Best mounts & rings for accurate deer rig??


PDA






AKElroy
January 9, 2010, 12:54 PM
I am in the market for a hyper-accurate sporter, leaning hard towards a Savage 116 in .308 w/ accustock & accutrigger. I want to compliment with the highest quality mounts & rings.

Who makes the best for this application???? One piece or two piece mounts??

If you enjoyed reading about "Best mounts & rings for accurate deer rig??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ArmedBear
January 9, 2010, 12:57 PM
So far, I've really liked the Talley one-piece lightweight ring/mounts I got recently. That's actually 2 pieces, but there is no separate base. They're very solid, but very light (mine are under 2 oz. toal). If it's a lightweight rig, I'd consider little or nothing else. They're not expensive, either.

I've also had good luck with Warnes. Their QD system is excellent. The whole thing just weighs a good deal more than those Talleys.

Zeke/PA
January 9, 2010, 01:05 PM
You cannot go wrong with Weaver bases and rings.
Inexpensive and reliable they are.
Lot of needless hype otherwise.

ArmedBear
January 9, 2010, 01:07 PM
You cannot go wrong with Weaver bases and rings.


Now that I've used the Talleys, I have to ask why in hell anyone would want bases and rings. It makes no real sense, unless it's a QD system.

CB900F
January 9, 2010, 01:10 PM
AKElroy;

I'll second Armed's comments. Some years ago I purchased a .338 Winchester magnum & mounted the scope in Burris equipment, one piece bridge base & rings. The rear ring shot loose in the adjustment screws & the problem couldn't be rectified. Therefore I went to the Talley lightweights. Hundreds of rounds later, no problems, at all.

My standard hunting load launches a 225 gr bullet at 2900 fps muzzle velocity. And, the Burris system was mounted correctly with the windage adjustment screws tight.

900F

ArmedBear
January 9, 2010, 01:18 PM
Also, I don't understand adjustable mounts at all, for standard applications. If a decent scope isn't pretty close to zero with properly-machined mounts, the rifle belongs in a garbage can, unless it has sentimental value or something. If it is close to zero, then why have the extra weight and point of failure?

Zeke/PA
January 9, 2010, 01:25 PM
Talley Stuff!!
More hype, more money.
Weaver stuff available at Walmart's.
A deer woods rifle??
The Weaver choices are more than adequate.
Just MHO!!

ArmedBear
January 9, 2010, 01:28 PM
The Talleys in question are available for under $30 at the lowest-priced vendors. I paid around $40 buying directly from them.

How much are the Wal-Mart Weavers, when you add up the bases and rings? Surely not much cheaper.

I buy stuff at Wal-Mart sometimes, but not when it costs as much as or more than something I'd rather buy! (Their prices on some Nikon scopes are pretty good, though, and I have bought one of those at Wally World...)

AKElroy
January 9, 2010, 01:33 PM
I just watched the video on the Talley site for the 1-piece mounts / rings & really liked them. Prices are affordable as well. I have generally been w/ Zeke--I have used Weaver's & been happy with thier tried & true top-mounts. Never had one come loose or lose zero. I have also found that the Weaver screws tend to index to the same position with each other, something that has always impressed me & makes getting everything tightened evenly a little easier.

The only negative to the Weaver is getting the reticle properly aligned; with both screws on one side of the mount, it pulls the reticle off horizontal when tightened & one has to compensate by slightly missaligning the scope prior to tightening, which is a guessing game to get right. I am leaning toward the Talley's.

Horrible site, though. The search function for a specific application is worthless. I may call them Monday & give them my scope & rifle combo & have them recommend the lowest mount possible.

ArmedBear
January 9, 2010, 01:40 PM
I e-mailed them, and they recommended the mounts I ended up using. When I called them, the guy had more info, and it was all right-on.

I tightened them like a tire, in an X pattern, patiently. It was nice because, as you said, it didn't torque the scope away from where I'd leveled it initially. Easy as pie.:)

AKElroy
January 9, 2010, 01:56 PM
I tightened them like a tire, in an X pattern, patiently.

Yep--I am a neurotic freak about that as well. My goal, assuming a straight receiver, is to have that deal pretty much bore sighted with an absolutely dead even mount. I generaly go half, even quarter, turns, waiting for the slightest resistance & then alternate to the opposite screw. Like I said, when they finally bite tight, It is really cool to see the screw heads oriented the same to each other. (assuming tha manufacturer was that precise)

Barry--How tight do you go? I generally go no tighter than a firm two finger & thumb hold will allow. Never had one loosen up--

Uncle Mike
January 9, 2010, 02:00 PM
The Savage 116 is a longer than normal action, depending on the scope you intend to use, and your physical build, you may have to use a 'Picatinny or Weaver' type rail mount to allow you to mount the scope aft enough for proper eye relief and cheek weld.


In the case of having to use the 'rail' type mount base, any of the finer all steel ring sets will suffice...Leupold PRW/QRW, Ken Farrell, several of the Brownell's carried brands,
(stay away from the Warren Brand Mounts)

Most of the Savage 116 we set up, that have scopes with 50mm objectives use the Ken Farrell Brand Picatinny Rail and Leupold LOW height PRW rings. This being with use of 1" scope tubes.

If you can get the scope far enough aft without use of a rail, then the Talley all steel mounts have been prefered, either in the fixed or removable type, both are top notch!

The Talley Aluminum Lightweight Mounts as Armedbear describes are excellent also.

ArmedBear
January 9, 2010, 02:07 PM
The Talley Aluminum Lightweights are available with an extended base. I just didn't need to use that with my Winchester action, much shorter than the Savage. This allows you to have more leeway in fore/aft mounting position.

AKElroy
January 9, 2010, 02:08 PM
Most of the Savage 116 we set up, that have scopes with 50mm objectives use the Ken Farrell Brand Picatinny Rail and Leupold LOW height PRW rings. This being with use of 1" scope tubes.

I have a spare Nikon 3X9X40 prostaff BDC for this rig. It has decent eye relief. Same Farrell recomendation for the 40?

ArmedBear
January 9, 2010, 02:20 PM
I generally go no tighter than a firm two finger & thumb hold will allow. Never had one loosen up--


That sounds good. I just kind of tried to feel it, using both the long and short ends of the l-shaped torx key. Your method sounds more consistent.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 9, 2010, 02:20 PM
I have to ask why in hell anyone would want bases and rings. It makes no real sense, unless it's a QD system.

This is an excellent point. I wondered that myself. AB like to cut against the grain when common sense butts up against tradition - this is a good thing.

ArmedBear
January 9, 2010, 02:30 PM
Or maybe I'm just grouchy because I got one rotator cuff all sore, and can't take advantage of what's left of waterfowl season today.:D

Seriously, though, a lot of people say they like Rugers because there's just a ring, no separate base. That makes sense. But with the Talleys, you can have something similar, even if Ruger doesn't make the rifle you're currently looking for.:)

Water-Man
January 9, 2010, 03:24 PM
That's also why I like Tikka. No base necessary.

R.W.Dale
January 9, 2010, 03:34 PM
Most of the Savage 116 we set up, that have scopes with 50mm objectives use the Ken Farrell Brand Picatinny Rail and Leupold LOW height PRW rings. This being with use of 1" scope tubes.

This is a good solution to scope ring clearance issues on a LONG action savage and have taken this route myself.


Talley's are nice but in my experience DNZ Gamereaper mounts are even better. Now that I have tried these I will use them on any platform they're available for for here on out
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=638227


Seriously, though, a lot of people say they like Rugers because there's just a ring, no separate base. That makes sense.

One of the best reasons to like ruger style mounts is in my experience they're some of the best made with regards to returning to zero after being removed and reinstalled

Uncle Mike
January 9, 2010, 04:29 PM
I have a spare Nikon 3X9X40 prostaff BDC for this rig. It has decent eye relief. Same Farrell recomendation for the 40?

For the 40mm objective,(1" tube) if you have to use the rail mount for eye relief(which I almost guarantee you will) then you could get by with rings that measure .250" or even .125" from the top of the rail to the center of the scope ring.

The .250" Rings(Leupold PRW) will for sure allow a 40mm objective scope to mount with almost too much clearance!

The Prostaff is not a long(er) bodied scope, so you may have to use the Picatinny rail.
http://www.kenfarrell.com/SAV-RTL-1-0.html

Geno
January 9, 2010, 09:00 PM
AB said:

I have to ask why in hell anyone would want bases and rings. It makes no real sense, unless it's a QD system.

Uncommon sense, Sir! All of my center fire rifles wear picatinny rails, and all of the scoped .22LRs wear unitized base/rings.

Geno

MJ
January 9, 2010, 09:32 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/00c776db.jpg

rust collector
January 9, 2010, 09:48 PM
I have had good luck with the Burris Signature mounts for weaver type bases. They saved the day for a sporterized rifle that had a little too much metal taken off the receiver bridge. My Tikka T3 oem rings have held up well too.

Mostly weaver style bases in use around this country, but I agree the issue of cant is a problem with the screws on one side of the rings. Redfield type is well regarded, but always seemed not worth the fiddling and expense.

Eb1
January 9, 2010, 09:56 PM
I am sick of the Weaver mounts and rings. They work for hunting on a budget I guess, but to get the reticle level with the receiver/bore the Weaver just has a defect. I am sorry, but that is just a fact that the Weaver mounts and rings will turn your scope when you torque the rings down. I got sick of this defect, and went with Talley.

Nothing like trying to get a good 200 yard zero, and turn the elevation, and you see that your windage has changed as well. I cannot stand that.

AKElroy
January 9, 2010, 09:59 PM
I really like the utility & apparent quality of the Farrell rail, but at $100 for the rail alone, it is out. I have every size Weaver topmount scattered throughout the mancave, so a single weaver rail would provide the most adjustability & I already have the rings, but I do not see a "monorail" listed for this rifle, and standard seperate weaver bases are just asthetically out of place for this.

After seeing the DNZ's, I am really impressed. I think it is down to the DNZ's or the Talley one piece. Price is the same, and I like the one piece bridge mount on the DNZ's. Eye relief is the only issue. The .308 is 1/2' shorter than the standard action, so maybe I have enough flexibility to get it where I need it.

AKElroy
January 9, 2010, 10:04 PM
Weaver mounts and rings will turn your scope when you torque the rings down.

Agreed, but we are talking a degree or so. Canting the scope that amount prior to tightening will fix it with a little luck.

Uncle Mike
January 10, 2010, 02:50 AM
I don't know of a ring that wont turn the scope during tightening....even the vertical split ones or the over center strap design.

Two words...Scope, and Level. Try a 'Scope Level'.

scythefwd
January 10, 2010, 02:56 AM
AB - I can get weaver bases and rings for about 25 round here. I prefer the millet angle lock rings though. They work with the weaver bases (all I have on my rifles right now) and they allow me to make up for slightly off machining. They allow adjustment to either side, not just one like the weavers. Time will tell how they old up, but they feel really solid. Of my scoped rifles, only one has any recoil worth mentioning, and it isn't bad... it's a .308.

Uncle Mike
January 10, 2010, 03:14 AM
Oh No!:uhoh: Millett 'Mangle Locks':what:
Careful if you use these....we have a box full of bent scopes at the shop that fell prey to the dreaded mangle locks.....

scythefwd
January 10, 2010, 03:21 AM
Mike, I see the possibility for it, no doubt. To help avoid this, I mounted the scope in the rings first, then the rings to the bases. That way the rings were already lined up correctly before they went on the bases. I then tightened each side by quarter turns until I felt resistance. 1/8th turns after that, working on opposite sides of the rings, on separate bases when I did it. Bore sighted it on a light in the neighbors back yard and it is pretty much dead on. If I felt any resistance... I backed off. We'll see how it goes when I go to sight it in next month.... I may have bent my free scope.

That said, properly installed, they have a lot of potential to correct slightly misaligned bases and taps on arms.... improperly installed they have a lot of potential of junk heaping your scope. Reason #1 I used a freebie instead of a monarch or the likes. Also, wouldn't using a solid aluminum 1" dowel or 1" wooden dowel help you align the rings without running the risk of bending your scope?

How tight can you tighten the rings onto the scope? I don't want to mangle the body, but I don't want it coming loose either. The rings have 1/8th inch on either side of the scope from touching the other half. I felt resistance, but not a lot.

Uncle Mike
January 10, 2010, 03:49 AM
As with anything in life, if done correctly, your going to be fine. There are those who, for what ever reason, insist on leaving the rings tight in the bases on the front of the scope and 'adjusting' the rear ring.

Then they often buy a new scope!

How tight can you tighten the rings onto the scope? I don't want to mangle the body, but I don't want it coming loose either

Oh, 25 'INCH' pounds or so will hold your scope just fine...use no loc-tite on the ring screws, or any of the screws for that mater, unless you have a bastard screw hole.

Make sure you use I N C H pounds..... N O T Foot pounds!

Depending on the manufacture of the ring, the cap gap will vary. Try to get the gap even on both sides of the ring. Sounds like you did well, with the Angle Locks.

scythefwd
January 10, 2010, 04:02 AM
Thanks, I was very worried about bending even the free scope (don't have another to throw on it yet) so I tried to puzzle out all the pitfalls before I went at it. I was considering putting threadlock on the base screws, but they were tight so I left them alone. It is the low strength Threadlocker purple. Way easier to break than locktight.

Oh, I did loosen up the top strap of the rings after I was satisfied with the alignment/hold of the rings on the bases. I had to level the scope after that as I had it a bit canted when I put the rings on the scope without a rifle to use as a reference.

CH47gunner
January 10, 2010, 04:42 AM
But you did say the best.

Pay the extra & get the Ken Farrell one piece mount (JMO).
My Savage is a short action, a 10FP in .308. I shopped around alot before I decided on the Ken Farrell mount - and it comes highly recommended on the Savage Shooters site. I went with the Steel 15MOA mount and a set of steel Warne Maxima QD rings. I do like the vertical split rings and use the Warne rings whenever I can.
This is an absolute bullet-proof set-up.

Here's a pic of the mount/rings/scope.

Bruce

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f232/ch47gunner/P8290011.jpg

nksmfamjp
January 10, 2010, 09:52 AM
Bag the Weavers. IME, they won't hold torque. TPS rings will tighten without turning your scope.

I think Warne is a good ring.

A one piece picatinney base bedded to your action properly, can do a lot to eliminate ring alignment problems.

Torque in general is like 15 in lbs for ring screws. 15 in lbs for base screws. 30 - 50 in lbs for proper cross bolts.

Offfhand
January 10, 2010, 11:55 AM
Though in no way comparing with the sublime elegance of the system illustrated by MJ (above post) the Talley rings look pretty nice on any rifle and hold secure even with big caliber rifles. Attached are Talley rings on a custom built rib on one of my SS rifles. The rings were niter blued, you'll notice, giving them an even richer and deeper finish.

Eb1
January 10, 2010, 12:46 PM
A "Scope Level" doesn't magically keep the sub-par rings from turning your scope. Buy the crappy rings if you like. It isn't my rifle.

AKElroy
January 16, 2010, 10:25 PM
UPDATE--Well, I got the bid on a Savage 16 FLHSS .308, Accustock &
Accutrigger. 22" Tube, 1/10 Twist. I have the afformentioned Nikon Prostaff 3X9X40 BDC, and settled on the DNZ Game Reaper 1-piece mounts/rings. I will post pics once all is received, bolted together & range tested.

mshootnit
January 16, 2010, 11:12 PM
If that doesn't work out, I really like the Warne tactical base (rail) with the Leupold QRW rings. Excellent setup and as solid as they come.

R.W.Dale
January 16, 2010, 11:56 PM
UPDATE--Well, I got the bid on a Savage 16 FLHSS .308, Accustock &
Accutrigger. 22" Tube, 1/10 Twist. I have the afformentioned Nikon Prostaff 3X9X40 BDC, and settled on the DNZ Game Reaper 1-piece mounts/rings. I will post pics once all is received, bolted together & range tested.

I think you will be very pleased with your decision

7.62x54mmR
January 17, 2010, 05:02 PM
Personally i would take a .308 with a 3x-9x, 40mm.

desidog
January 17, 2010, 06:40 PM
Guess i'm a little late for the OP...but here are my general thoughts, not covered yet:

1. i think steel is much better than aluminum, although slightly heavier.

2. I'm continually amazed by the amount of people, especially slinging products on TV, who have their scope mounted way too high to get a proper cheek weld. If your jaw/cheek doesn't touch the butt at all when you're looking down the scope...you're really handicapping yourself. Also, the farther your sight-axis from the barrel axis...same thing.

AKElroy
January 23, 2010, 11:41 AM
I received the DNZ mount yesterday; looks very well made. The rifle is still a week out; every high-volume GB seller is at the Shot Show in Vegas, so my shipping is delayed. I hate waiting; not a strong suit for me.

berettashotgun
January 23, 2010, 11:53 AM
You will like the DNZ stuff. It is nice.
I wish Talley would camo some stuff.
Uncle Mike - I've had angle locks on my hunting rifle for years - the Millet angle lock rings seem to work great for me. I think they are a little ugly - but to hold a zero for 8 years; pretty damn good.
I've switched to Talley after the 375 RUM beat the snot out of some Leupold rings. But, Leupold did make it right.
Just a lot easier to get 30mm offset rings ordered - just by talking to Talley.
Talley customer service is excellent.

H&Hhunter
January 23, 2010, 02:46 PM
Guess i'm a little late for the OP...but here are my general thoughts, not covered yet:

1. i think steel is much better than aluminum, although slightly heavier.

2. I'm continually amazed by the amount of people, especially slinging products on TV, who have their scope mounted way too high to get a proper cheek weld. If your jaw/cheek doesn't touch the butt at all when you're looking down the scope...you're really handicapping yourself. Also, the farther your sight-axis from the barrel axis...same thing.

desidog,

This is exactly what I was going to say. Most people do not understand that mounting a scope too high is a HUGE detriment to shootability and potential accuracy. About 80 to 90% of the rifles I see in the field have their scopes mounted too high.

Steel is always the correct choice for bases and rings.

Which brings us to Talley rings and bases. They are steel, they are tough they are dependable, and they are without exception WAY to high. I have no idea why Dave doesn't offer some lower bases and rings to go with his otherwise exceptional design?

Stuff like this makes me CRAZY!:banghead:

Art Eatman
January 23, 2010, 02:55 PM
Since the decision has been made, we can now wait for his test results...

If you enjoyed reading about "Best mounts & rings for accurate deer rig??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!