What scope rings?

[nissantech]

I have just bought a Zeiss 6.5-20x50 for my Savage VLP DBM 22-250 and need some advise on scope rings. I have bought the DNZ and placed it on my 17 hmr and have no concerns with it. This is my first big scope purchase and would like to get everything out of this set up that I can. I also purchased this gun due to the high remarks I got that this gun would be the funniest gun I own. I am ready to reload and blow cans up!

 

[witchhunter]

I have always used Leupold scopes and Leupold dual dovetail rings, 40 years without one problem. Since the interweb, I learned how foolish I am for trusting these rings. They are supposed to be problematic. I am not convinced however. Weaver rings are also bulletproof, but are kinda ugly.

 

[JDGray]

I like Warne Maxima steel rings for the money. I went with a set of low Ken Farrell rings for the height on my Savage, and they are also top notch.

 

[AKElroy]

I really like the DNZ 4-screw "tactical" rings for an application like that. You mention having them on other rifles, so you know the quality. I would stick with them. I have them on a Savage .308, holding a heavy 5x15x50 AO Bushnell Elite, and that rifle shoots 1/3rd MOA. They are more pricey than their standard models, and will set you back $100 or so.

 

[urbaneruralite]

The DNZ one-piece mount is hard to beat for ease of use and durability. There are mounts that are as strong, maybe stronger, but I can't think of any that are as easy to put on. If you go with most any other mount consider lapping the rings to avoid damage to your scope.

 

[gamestalker]

Most of my rings have been Burris Zee rings, and they have never given me a single problem. But I have used, and still have one rifle that has Leupold dove tail rings, and that rifle has been wearing those rings trouble free for a very long time.

The only concern I have, and personally think might matter, is if I ever dropped the dove tail ringed rifle on the scope, I think they would probably snap off or get knocked out of alignment? Where as I've already had numerous accidents with Zee rings, and such a hard impact, that the scope suffered damage, the rings however prevailed.

GS

 

[nissantech]

I do like the DNZ but there is no problem lapping the rings. I have done it before and have the tools. I just want the best rings I can get.

 

[Skylerbone]

Quality mounts and rings are quality mounts and rings, regardless of style. If you like the one-piece DNZ, no reason to think it won't be all you'll ever need.

My preference for sub-$100 rings is TPS. I prefer steel (they come in aluminum also) 1913 (they offer Weaver as well) and they make reticle alignment during mounting easier for me than Burris Zees or Warne Maximas, my previous go-to rings. They're solid, precise, attractive rings, 'nuf said.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Leupold QRW are my default rings---use them for almost everything--------I absolutely despise vertical split rings so that means Warne and Talley are out---and yes I've owned both Warne and Talley before---that's why I despise them.

 

[Ks5shooter]

Leupold QRW X2

 

[Field Tester]

I'd go with Signature See Rings with that set up.

 

[suprane]

I have fallen for a picatinny rail that fits and TPS rings. Man to me they look awesome.

 

[Khromo]

I had gotten lazy over the last few years, and stopped lapping rings. I wasn't seeing any problems, and I hated the clean-up.

I was helping a friend mount a scope recently, and his attention to detail kind of woke me up, or maybe kicked me in the butt! I decided to go back and lap about ten sets of rings, ranging from Burris Tactical Extremes through TPS rings and up to Leupold Mark 4, Badger, and Vortex/Seekins.

The Badgers and Vortex/Seekins rings were close, but they still needed to be lapped a bit. I was really glad I went back and got it done.

The Burris and TPS rings really needed lapping. It looked like in some cases they were only making contact over about 25-30% of the inner surface out of the box.

The only rings that looked like they were acceptable as they came out of the box were a set of Leupold Mark 4's.

All of those rings had seen some use, and they all worked fine. I didn't have to do any serious trouble shooting with any of them. They weren't mounted on anything with too much recoil, .308 Winchester or .30-'06 tops, and a lot of that was loaded with moderate powder charges. But some of those rings weren't making that much contact, and after seeing about ten spooky patterns over a couple of days, I decided I will never skip that step again.

Buy good rings, but take the time to lap them. And lap the base as well. Even if it passes the tap test, it is probably not making full contact.

None of this is costly, none of it takes too long, and I think it is worth the time.

 

[Skylerbone]

No offense but if there is a "pattern" on a scope tube after removing it from the rings then the problem would be over-tightening of the screws or some misalignment (offset) with the bases.

I have removed several scopes from TPS rings and the tubes were always pristine. Your other point about contact percentage, that will vary depending on the actual ID of the rings and the OD of the specific scope used. Mic a few scope tubes and see what sort of numbers you get.

Unless the lapping bar you use is identical in diameter to the scope you plan to mount, the only thing lapping will really accomplish is correcting alignment by wallowing the furrow to prevent pinching and deburring the rings if they are poorly manufactured.

 

[Khromo]

I'm talking about the pattern created on the inner surface of the rings by the lapping process. As you check your progress, you can see the shiny high spots that were holding the scope, and the larger untouched areas that probably weren't touching at all. If the finish isn't being taken off evenly, you have what I referred to as a spooky pattern.

Bedding is the best way to handle this, as benchresters will be happy to tell you. I'm just not that ambitious yet.

 

[Skylerbone]

TPS holds tolerance to .0002" which I'm betting is more accurate than Wheeler's made in China kit. That leads us back to fixing the real problem, the mount which is either stressed or warped from the git-go. One commonly known example of this is the Ruger 10/22 whose receiver has a small "hump" nearest the barrel. Many aftermarket bases do not accommodate by relieving under the base such that when you screw it down, the base will bow. Some guys file the receiver, some buy better designed bases.

Khromo, what I'm saying is you shouldn't be so quick to blame the rings; the most perfect set in the world won't correctly contact the scope tube if they aren't aligned by the base. That is why benchrest shooters (and many regular guys) bed the base to the action, something my gunsmith did on several of my rifles eons ago and before I became such a miser.

 

[Ks5shooter]

Leupold QRW X3

 

[slowr1der]

Burris Signature Zee rings on a quality Weaver style base would be my choice. They are my favorite rings under $100. No need for lapping, no risk of ring marks, and they are very solid.

 

[quartermaster]

Leupold std rings and bases have always been problem free for me.

 

[RainDodger]

If you want quality rings, check out EGW rings, on their web site. They're matched pairs, they're steel, and yep they're kind of expensive. I don't know if you can buy any that are better.

I've got EGW rails on many rifles, however I use Leupold QRW rings so that I can move scopes between rifles easily. They're quite nice and run in the area of $60 - $70 for a set.