Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Best mounts & rings for accurate deer rig??

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by AKElroy, Jan 9, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AKElroy

    AKElroy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,413
    Location:
    Past & Future Republic of Texas
    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??
     
  2. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  3. Zeke/PA

    Zeke/PA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,295
    Location:
    Southeastern Pa.
    You cannot go wrong with Weaver bases and rings.
    Inexpensive and reliable they are.
    Lot of needless hype otherwise.
     
  4. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  5. CB900F

    CB900F Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    4,658
    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
     
  6. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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?
     
  7. Zeke/PA

    Zeke/PA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,295
    Location:
    Southeastern Pa.
    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!!
     
  8. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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...)
     
  9. AKElroy

    AKElroy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,413
    Location:
    Past & Future Republic of Texas
    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.
     
  10. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.:)
     
  11. AKElroy

    AKElroy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,413
    Location:
    Past & Future Republic of Texas
    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--
     
  12. Uncle Mike

    Uncle Mike Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,129
    Location:
    never never land...never land here!
    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.
     
  13. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  14. AKElroy

    AKElroy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,413
    Location:
    Past & Future Republic of Texas
    I have a spare Nikon 3X9X40 prostaff BDC for this rig. It has decent eye relief. Same Farrell recomendation for the 40?
     
  15. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  16. Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow

    Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    13,146
    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.
     
  17. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.:)
     
  18. Water-Man

    Water-Man Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Location:
    N. Georgia
    That's also why I like Tikka. No base necessary.
     
  19. R.W.Dale

    R.W.Dale Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,359
    Location:
    Northwest Arkansas
    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


    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
     
  20. Uncle Mike

    Uncle Mike Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,129
    Location:
    never never land...never land here!
    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
     
  21. Geno

    Geno Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,847
    AB said:

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

    Geno
     
  22. MJ

    MJ Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    855
  23. rust collector

    rust collector Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,049
    Location:
    Pierre, SD USA
    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.
     
  24. Eb1

    Eb1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,010
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  25. AKElroy

    AKElroy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,413
    Location:
    Past & Future Republic of Texas
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page