My new FAVORITE scope bases/rings

W

warbirdlover

New member
I've quit fighting with the Leupold standard bases and rings where you have to turn the front ring to get it square and get the rear ring centered with the screws from both sides and then check it with the pointed centering gauges etc etc. Any ring/base setup with screws on both sides is a pain to work with.

I just bought Weaver mounts for my 700 Remington and mounted their steel Grand Slam rings on them. Simple, nice looking and REALLY solid.

Of course you all have probably known this already... :D

No super expensive Warne mounts for me and Redfield mounts with their defective Chinese screws.

This subject has been run over and over again in this forum but I've never heard anyone mention the Weaver Grand Slam steel rings before. They are super nice.
 
I just put the Leupold type Weaver Grand Slams on 2 rifles and agree with you...on everything! I don't have a centering gauge so had to do it the old fashion way, bright light and guesstimation. The mounts are stong though and resonable on the wallet.
 
I like the adjustable Leupold type because they allow me to zero my scope properly. I sight in with those screws and then tighten down. My scope then has the same L/R travel and my sight picture is sharp to the edges of the field of view.

However, I did just put a set of the one-piece Talley's on a 700 but only because that 700 had the holes drilled/tapped right in the center of the action... they were 4 clicks off at 100 yards (left/right). It's nice to have the rings right on the action instead of a rail/base. They also allow the lower mounting of a scope like a small hunting-type 32mm objective lens.

And, those Talley's are cunningly fashioned from the purest steel.

-SS-
 
I absolutely despise the windage adjustable bases. That said, I like the dual dovetails okay, but I much prefer the Weaver style bases.

As for the rings, while I'd prefer the Grand Slams to the $10 aluminum Weaver's, I go with the Burris Signature Zee rings with the inserts for not much more, and I find them to be quite a bit better. I'd recommend checking these out next time. Those are my preference to rings, but if they weren't available, I'd go with the Grand Slams before cheapo rings.

Once you go with a decent Weaver style setup, it's hard to go back to anything else. It's pretty much all I use now.
 
I absolutely despise the windage adjustable bases.
Click to expand...

Me too! They cause more problems than they solve. If you have a receiver that is not properly drilled and tapped and you need them to get your scope mounted, then fine. That is what they were made for. Otherwise they are probably the worst possible choice.
 
I can't agree. I do have centering tools and they serve a good purpose. So anyone that works with rifles and scopes should have them as standard gear. I set my scopes to optical zero. And it can be surprising how far off some installations can be. Setting the rear windage screws permits a correct alignment of the hardware. There must be some exceptions I guess. Maybe if you're lucky a more simple base alignment is not far off. Or an infrequent user may not want to obtain the needed tools.
 
I bought some grand slams once. Made out of steel and solid. Made in china and it showed. The finish on them was AWFUL, which is a common complaint but I figured people were exaggerating. They were not.

Get some Talley Lightweights and you will have a new favorite :)
 
I thought about trying Grand Slam rings last summer. Went with Warne Maximas instead. But the Grand Slams look right. Steel, torx heads, easily detachable, horizontal split. Might try them next time.
 
+1 on Badger rings and bases, although they are not quite in the same price range, but gut stuff nevertheless.
 
I'm a big fan of the Dednutz one piece mounts. Nothing could be easier to mount, as long as your scope threads are tapped properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top