Aluminum mounts: really that bad?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

2 buddies and I are all looking to get mounts for 3 identical Remington 700 SPS Tact rifles in .308 These are not going to be super serious rifles. We're not taking them hunting or out to combat, just decent rifles to learn how to shoot long range using mil dot scopes. My question is, are aluminum mounts and rings really that bad compared to steel? We're looking for 20MOA rings for not a ton of money, and some 1" rings, medium height.

 

[Maverick223]

Depends. If you plan on having QD/QR/P-rail and actually using it as designed I would use a steel mount, aluminum rings are alright unless you are trying to squeeze every bit out of it (and even then there are some very good Al. rings). If you plan to mount it and forget about it aluminum is fine. Smart decision to go with tapered mounts.

 

[Bobarino]

my biggest reason for not going with aluminum is that it expands at a different rate than the steel receiver when it heats up and it can cause binding and shifting.

check out the Burris 2 piece steel picatinny bases. they're about $20 from opticsplanet.com and then you have a wide variety of rings that will mount to picatinny bases and are reasonable as long as you stick with the standard 1" or 30mm scopes.

Bobby

 

[AKElroy]

+1 to the above. Unless they are going to be freaquently removed, aluminum may be a BETTER choice. Its lower mass makes it less likely to "shoot loose". I am very happy with the one piece mounts I just received from DNZ for a .308 Savage. I will show pic's once the rifle is recieved. Tally also makes aluminum one piece mounts. For around $60, you get a rock solid mount that WILL NOT move. Just don't expect to mess with it a lot & have it stay that way.

 

[Maverick223]

my biggest reason for not going with aluminum is that it expands at a different rate than the steel receiver when it heats up and it cause cause binding and shifting.

Eh, non-issue unless you want to reach out far and make tiny groups (which doesn't sound like the goal, at least for now). OTOH I would not recommend going with a two piece mount system unless it is for hunting as this will put more stress on the scope. The Tally and Deadnutz 1-pc. mounts that AKElroy are a great and more importantly inexpensive option as well.

 

[Art Eatman]

I've been using Weaver mounts since 1950. I don't even care if they're considered good/better/best. I've yet to have the first sign of a problem. Period.

And I've been pretty doggoned serious about how well my pet '06 would shoot.

Lotsa other stuff out there that's plenty good, although I think a lot of folks worry too much. Too much picking fly-poop out of pepper.

 

[berettashotgun]

" Bobarino~ my biggest reason for not going with aluminum is that it expands at a different rate than the steel receiver when it heats up and it can cause binding and shifting."

This is a very astute observation, I agree.
BUT- I don't hear everyone complaining about their "Full length Aluminum bedding block" - just throwing that out there.

My personal experiences with most kinds of scope mounts have left me with this conclusion;
Most all of them are better than you need.
I personally have started using Talley lightweight rings ( actually s/b -ring/base ) and I enjoy the simplicity of the little rascals.
Never needed to lap any of them in; that's pretty strong testament to the quality control at Talley.
I could have went with DNZ but the one piece left me with little to no room to work.
Oh yeah, my price from Talley direct is pretty decent.
Most all of the rings and bases out there will work, just some of the companies would actually rather make a $50 per set profit.cough-warne-cough-
I see a lot of " Aircraft grade" - "Aerospace technology" yada,yada,yada. Have a lot of spindle time to know better.
For the money - I go with Talley lightweight one piece. Made out of Aluminum.
My opinion only.

 

[Smokey Joe]

Problem with Aluminum rings...

I've tightened on a couple of 'scopes or three, and find that with Al rings--and of course, steel screws--it is VERY easy to strip the threads on the Al rings, and then where are you??

With steel rings and steel screws, you can tighten the screws right down w/o worrying about hitting the "sweet spot" between too loose (wobbling 'scope) and too tight (stripped threads).

I agree w/Art Eatman--plain-Jane Weaver rings and bases are really good. Not pretty, but then neither am I. Please God I should be as good as Weaver rings and bases in my ugliness.

Bottom line: For 'scope rings, if it's steel, I'm good with it. Phooey on saving a few grams of weight.

 

[berettashotgun]

I stripped out the rod bolts on a 125 ton TRANE compressor when I was 19. Big learning lesson for me. Big a$$ eating from the boss also.
Yeah, the rods were aluminum and I was/am an idiot then/now, according to the wife.
Rebuilt VW bugs - including engine overhauls when the kids were little to make ends meet. Found a lot of cases had a stripped out stud, cut into my profits.
After SmokeyJoe's input, I'd agree for steel as a general consensus. It's more forgiving.
I learned my lesson decades ago, I use AL.
The weight savings has never been a consideration of mine - IF I could get steel TALLEY stuff - I'd more than likely get it - for corrosion resistance at the footprint if anything.

 

[mshootnit]

I really like a one piece steel base (picatinny rail). Because it helps to add rigidity to the receiver. CNC machines are marvelous. Both the Warne and the Farrel? rail my friend bought are superb. His is a 20 moa, mine sits on a 257 Weatherby witn Leup. QRW rings and I can't think of a better setup for a long action.

 

[baldeagle93]

I thought I would catch some flack for my Rem. 700 PSS in .308 set up, but apparently not...

When the rifle was first built I had Mark4 rings and 2 pc bases...not sure why the original owner used a 2-pc bases, but he did. I much rather prefer a one piece base, but did not want to shell out the money at the time for a 1 pc Mark4 base. I also did not like the Mark4 1-pc base because it did not have a cut out for ease of loading. Reluctantly, I decided to go with a Weaver base ($9.99) and measured and milled out the cut out for loading. This is how my rig has been set up for 4 years now and I have only one complaint...I only had gloss black paint on hand when I finished the project and it drives me CRAZY that I didn't just go to the store and get some flat black!!! I didn't because I figured it would be a temporary set-up and that I would end up being replace...It has been on for 4 years and the only reason I even think about replacing it is to get rid of the gloss black.

Now, this is a fun shooting gun and a deer rifle...but it will group at or close to 1" at 100 yrds and it is a deer slaying machine! If I can see them, they are dead!

 

[Maverick223]

I've tightened on a couple of 'scopes or three, and find that with Al rings--and of course, steel screws--it is VERY easy to strip the threads on the Al rings, and then where are you??

If you strip out the ring bolts (holding the top and bottom of the rings, not the ring to the base) you are over-tightening by a good margin. Most rings require 15-25 inch/pounds of torque. There is no reason to crank it down, and that is a pretty efficient way to destroy a good scope, the specifications are there for a reason.

I didn't because I figured it would be a temporary set-up and that I would end up being replace...It has been on for 4 years and the only reason I even think about replacing it is to get rid of the gloss black.

Remove it...use aircraft stripper (or even better soak it in epoxy paint reducer from your local paint store)...repaint with low-gloss black engine paint (I use NAPA and it looks/holds up pretty darn good).

 

[Zak Smith]

The factory Accuracy International scope mount is aluminum. Needless to say, it works fine.

 

[Maverick223]

The factory Accuracy International scope mount is aluminum. Needless to say, it works fine.

So is the integral mount on my DT SRS, but I don't consider either in the same league as the budget Al. mounts that you see at WW or OpticsPlanet. The alloy is generally much softer for these mounts and can be chewed up pretty easily (if you remove/replace it a lot).

 

[MCMXI]

I've got all kinds of base, mount, ring combinations such as steel bases with steel rings, steel bases with aluminum rings, aluminum bases with steel rings, aluminum mounts on aluminum bases (AR reciever) etc. I have ZERO problems because I put A LOT of effort into installing my optics correctly. I check the ring alignment with alignment bars, I lap the rings if necessary and install all hardware using an in-lb torque wrench. I did have an issue with a LaRue QD LT-104 on a POF upper but that's POF's fault. Once I switched to a GG&G mount I had no more problems.

I personally have started using Talley lightweight rings ( actually s/b -ring/base ) and I enjoy the simplicity of the little rascals.
Never needed to lap any of them in; that's pretty strong testament to the quality control at Talley.

I haven't found this to be the case at all. I have Talley Lightweight one-piece rings on a Remington 700 and a Savage 16. In both cases, the rings were severely undersized in that neither the scope, lapping bar or alignment bars would sit down flush to the bottom of the rings. It seems like the rings have sprung inward (relieved stress) once they were machined and then separated. You may consider this to be a feature, I consider this to be a flaw since I want to distribute the clamping force between the rings and the scope tube over as large an area as possible. I spent quite a bit of time lapping both sets of rings to where they wouldn't stress the scope tube. I doubt I'll be buying anymore Talley Lightweight one-piece rings.

I've tightened on a couple of 'scopes or three, and find that with Al rings--and of course, steel screws--it is VERY easy to strip the threads on the Al rings, and then where are you??

That's what feeler gauges and torque wrenches are for. I installed a Zeiss Conquest on a Savage 16 with Talley Lightweight rings yesterday. I mounted the one-piece rings to the receiver months ago using blue Loctite and a torque wrench. After lapping the rings I used feeler gauges and a torque wrench to tighten the rings evenly to 18 in-lb. No stripped threads, no ring marks and no scope movement.

 

[WNTFW]

Burris XTR rings and an EGW 20 MOA base make for a very good budget setup.
EGW = Extreme Gun works. No problems on several I know of.

Seekins makes a nice base & rings that are a bit more but not too bad price wise. Their base has a recoil lug built in. Seekins rings are more streamlined than the XTRs for example.

The Leupold quick release systems are nice also.

I don't remove any scopes, bases or rings unless I absolutely have to. So that is not a big consideration.

 

[berettashotgun]

1858 ~ I doubt I'll be buying anymore Talley Lightweight one-piece rings.
1858 ~ I installed a Zeiss Conquest on a Savage 16 with Talley Lightweight rings yesterday.

I never would have thought a #4 or 6 screw would torque to over 20 in. lbs.
1858 ~18 in.lbs ...........(is a lot more like it.)

#10 BACB30 screws torque to 28 in.lbs. in my world (according to the T.O.) - but who uses that?:banghead:

 

[Walkalong]

Holy smoke Batman!

Does this mean I need to take the aluminum mounts and rings off my bench gun?

Granted...less recoil....just sayin'

 

[Offfhand]

Post from Walkman above:

Holy smoke Batman!

"Does this mean I need to take the aluminum mounts and rings off my bench gun?"

You beat me to it Walkman, had to smile. If anyone thinks aluminum mounts are a problem they should go to a bench rest match and see what the accuracy experts use...aluminum rings are the norm on steel receivers as well as aluminum receivers. Ask one of those accuracy fanatics if he's worried about uneven expansion rates between aluminum and steel ruining accuracy and when he stops laughing he'll probably tell you it probably enlarges his groups about .00001" if that much.

 

[Walkalong]

Standard Kelby single screw rings, except I filed & sanded them round, and then polished them. Bottom half too.
.

 

[Offfhand]

Walkalong, very nice job on rings. You must be a professional. I don't have patience for work like that, and couldn't do it anyway. I just use Kelby rings the way they come. Like to see the rest of the rifle too.

 

[Walkalong]

Not a pro. Just stubborn and patient.