Wanted: Opinions on good scope mounts.

[piller]

I have just bought a Savage Model 200 in 7mm-08 and purchased a Bushnell 3-9x40 scope to go with it. I am now looking for scope mounts and rings. I have always used Weaver in the past. Are there any which are better, or am I still going to do fine with the tried and true Weaver mounts and rings? I have a BSA boresighting kit and will be doing the work myself as I find it fun.

[madman4570]

Check out the Burris 2 piece Xtreme Tactical mounts. You have to get the ones that are both front/rear round and reversible, like this:
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.e ... mid=665735
Also Burris Extreme Rings

[iceman]

I have never had any isues with Weaver rings or bases.

[Tycer]

I have never had any isues with Weaver rings or bases.

+1

I've never heard anything bad about them either.

I do like the Leupold QRD quick disconnect rings as per 86er's recommendation.

[piller]

Thanks guys. I bought the rifle at Academy, and I was treated well, so I will give them my business for the rings and mounts.

[rodeo kid]

Piller, look at one piece mounts, they are alot more stable to me. I forget the brand I bought, but I put them on a Remington 700 and they have worked well. God Bless.

[Bruce]

I have switched all of my mounts to the Game Reaper Dednutz mounts. Well made, sturdy and lightweight. I have found their low model is a little too low for most scopes.

www.dednutz.com

No dog in the show, but they have a very good product.

[86er]

Ricky and I have the same rifle. The 7mm-08 does not recoil enough to need some kind of heavy duty rings or bases. The standard Weaver slot would work fine. You can get by with aluminum too. One thing to be sure of is to use some lock-tite on the base screws. Also, lap the rings for concentricity to be sure you are not putting pinch point pressure on your scope. If you have any issues, we'll help you.

[Streetstar]

I have never had any isues with Weaver rings or bases.

+1

I've never heard anything bad about them either.

I do like the Leupold QRD quick disconnect rings as per 86er's recommendation.

+2 -- little dab of Loctite on the threads and you likely will not have to worry about them. (the Weavers that is) have had them on a .300 Weatherby Vanguard which recoiled like a sledgehammer, with no issues to date (maybe 100 rounds through the rifle total though, its not a target shooter)

Leupold and Conetrol makes some very nice rings and bases that are a little more pleasing to the eye, but all of my utility grade bolt rifles wear Weaver

[Charles]

Over the years I have tried several high dollar scope mounts as well as numerous Weaver mounts. I have never found any scope mount that was superior to Weaver. They all do about the same things, so why spend more?

[new pig hunter]

My personal favorite is the Burris Signature Zee ring. The differing-thickness plastic inserts pretty much allow you to initially boresight the scope without having to move the reticle adjustments at all.

http://www.snipercentral.com/burrismounts.htm
http://www.6mmbr.com/catalog/item/1433308/900077.htm
http://www.burrisoptics.com/sigrings.html

Cheers,

Carl

[JB]

My personal favorite is the Burris Signature Zee ring. The differing-thickness plastic inserts pretty much allow you to initially boresight the scope without having to move the reticle adjustments at all.

My favorites are Weaver style bases and Zee rings as well. They hold even the hardest kicking magnums, yet won't scratch or damage a scope tube in any way.

[Rusty]

The last Weaver rings I bought were a pain... bad QC issues. When I took the ring apart to degrease them before putting them on I found that the screws would only go back in if I put them back in the exact same holes they came out of.
I started using B-Square rings and all has been fine ever since.

[Haycock]

I only use Leupold bases, rings and scopes. Experience has demonstrated to me the value of going with a slightly more expensive but significantly better made product in all cases.

I use the Leupold 2-piece bases and blue Loctite to lock 'em down... be careful to not over-tighten the torx screws... all you need is the torque from three fingers... too much and the screws will break... been there.... its a pain...

I don't like the Weaver rings because when you tighten them down that last turn or two they will often pull a scope out of alignment, making them MUCH harder to adjust properly. If you do go with Weaver bases be sure to verify that the cross-bars of the rings are pulled backwards against the rearward face of the ridges, to ensure that they don't shift when fired.

Last... spend $20 or so on the little Wheeler scope leveling tool.... it will make it MUCH easier to install your scope properly... use the levels and go slow... adjust each screw no more than a turn or two at a time and go corners in... you may not see the difference at 100 yards, but you will see it farther out...

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?p ... ber=529349

Good luck.


Haycock

[Tycer]

I If you do go with Weaver bases be sure to verify that the cross-bars of the rings are pulled backwards against the rearward face of the ridges, to ensure that they don't shift when fired.

Haycock

Interesting, I was taught to push them Forward because the guns move rearward in recoil.

As I assume from all your posts here that you are a very competent shooter and you've had great success with moving the rings to the back of the slot and I've had no POI changes moving it to the front, it MUST be an excercise in futility and matter not.

[Haycock]

I If you do go with Weaver bases be sure to verify that the cross-bars of the rings are pulled backwards against the rearward face of the ridges, to ensure that they don't shift when fired.

Haycock

Interesting, I was taught to push them Forward because the guns move rearward in recoil.

As I assume from all your posts here that you are a very competent shooter and you've had great success with moving the rings to the back of the slot and I've had no POI changes moving it to the front, it MUST be an excercise in futility and matter not.

DOH!!!

Nope... I wrote backwards but meant forwards for exactly the reason of recoil... typing fast & thinking slow early in the AM... I'm glad you picked that up or I'd have been guilty of passing on the reverse of what I intended! Thank you, Tycer.... good eye!

It is in fact the FORWARD face that one should push the crossbar against, per above!!!


Haycock

[El Chivo]

I went with the Weaver because they were the lowest I could find. And I do use the detachable feature. But I also bought a Leupold set to try, and wasn't impressed. Too high and didn't feel as secure. Also, it may not seem like much, but I weighed them both and the Weaver was several ounces lighter. All in all the balance on a 336 was better with the Weaver.

[firefuzz]

An explaination before I start: All my bolt guns are working guns, I have no safe queens. I modify my work guns to suit and fit me, some people like them...some don't, that's okay. I am far more concerned with function (accuracy and reliability) than looks. I like synthetic stocks. I usually replace wood with synthetic, on work guns, they are durable, remove humidity/bedding problems, and save weight that I so I can use steel rings and bases.

When I was working in gun/pawn shops one of the things that puzzled me the most was thousand dollar plus rifle/scope combinations connected by a set of $30 rings and bases. Why would anyone cut corners in this area? Other than checking the stock screws for tightness this area is the first thing most gunsmiths check when people bring rifles in for accuracy problems, and probably the most common problem area.

I've quit using anything but steel "weaver" style bases, unless I'm putting them on a .22 then I'll use aluminum. To avoid cross hair alignment problems I also don't use any type of ring that doesn't secure the scope by mulitple screws going straight down into the bottom section of the ring. There are many brands that meet this criteria. I particularly like one-piece picatinney type rails that I "level" to the receiver to eliminate torque to the base and therefore the scope.

I won't use any Leupold/Redfield type bases with the "windage" adjustment on the base(s). IMHO, these were a necessary evil in the days when the crosshairs of the scope moved in the eyepiece in relation to the adjustment and scopes had very little internal adjustment, now all they do is move the scope out of center alignment with the bore of the rifle which is not a good thing.

Just a couple of words of advice: Check the alignment of the scope mounting holes on any rifle before you buy it, especially older guns. Use blue loctite, not red. Only lap the bottom section of the rings. Use only GOOD steel base to receiver screws and don't over tighten them, 22-25 inch pounds is plenty. Same with the ring screws, any more than that will either break or stretch the screws and those are problems I don't want.

Just my $.02

Rob

[Tycer]

Thanks Rob!

[Haycock]

So... do you guys (Rob, etc.) use 1-piece bases on all kinds of rifles, or just the ones with solid receiver-tops like 336s?

I ask because although I agree they are clearly mechanically superior I just can't adjust to the blockage of the receiver port when they are put on bolt action rifles... don't like the reduced access to the action for loading, clearing, looking, etc.

Also, Tycer... dunno if you tried the Low Leupold rings, but they aren't really any higher than other sorts.... most of the rings you see are Medium, though, and they do tend to sit a little high for my taste too....


Hay

[firefuzz]

Firstly let me recant something from my earlier post, (too early and not enough coffee ), when I have to use 2 piece weaver bases I'll only use steel ones. The picatinney rails I use are aircraft aluminum.

Haycock, the restricted access to the loading/ejection port is an issue, but not enough of one to cause me to use a 2 piece mount when I can get a one piece.

Rob

[Tycer]

So... do you guys (Rob, etc.) use 1-piece bases on all kinds of rifles, or just the ones with solid receiver-tops like 336s?

I ask because although I agree they are clearly mechanically superior I just can't adjust to the blockage of the receiver port when they are put on bolt action rifles... don't like the reduced access to the action for loading, clearing, looking, etc.

Also, Tycer... dunno if you tried the Low Leupold rings, but they aren't really any higher than other sorts.... most of the rings you see are Medium, though, and they do tend to sit a little high for my taste too....


Hay

One piece, two piece... They all seem to work fine. Aluminum, steel same deal. I do like steel, but it's personal preference not ever any bad experience with aluminum. 'Merican Steel Dude!

I have modded both the ejection side of a base and the leading edge to accommodate moving the scope as far to the rear as possible for a young shooter.

Yes, I have used the low. I use them exclusively. I've not got a scope that will not work with the low ones on any rifle. I have no scopes with objective taller than 42.

[Chuck 100 yd]

I like the Warne mounts and they come in steel.

[Haycock]

Firstly let me recant something from my earlier post, (too early and not enough coffee ), when I have to use 2 piece weaver bases I'll only use steel ones. The picatinney rails I use are aircraft aluminum.

Haycock, the restricted access to the loading/ejection port is an issue, but not enough of one to cause me to use a 2 piece mount when I can get a one piece.

Rob

Do you guys experience noticeable variation across different combinations of Weaver-style or picatinny bases and rings, in terms of the amount of play between the crossbars of the rings and the ridges of the base?

I ask because that is one aspect of the setup that I have always questioned. If you get a tightly milled steel base and rings with correspondingly sized crossbars then the play is minimal... and by play I mean the potential for the scope to shift if the rifle is dropped... it shouldn't shift under recoil if it is seated properly against the BACK of the ridge IN FRONT of each ring. But that doesn't account for all situations, and I have seen base/ring combinations where the play was really pronounced... others not so much (like an all Warne setup).

Could be this is one of those theoretical nits, and not really any kind of issue.... wondering what you all think......


Haycock