and the Weaver Base is in mid-air over the Rear.

They ship a Plastic Wedge with the Base, but it was obviously designed by someone who never tried to actually mount the Base on a M7. If he had, he would have realized he has less firearm knowledge than augy - which means 0-0=0.
---

There may be slightly lighter Bases and Rings than the Burris Signatures, but if you ever try a set, you will never use anything else. Excellent, first-rate design, no possibility of marring the scope tube, no mis-match between the Rings - so no Ring Lapping is ever necessary and the Synthetic Inserts provide an absolutely excellent grip on Larger Scopes with high mass.

If setting up for long distance shooting, once again the Burris Signatures totally eliminate a lot of frustration and hassle. Slide in a set of the Eccentric Inserts, adjust the scope and no "sloping ramp" is needed. Same if it is a simple case of mis-alignment between the Receiver and the Barrel - no Lapping or Shimming needed.

And they will handle ANY level of Recoil you might desire with the Magnums. I have a set on a very light 350RemMag with a large mass scope and the scope never moves.

As a nice side Bonus, the Burris Signatures are not expensive.

Best of luck.

I've used them on rifles and handguns and never had a problem. I'd say the hard kicking handguns are even more abusive to scopes and mounts than rifles, and I've never had a problem with them.

If you want an extra beefy setup, go with #8 screws vs the std #6.