Lifespan of scope ring and mounts

[Andreas]

Hey everyone,
I shot a rifle for the first some over ten years ago but there was a big gap during tough economic times after getting married. Now I'm getting back into it but I'm starting to realize how ignorant I am when it comes to scopes, accessories, etc.

One of the rifles I'm wanting to shoot more is a Marlin Lever Action in .44 Mag my father gave me. From his understanding, rifle, scope, mount and rings are all somewhere in the 40 year old range. The scope is an old Bushnell Custom 3x9 with glass that isn't very clear and terrible eye relief on anything but the lowest magnifications. I'm planning to replace it this coming payday but I'm not really sure about the mount and rings. I can't find any identifying features on the mount. The rings are marked Weaver 1" USA.

Are rings and/or mounts something that need replacing after every once in a while? Is there a way to tell if they do?

Picture of hardware in question:

 

[rcmodel]

No.
The rings and base will last as long as the rifle does if they have not been abused, screws stripped, etc.

I have the same Weaver rings on a 30-06 I built in 1962 that's going on its 3rd. Scope.
They are as good as they day I mounted them 53 years ago.

rc

 

[Andreas]

Thanks. That's a relief. To my knowledge the rifle spent the vast bulk of its life in a closet, with maybe a number of rounds shot through it in the low to mid hundreds.
More recently it sits in my gun safe. Screws have not been stripped and I believe the worst the scope and accessories have taken have been bumps when it was leaned against a wall in the aforementioned closet.

 

[WardenWolf]

Other valuable knowledge: some cheap brands such as Warne are just as good as the super expensive ones. It's all about the design of any given model. If it's a strong design, one hunk of metal isn't much different from another.

 

[OpticsPlanet]

I have a Marlin 336 in .30-30. I use a ring/mount combination made by DNZ.

http://www.opticsplanet.com/dnz-dednutz-marlin-1895-and-336-1in-scope-mount.html



I have six of them on my personal rifles. It has a number of things going for it – it starts as a solid block, and the first CNC machining pass makes what becomes the ring centers... the rings cannot be misaligned. It also eliminates any possibility of the rings loosening from recoil. It’s hard anodized, requires no lapping, has hex-head screws, and best of all – made in the USA, in North Carolina. I can’t say enough good things about them – they look like they grew out of the top of the gun.

The mount and rings you have, as noted will last, not to mention there is sentimental value attached to the original your Father mounted. Just wanted to throw in my experience with the DNZ.

Mark H.

 

[GAMEOVER44]

They dont make stuff like they use to. Optics has gotten better but craftsmanship was better back then, you may use the scope for a long time yet to come.

Only thing that worries me is how unclear you said it was.

Interesting rifle btw.. I never seen one like it.

 

[witchhunter]

Those Weaver rings and base are as strong as they come. They have always been one of the strongest. Unless the mounting screws come loose you can bet on em!

 

[Skylerbone]

OP, if payday hasn't come yet, I hope you'll consider a compact sized scope to keep proportions in line. Glad you've decided to start shooting again, I know how lean some years can be.

 

[1911 guy]

Agree with everyone else. Keep the mount and rings. You can spend more money, but won't get anything better than what you have.

For a .44 Mag that likely won't see anything past 150 yards or so, I'd opt for something low magnification and as large an exit pupil I can find. That'll give you some magnification, a large field of view and faster target acquisition than too much magnification.

 

[Badlander]

That looks like A very nice 1894.

 

[coloradokevin]

I agree with the idea that rings will last forever as long as they aren't damaged, and that the OP should keep the set he has if they were working before. However, to suggest that you don't get what you pay for with rings is about as untrue as it is with most things.

While paying more doesn't always mean that you get more, the simple truth is that people wouldn't be spending money on expensive Badger Ordnance rings or Spuhr mounts that cost nearly $400 if they could accomplish the same thing with a $30 set of rings. The rings/mount form the only physical interface between the scope and the rifle, and are a very important piece of the accuracy puzzle. Cheap rings can even damage a scope body, and may require careful lapping for proper fitment. Plus, I've seen some cheap rings allow for scope movement, which obviously causes accuracy issues.

Knowing your purpose when buying scope rings is as important as it is with anything else. My hunting rifle wears a set of $60 TPS rings, supporting a $400 Weaver scope. My long range competition rifle wears a $370 Spuhr one-piece mount, supporting a Schmidt and Bender scope. My 10-22 wears a set of rings that probably cost less than $20, supporting a fairly cheap scope. I wouldn't put a Schmidt and Bender scope in a $20 set of rings any more than I would put a $40 Tasco scope in a Spuhr mount. But, you do get more when you pay more!