Burris Zee Rings suck - big thumbs down

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Terrible. When tightened on the base, they bend inward, due to their design, which requires bending to fully tighten. Then, if you later take them off, they are so bent, they will not slide onto a weaver or P rail. Trying to bend them back, and they break - yes it happened. Big boo to Zee rings. I used to sing their praises; not anymore. Leupold or Warne for me, most of the time. Or Talley. Even Weavers, though ugly, are better than these. Only thing worse, not counting B-square, are Millett "Angle-Loc" rings - I despise them with a passion. YMMV. Discuss.

 

[dom1104]

Yeah I have always wondered about that I just figured I must be wrong.

It does look like a terrible design.

Frankly I use and have always used Weaver quad locks.

They are cheap and work for me.

I see what you mean about ugly tho.

 

[JDGray]

Just ordered a set of Warne Maxima rings for my Savage. The Zee Sig rings looked very wimpy, but my dealer swears by them, just didnt like the looks of how they attached. Glad I didn't get them

 

[hoghunting]

I've been using the Burris Signature Zee rings on my Contender pistols for years and have never had a problem. They're the only rings I've found that hold the scope and prevent forward movement from recoil. The scopes and rings have also been moved from one barrel to another, and all I did was remove the crossbolts and slide the rings off the bases.

 

[44Dave]

I have been impressed with the Warne rings I have used.

 

[Txhillbilly]

Dr. T maybe it's just your bases. I have 5 sets of Burris Signature Zee Rings,3-1" and 2-30mm and have never had any problem with bending the bottom of the ring mounts while tightening them down. I always take my scopes & rings off when I clean my guns and have never done anything but remove the bolt securing the rings and slide them off the bases,and then put them back on when finished just as easy.

 

[45crittergitter]

My Zees work fine.

 

[kildar]

I too have Burris Signature rings on all of my rifles. 8 at last count. Never had a problem with them. By design one side of the ring base is supposed to deflect inward to make contact with the rail and spring out when released but it should not have to move much to do either. I have to think it's either an undersized/bent rail or just defective metal of your particular set of rings. Too many shooters have found success with them. Don't give up on Burris. Investigate further somethings just not right.

 

[ImARugerFan]

Never heard of this. For the matter, the millet rings worked good for me, but been planning on upgrading to the zee rings because of the grippy lining on the inside of the rings, any other manufacturers provide a sleeve like that?

I want something that I know will grip well because of the high recoil on a 12ga.

 

[ImARugerFan]

Also, did you contact burris about this?

 

[raz-0]

I have some zee rings. They hae been moved and swapped between multiple bases multiple times, as well as being on multiple scopes. They had no bending. I suspect you were putting them on bases that they were not designed for, and that is not the fault of the rings' design.

 

[CoRoMo]

I slapped a set of Zees on my latest .270 and they have been working great. The next time I have that gun in hand, I'll check them to see if there is anything bent. I don't ever intend on removing that scope or those rings from that rifle though.

 

[ImARugerFan]

Looks like it was just a bashing thread. Guy wanted to bash on a product that he may have used incorrectly, and then doesn't follow it up with any details or respond to ANY of the replies in the thread. What a waste of bandwidth. I'll be picking up some zee rings shortly for my slug gun.

 

[edSky]

I just got a pair last week. My rail is from Fulton Armory so I'm guessing is is up there in quality. The rear ring was very loose and needed a lot of tightening to get it on firmly. That was a major chore with the slotted screw heads. Better screws would cost what, an extra buck? Anything, IMO, would be an improvement over the slotted head screws. I'm afraid to touch them now that they are on, though that wasn't my initial plan.

 

[ImARugerFan]

I will admit I was confused when I saw that they used slotted screws, as opposed to hex heads.

Really all I want from them are the inserts, are there other quality ring makers who have similar inserts? They are supposed to grip better.

 

[ImARugerFan]

Anyone else? I need rings for my slug gun, don't want to mess with lapping or anything, just tighten them and go sight in.

 

[hoghunting]

I will admit I was confused when I saw that they used slotted screws, as opposed to hex heads.

Don't understand the problem, just use the right size screwdriver bit. You don't need 100 lbs of torque.

 

[edSky]

Don't understand the problem, just use the right size screwdriver bit. You don't need 100 lbs of torque.

Shouldn't. But sure needed it for the rearward ring.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Don't get me wrong - they work well and hold solid - the FIRST time you mount them. It's the subsequent mountings where the weakness is exposed.

 

[RevolverMan567]

how much did you torque them?

there not badger or mark 4 rings with the big nut, did you even measure the torgue spec you used, or contact burris to find out what the torque pecs were?

reason I asked is because i took a set off of a 338 lapua that were in service for months with no problems, and put them right onto cheapo off the shelf walmart weaver bases with no issues.


Iveused them several sets, and never once had a problem.

 

[Bwana John]

I have used Burris Z rings on a .375 H&H after Luepold QDW rings kept loosening up with recoil. Worked fine

Those same rings are now on a 30-06, they were also on my Rem 504 .22, still works fine.

I have never had problems remounting them on different rifles. I bought a new pair I like them so much.

I do use STEEL bases on all my rifles, I dont know if aluminum bases would be different.

I do wish the cross screw had a torx or allen head instead of the slot.

 

[onestar]

I have the sig zee's on every rifle I own and I have never had a problem with them fitting on anything other than some off brand picatinny mount. I had to put a flat screwdriver in the slot and pry to get enough clearance to get it started on the base. This was with the rings already attached to the scope so in all actuality the could have been a tad out of square with each other(front and rear ring) but I don't think there is anything wrong with the rings probably the rail. I'd say they are pretty darn accurate becasue I take my scope on and off and the point of impact never changes even on a 7mmSTW. The slotted screw is really all you need IF you use the proper size screw driver.

 

[NRA_guy]

I will admit I was confused when I saw that they used slotted screws, as opposed to hex heads.

Really all I want from them are the inserts, are there other quality ring makers who have similar inserts? They are supposed to grip better.

I don't think anybody else does the inser thing.

I use Burris Signature Zees on everything because I can't STAND to see a nice scope with ring marks on them.

 

[billc73]

I have had great luck with the signature zee rings. I was having trouble with a scope mounted on the front sigts of a Yugo M48. A local gunsmith turned be on to the Burris Signature Zee rings with the inserts to shim the scope and get it sigthed in. It was great advice and I am a big fan of the signature zee rings. This is like a lot of things in that "one man's trash is anoter man's treasure"!