Millet rings for CZ 527?

[labnoti]

I'm mounting a classic Leupold on a CZ 527 American (the one w/o irons). The Leupold has a small diameter ocular and so there is .225" of clearance to the bolt handle with the .550" CZ rings.

Millet made .325" rings for this 16mm dovetail mount. They have an odd "Angle Loc" windage-adjustable design. It looks like junk. Should I get these or not waste my time and money?

Warne makes .425" height rings. Leupold are .500" and Talley are .525". I want nice rings, but not excessively high. What's the advice here?

 

[troy fairweather]

Is the 75 thou worth the price for new rings to you.

 

[Skylerbone]

It will also depend on the objective diameter. Though it does not show, the rear sight leaf of my 452 had to be removed to facilitate this VX-2 4-12x40mm AO. I went with Talley X-High (.600) and they look smashing! Needed a 1/4” cheek pad on the Trainer’s European stock but everything clearances well.

I tried a set of Angle-Lok rings years ago on another rifle and tossed them into the bin soon thereafter.

 

[labnoti]

The ~$50 price of rings for 225 thou lower scope mount would be worth it, if the rings were good ones. I don't know anything about Millet, and that's why I'm asking.
The Warne rings are 125 thou lower and I think I would go for that, though I think less of Warne than Leupold or Talley.
Talley rings are nicer, but at only 25 thou lower, no, they're probably not worth the expense.

The objective will fit. This 527 has no sights. The high bolt throw against the eyepiece is the limiting factor, and the scope I'm using would allow a lower mounting.

 

[LoonWulf]

if its a new 527 it will have a lower profile bolt handle.

I like the Warne rings, had good results with every set Ive owned, and they are what is on my 527.

The 3-9x42 GPO has a rather large ocular, but the lower profile handle clears no problem.

 

[cdb1]

I tried a set of Angle-Lok rings years ago on another rifle and tossed them into the bin soon thereafter.

Exact same experience with me. I’d rather use the generic rings that come on package rifles than Millett.

 

[dh1633pm]

I am using the CZ Branded Rings. The scope just clears the rear sight, the scope cover does not so I cut a notch in it. The bolt handle also just clears.

 

[Walkalong]

I don't know if Millet makes better rings than low end, but I bought a cheap set for a cheap setup once and they were so bad I threw them away.

 

[Skylerbone]

I used Millett standard rings on my 30-06 for a decade and they were decent quality but the Angles did not work out.

 

[cdb1]

I used Millett standard rings on my 30-06 for a decade and they were decent quality but the Angles did not work out.

I only have experience with Angle-Loc’s.

 

[LoonWulf]

Ive used and liked angle locks on .22s, and other stuff like that. They are fiddly, and getting them aligned is a real....... Well lets just say it aint super pleasant.
I rather like the idea but the execution sucks.

 

[WelshShooter]

I have an older CZ527 and I needed to use high, Warne split rings to mount a 30mm tube (Vortex PST) without the bolt rubbing the eye piece. You can just about make out a small gap between the objective bell and the barrel. Even with this "low" setup with respect to the bore and eye piece, I still need a cheek riser to get the right height to the scope otherwise I would be sporting a chin weld.

I think my rifle was made in the 90s (bought it used around 9 years ago), so definitely not a recent example.

 

[cougar1717]

I own and still use a set of "Mangle locs". They are steel, but not the best design and are a pain to mount. If you decide to use them, the trick is to first attach the rings to a 1" dowel rod at the action spacing distance. Then, attach them to the action. They should be aligned well enough so that you don't put excess pressure on the scope tube and mangle it.
It feels like installing those requires three hands.

 

[NuclearMeltdown]

The way I mounted Angle-Locs in the past was by turning the screws on one side in the whole way with a hex key. I left the other side loose. Then I turned the tightened screws out the same number of turns for both rings. After that, I put them on the dovetail and tightened the loose side. This seemed to line them up the same for windage. Was careful not to over-tighten. This was on a .22 with an inexpensive scope. Would be really careful with higher-end optics.

I like that they're nicknamed "mangle-locs" up above.

Those Warne rings like LoonWulf pictured have worked well for me, as well as the Burris sets also mentioned. If you want to take them off to use open sights, go with the Burris design to make re-zeroing easier. You can leave them attached to the scope if you take them off. The Warne split rings have to be taken off the scope to be taken off a CZ dovetail.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

My rifle has Leopold medium rings and a Redfield Revolution scope - I think they have the same ocular bell diameter as most Leupold scopes. No bolt clearance problems here - wish it was even more, but that's me being greedy.



The 3-9x40 I have overhangs the rear sight. Doesn't seem to affect the scope picture, but it does mean that your normal bikini type scope covers won't fit. I put a "scope sock" over it instead.