[thumbtack]

Now that I have a new scope, I want to get a little feedback on scope rings.

Is there really much difference in scope rings, as far as accuracy is concerned? I have seen rings priced from $15.00 to $85.00, what is the difference? Are they made from different metals?

I have a set of Weaver two screw rings that I plan to use, should I consider upgrading to the Leupold rings? If so why?

[Art Eatman]

I've been using Weaver or Weaver-style rings for over 50 years, and they've worked well every time. I'll agree that Conetrols are prettier and dressier, but they don't seem to hold a scope on a rifle any better. :)

I've built up a fair number of 1/2- to 3/4-MOA rifles, and the Weavers seem to be as good as any other mounts in the accuracy department.

Art

[thumbtack]

Thanks Art,

I am starting to think of you as the Wise Old Sage of the Desert.

[echo3mike]

Probably because that's what he is...

Scope rings...hmmm...I've used the Weaver's, Leupolds, Iron Brigade Armory's and Badger Ordnance. Can't seem to find much difference in performance. I'm sure there's some if I looked REALLY hard...I hope.

S.

[cratz2]

I tend to prefer Leupold and Burris rings and bases, mostly because I switch scopes around from time to time. Have a couple rifles with Weaver type rings and bases and they shoot just fine too.

Having said that, those 1"-wide 30mm Badger Ordnance and IOR rings with six screws per ring sure do look pretty cool.

[Coltdriver]

I have found that (for me) the most important consideration in ring purchase is the metal they are made of.

Most of the very inexpensive rings are aluminum. They will not hold your zero through the kind of abuse that happens sometimes in the field ie dropping your rifle or banging the scope hard.

I have a set of steel leupold weavers that ride on a .17 caliber rifle and they have held zero through well over 100 hours of field use this past small game season.

I also had a set of aluminum weavers that were not very good for holding zero on a target .22 With a good bang to the scope, they would go off ever so slightly. They were also very difficult to properly secure in that it always felt risky to tighten them down too much. And if the scope were ever removed, getting it to zero again required a trip to the range.

Probably the third biggest surprise about rifles to me after the cost of a good scope was the cost of a good set of bases and rings. It is easy to get over $100 in a good steel set. On the other hand, your expensive rifle and scope may not work as planned with a lesser set of rings.

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, steel rings would be stronger against bumps than "aloominium". :) Me being me, if I didn't already have a lot of stuff in my wild-animal box, I'd make the rounds of gunshows and pick up some of the older Weaver steel rings. Generally, used stuff like that is pretty cheap, and works just as well as if it were new. Might need some cold-blue touchup, is all.

Howsomever, all my stuff has survived some severely rough jeep trails, in a 4WD pickemup.

But those ConeTrols shore are purty!

:D, Art

[Swamp Yankee]

FWIW

I'm a real fan of the Burris Signature series rings. They are available in both Weaver base, (Zee Rings), and turn in style. They are very stong. The feature I like are the plastic inserts that come with the rings. The inserts serve multiple purposes. They compensate for any small misallignment, prevent crushing or damage to the scope tube, and prevent ring marks on the scope. I have taken scopes out of Signature rings and you can not tell where they were mounted.
The Burris Signature rings usually run around $30 a set but IMO they are worth the extra $5 - $10.
Take Care

[GinSlinger]

Heartily agree with SwampYankee!

The inserts also come in a seperate package that has ring halves of different thicknesses that can be used for rough zeroing of a scope if, for some reason, the bases are slightly off. IIRC those extra inserts can compensate as much as 10 MOA.

GinSlinger

[betterluckytg]

For those of you not familiar w/ the Burris signature rings, they can compensate up to .040" when used w/ the one inch tube, and up to .020" when used w/ the 30mm tubes. The former is achieved by using "plus .020" on the bottom half on the rear ring, and "minus .020" on the bottom front, w/ the opposite on the top. They come with "0" offset inserts for one inch tubes, and offset inserts of .010" and .020" are available. The 30mm tubes come with inserts w zero offset and .010"; .020" are not available for some reason. As mentioned previously, they can also be adjusted for windage to some degree and still adjust for elevation.

It would be a very good idea if Burris decided to ship each set of rings with one size of each insert, OR make it clear in their advertising (as in Cabela's catalog) that the inserts are not included.

I've been using them on long range rifles, as well as a FAL, without problems for a couple of years now. They hold zero, fulfill the function of a tapered base, (some of which cost almost $200), won't mar the scope, and come in dual dovetail, standard, Weaver style, and also a set for Rugers. What more can one ask, especially when they cost around $30 a set, plus about $10 for the offset inserts?

No, I don't work for Burris, and yes, I believe that Signature rings are the best rings on the market today for my purposes.

[WalkerTexasRanger]

You might consider the new Leupold QRW rings.. I have a couple of pair, and yes, they were a bit spendy, but work perfectly. The real difference between cheap and expensive rings is in the machining tolerances. Less expensive rings can cause the scope to slightly bind and affect the reticle and holding your zero.

One solution for this is a scope ring lapping kit from Sinclair Intl. They describe the problem and how lapping the inside of the rings will help the scope sit evenly and perfectly square within the rings. Not bad concept when you think about it.......

The QRWs can easily be detached from the bases and are perfect for using a scope on multiple rifles. Basically a very fast return to zero, I have found less than two sighting shots are required.

Quality rings from a quality scope manuf...

Good shooting!!!!!

[hps1]

Another + for the Burris Signature rings is that they are self-aligning......no lapping needed. Great rings.

Regards,
hps

[Skullboy]

Here's my $0.02 worth.The type of rings depends on the application.On a rifle that is only going to see range time, and not going to be subjected to hardknocks/abuse, the cheaper, run of the mill rings will do.

For a Dedicated Tactical rifle you want the sturdiest rings your budget will allow.IMHO, qiuck release rings have no business on a Tactical/sniper rifle.The Leupold Mark IV and Badger Ordnance rings with their all steel construction and large hex nuts for mounting are some of the best that you will find for Tactical/hard use situations.

I use the Badger Ordnance Max-50 rings on my AI 700, and are very happy with them.One of their features is that they do not have to be lapped in, as they are machined in pairs and have their own serial number.The Leupold Mark IV rings are machined one at a time, and may require lapping.The Mark IV rings would be the minimum that I would look at for a Tactical/Sniper rifle.

I would personally stay away from the rings which have plastic inserts for the rings to give more elevation.Going to a tapered base would be the best way to go.You want your mounts to be as solid as possible, I wouldn't want to worry about the plastic inserts becoming overly compressed or moving under recoil (I know someone who has had a few problems with the Burris insert system).

HTH. SKBY.