Help--crooked Tasco scope ring?

[Don Gwinn]

Help. I know nothing about scope rings or mounts.

I was recently entrusted by a friend with a Remington 700 in .308 Win. Dad gave me a pair of the two-piece Weaver bases for it, along with a set of 1-inch Tasco rings.

Now, the Weaver bases installed with no problem. I put one of the Tasco rings on the rear mount, centered over the notch, and placed and tightened the screw. So far so good.

Then I tried to install the front ring. It wouldn't fit on the mount. From either end. I uninstalled the mount and tried it that way. No good. I removed the other ring and tried it on the front. No good. I took the "front" ring and put it on the rear mount. No problem.

So I tried one last time to put the ring on the front mount. In the end I figure, "Aw, hell, Donnie, it's about $10 worth of equipment among all three pieces." So I forced the ring onto the front mount. It went--with some heavy squeezing that would have been easier on a shop press than it was on my right hand--and it was immediately clear that the damn thing was crooked. As in not straight. I would guess the difference between the alignment of the mount and the ring to be several degrees to the right or left depending on your point of view.

To be perfectly honest, I know so little about scopes and rings that it occurred to me that this might be normal or at least acceptable. But it sure doesn't look right at all. I'm a little leery of putting a scope on with those rings, to be honest.

A search for "Tasco scope rings" turned up nothing about scope rings at all--but lots of griping about Tasco scopes.

Can anybody help with this? Anybody want to recommend something better for a reasonable price? I'm not interested in paying more than $25-50 for scope mounts and rings, since I will probably not know the difference. If there is something wrong with this Tasco set, I only want to bother with another set if they're likely to work. If all Tascos are junk. . . .
I've never been a rifle shooter, but I now have a good range to use. 200 yards is as far as I can shoot there, and I figure it's going to take me a long time to master that. I'm more used to 50-yard shots with a 12-guage slug gun.

 

[Joe Demko]

Get a different set of rings. I've had okay luck with the couple of Tasco scopes I've owned, but their rings are, frankly, crap. Any gunstore, or even Wally World, should be able to fix you up with a new set of rings in the price range you mentioned.

 

[lycanthrope]

Ditch those rings.

It is not, however, imposssible to find a receiver that has not been drilled perfectly in line for both bases. In those cases, you can lap the rings with a kit from Brownells or you can buy Burris Signature Zee rings with offset inserts.

 

[dakotasin]

leupold rings will be about $50, and a leupold base(s) will be under $20.

could also go talley, and then you'd have the rings and bases all in one for $35.

weaver is an option. $4 or so for the base(s), and $20 for rings.

leupold also makes a weaver-style mounting system, except it is steel instead of aluminum. be around $35.

there are around a 100 different options, especially if you start mixing and matching products (warne rings on weaver bases, burris rings on leupold bases, etc etc).

just go to your local friendly gun shop and tell them you want good bases and rings, and see what they bring outta the back. should be under $40.

 

[hksw]

In my opinion, it does not sound as if the rings are the problem. It sounds as if the front base is not right. Some of the Weaver and Weaver-type bases like Millets are aluminum and the 'ears' (left and right top edges) are easy to bend if pried or heavily bumped into something. It sounds as if one side of the front base got bent out of alignment and extended the width as well as made it askewed with the mounting plane. The extra width would make it difficult to mount the ring and the askewment (new word) makes the ring off line. Possibly also the cross channel is screwed up.

Not to say Tasco rings are great, I hate them, but I think the base is what is the problem. Personally, I prefer all steel solid (no shallow center channel) Picatinny-type bases over Weaver (if I were going with a rail system).

 

[dakotasin]

i need to amend my post... leupold rings and the bases will be around $50... rings are around $30, and bases around $20...

also, if you start getting into quick detach stuff, options can become mind boggling.

were it me, i'd just go talley or leupold and be done w/ it, in a permanent attachment.

 

[BigG]

Don, when you mentioned Tasco, I think you put your finger on the problem. No offense, but you know the old saying, "You can polish a turd, but it's still a turd."

 

[4v50 Gary]

My brother's Remington had "off-set" screw holes in the receiver. It would require redrilling of the receiver or custom mounts that are drilled offset to match the receiver.

 

[Don Gwinn]

1. No offense taken. I freely admit I know nothing about rings, scope mounts or optics. I presume mounts and rings should be as rigid as possible--engineering 101. Beyond that. . . . I'm strictly a shotgun and pistol man, and not much of an expert even on those. Dad knows about as much as I do about rifles, but he meant well. I'm sure he picked up the cheapest rings on the hook--or the simplest ones.

2. I'm pretty sure it's not the receiver. With the ring mounted on the front mount and the front mount off the receiver in your hand you can clearly see that the ring's channel is not in line with the mount. It's not ten degrees off or anything, but it's not hard to see it. Of course, that doesn' prove the receiver is drilled correctly, but it didn't cause that problem.

3. It could easily be the mount. No telling, really.

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to dump the Tascos and start over at the gunshop.

 

[Art Eatman]

That rifle at one time had Weaver bases on it. They went away to another 700, where they work just fine.

I'd be suspicious of the Tasco rings. I'd pick up some Weaver type rings from WalMart, since if they don't fit you can take them back--but they oughta work okay.

Art