I like the Talley's because they seem much more secure, but I like the Burris Signature Rings because of the ring insert and how they protect the scope. Any experience with either of these?
If you enjoyed reading about "Rings & Mounts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
June 15, 2007, 12:27 PM
I would use warne rings on whatever base you choose. Warne rings are without a doubt the toughest I have seen yet. period. I am trying the new burris "tactical" rings soon on a .308 and they look sturdy.
June 15, 2007, 12:39 PM
Warnes or Badger. The Talley mounts are good on hunting guns however! The 'old' dovetail systems are not in the same class IMHO:)
June 15, 2007, 01:24 PM
I'd go with the Burris Signatures on bases more like this:
,or some weaver style bases.
I really hate those opposed screw windage adjustable bases.
Burris Signatures are really nice for the way they hold the scope and don't need any lapping.
June 15, 2007, 02:41 PM
JesseL, Burris makes some Double Dovetail bases and rings that get rid of the windage adjustment. I just really like those rings. I think that is the way I'll go.
I have Warne rings on my AR and love them too.
June 15, 2007, 06:48 PM
I have both and they are quality products. The Talley's are great for their simplicity and light weight. The Burris is great for it's flexibilty and clampling force on the scope without scratching it. If you want a light weight, simple solution, go with the Talley's. If you need flexibility of the various Burris inserts or are worried about scratches on your scope, use the Burris. YMMV.
June 16, 2007, 12:54 AM
Personally I bought Burris rings and bases made with the Weaver system. I'm unsure about what significant differences a shooter might find among the options listed thus far. At some point I have to wonder if any "added strength" will actually do some good. I mean if something smaller is strong enough to deliver a solid mount with an unwavering zero, I think that's where you're getting your monies worth. I've often encountered products that are unquestionably burlier than their competition and yet there's no accompanying increase in durability, reliability etc. to justify the effort. Although I don't particularly like the onset popularity of putting rails on every single surface of a gun, I certainly can't argue against the simplicity of a picatinny rail that's built into the receiver. Ugly though it is, not having a screw connected base reduces the likelihood of the two rings not being aligned. Clearly Ruger, Tikka, and Sako all feel building in their own proprietary mounts is worth doing. Every time I look into optics, I'm frustrated by the abject stupidity of sizing ring height and the utter annoyance that is imposed by the disorganized methods in place. For crying out loud it's like women's clothing- they use a "size" that has no clearly defined measurements rather than simply putting the doggone measurements on the garment. A pair of mens pants will actually tell the buyer the exact dimensions that relate to fit. Once measured, a guy can walk in and purchase a wardrobe of pants without trying anything on! Sadly this handy concept is lost on scope mount/ ring makers.
June 16, 2007, 12:06 PM
Some years ago I bought a Tikka Whitetail in .338 Winmag. I mounted the scope in Burris rings on Burris bases. The Burris set-up couldn't stabilize the scope. I then went to the Warne set-up, which worked well, but was heavy. As I use this gun for elk, moose, & bear hunting, usually in the mountains, weight is important.
I recently put a new scope on the gun & therefore it needed the mounts changed also. This time I went with the Talley lightweights. My hunting load throws a 225 grain bullet at 2900 fps. What with sighting in the new scope, & general fooling around with the gun, it's had about 200 rounds through it since mounting the new scope in the Talley's. They are a rock-solid quality product and I am a happy camper.