Given the noticeable difference in weight between aluminum and steel scope rings, what are the advantages of using the steel rings? I would think the additional weight would be a hindrance on a hunting rifle, or do the benefits of steel outweigh the lighter weight aluminum?
Scope Rings: Aluminum vs Steel
- Thread starter DaBruins
- Start date
- Status
chicharrones
needs more ammo
I've never weighed an equal sized set of rings to know how much weight is saved with aluminum. Obviously aluminum will not rust, but I usually see aluminum rings using more screws in the ring clamps than steel. Which means more metal and screws in the aluminum mount.
So, what's the weight difference, 4 oz.? I don't know.
So, what's the weight difference, 4 oz.? I don't know.
Talley Lightweights are about 2.5 oz for low's. DNZ are about 3 oz. Steel rings can vary a lot depending on height, 1 or 2 piece bases etc. The ones I've weighed were 6-10 oz. depending. If trying to put together a lightweight rig it matters. You can easily save a full pound by choosing mounts and the scope carefully without sacraficing any performance.
I'll take the Talley's or DNZ any day on a hunting rifle. The scope is weaker than the mounts. If dropped the scope is going to break before the mounts so I see no point in paying more for more complicated, heavier mounts that offer no advantages. The DNZ mounts especially are just as strong and rugged as anything made of steel. I like the looks of the Talley's better so that is what I have on all of my rifles.
I'll take the Talley's or DNZ any day on a hunting rifle. The scope is weaker than the mounts. If dropped the scope is going to break before the mounts so I see no point in paying more for more complicated, heavier mounts that offer no advantages. The DNZ mounts especially are just as strong and rugged as anything made of steel. I like the looks of the Talley's better so that is what I have on all of my rifles.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Aluminum scope rings are lighter.
That's good.
And they are as strong, or probably stronger then the aluminum scope tube they are clamped around.
So that's good too!
And as chicharrones mentioned, that won't rust.
And that's great!
I don't see a downside!
rc
That's good.
And they are as strong, or probably stronger then the aluminum scope tube they are clamped around.
So that's good too!
And as chicharrones mentioned, that won't rust.
And that's great!
I don't see a downside!
rc
Skylerbone
Member
I've always been partial to steel myself, nothing more than personal preference and sometimes brand preference. Some companies like TPS offer their rings in either; that they make good rings is the more important factor. Never had much trouble with rust given a little care but ditto as to advantages previously listed.
Rings I've used and like by ascending price:
Burris Zee
Warne Maxima & Maxima QD
Leupold Standard
TPS
ARMS #22
GG&G
Rings I didn't care for, in no particular order:
Weaver
Tasco
Bushnell
Millet
Leupold PRW & QRW (Weaver style)
Rings I've used and like by ascending price:
Burris Zee
Warne Maxima & Maxima QD
Leupold Standard
TPS
ARMS #22
GG&G
Rings I didn't care for, in no particular order:
Weaver
Tasco
Bushnell
Millet
Leupold PRW & QRW (Weaver style)
adelbridge
Member
Aluminum is easier to strip out threads so if you remount or reuse rings often steel may be a better choice. The weight difference between equal sized rings is not dramatic.
Z-Michigan
Member
About what rcmodel said. Unless your scope tube is steel, I think aluminum makes more sense. There's also the coefficient of thermal expansion - if you use aluminum rings on an aluminum tube (which is 99%+ of modern scopes) they will match. Use steel and they won't.
I will happily use steel when good cheap rings are made from it - Warne or the Leupold QRW/PRW. Anything else, usually better, I buy aluminum. The amount of clamping force intended for scope rings is far, far, far below the level at which extra strength matters, and to compound things common aluminum for scope rings is 6061 or 7075, both of which are strong, while common steels are the simple carbon steels with little or no strength benefit over those grades of aluminum. (I have seen one or two brands of steel rings advertised as 4140, which potentially is much stronger - these were $200+ rings intended for 2lb+ scopes on 50 BMG rifles.)
Good aluminum is not easy to strip out. For reference, I've all but destroyed the threads on a STEEL machine screw going into a 7075 ALUMINUM AR lower. I was surprised and impressed. The lower's threads were fine despite having essentially cold forged the end of the steel screw. (Screw was longer than spec, although it worked in most lowers - lower was maybe out of spec, hole for the grip screw wasn't threaded for the last .2" or so. I think the makers of each took a shortcut based on common practices, and their shortcuts collided.)
I will happily use steel when good cheap rings are made from it - Warne or the Leupold QRW/PRW. Anything else, usually better, I buy aluminum. The amount of clamping force intended for scope rings is far, far, far below the level at which extra strength matters, and to compound things common aluminum for scope rings is 6061 or 7075, both of which are strong, while common steels are the simple carbon steels with little or no strength benefit over those grades of aluminum. (I have seen one or two brands of steel rings advertised as 4140, which potentially is much stronger - these were $200+ rings intended for 2lb+ scopes on 50 BMG rifles.)
Good aluminum is not easy to strip out. For reference, I've all but destroyed the threads on a STEEL machine screw going into a 7075 ALUMINUM AR lower. I was surprised and impressed. The lower's threads were fine despite having essentially cold forged the end of the steel screw. (Screw was longer than spec, although it worked in most lowers - lower was maybe out of spec, hole for the grip screw wasn't threaded for the last .2" or so. I think the makers of each took a shortcut based on common practices, and their shortcuts collided.)
Dr T
Member
I prefer steel. The difference in weight in inconsequential. Unfortunately, some aluminum base manufactures provide screws made of aluminum. Very bad idea.
Abel
Member
I have almost all aluminum on my hunting rifles. The Talley 1-piece lightweights have been my favorite of any rings.
sage5907
Member
I'm a hunter and a strong believer in the Leupold dual dovetail steel mounts and the STD Leupold steel mounts. I have see people use aluminum and then complain about scopes loosing their zero, etc, and if that has ever happened to you I would suggest using high quality steel mounts like the Leupold. Unless you just like to use aluminum and complain!
Abel
Member
Maybe the DNZ Game Reaper is an option that would interest you. The steel mounts are ok, but heavy.
CharlieDeltaJuliet
Member
I guess I will be the oddball. I use NightForce steel rings. They, along with a Near scope base have been the best setup I have ever used.
Thanks for the comments guys. I opted for a set of aluminum Burris Signature Zee rings to mount my new Nikon scope, as I liked the thought of the polymer insert cushion that eliminates the metal-on-metal contact between the rings and the scope tube. Stripping the threaded holes shouldn't be a problems, as I don't anticipate mounting/dismounting the scope numerous times. Once mounted and sighted-in, it should stay put for a number of years, unless I purchased a new rifle that is in need of a beautiful scope! 
You can take a heavy set of rings and get the bottom part of the rings squared up on a drill press. Choose a bit which leaves about 1/8 inch steel on each side of the bit. Carefully drill out nearly all the way through, then go ahead and drill clear through with a small bit like 1/8". Cold blue any resulting bare steel. The rings will be just as strong and noticeably lighter.
Boxhead
Member
Talley LW's are fine and I use them. That said, I prefer the looks and durability of S&K's and they weigh about the same.
- Status