Personally I bought Burris rings and bases made with the Weaver system. I'm unsure about what significant differences a shooter might find among the options listed thus far. At some point I have to wonder if any "added strength" will actually do some good. I mean if something smaller is strong enough to deliver a solid mount with an unwavering zero, I think that's where you're getting your monies worth. I've often encountered products that are unquestionably burlier than their competition and yet there's no accompanying increase in durability, reliability etc. to justify the effort. Although I don't particularly like the onset popularity of putting rails on every single surface of a gun, I certainly can't argue against the simplicity of a picatinny rail that's built into the receiver. Ugly though it is, not having a screw connected base reduces the likelihood of the two rings not being aligned. Clearly Ruger, Tikka, and Sako all feel building in their own proprietary mounts is worth doing. Every time I look into optics, I'm frustrated by the abject stupidity of sizing ring height and the utter annoyance that is imposed by the disorganized methods in place. For crying out loud it's like women's clothing- they use a "size" that has no clearly defined measurements rather than simply putting the doggone measurements on the garment. A pair of mens pants will actually tell the buyer the exact dimensions that relate to fit. Once measured, a guy can walk in and purchase a wardrobe of pants without trying anything on! Sadly this handy concept is lost on scope mount/ ring makers.
