Question on rifle scope mounting: Steel or aluminum base/rings?

E

ezmiraldo

New member
Hi guys! Is there any real-world difference between having "steel" base/rings and having "aluminum" base/rings? When is steel better than aluminum? How big is the difference? When is aluminum better than steel?

Sorry, I'm a total newb when it comes to optics issues, and my questions are probably dumb.

I want to shoot targets to about 1000 yards, and hunt out to perhaps 500-600 yards max, and want to have a rigid optics rig that can withstand some inevitable abuse (such as accidental bumping of the scope on a tree, recoil). FYI, I'm shooting savage trophy hunter 111 in 30-06, and have 6x42 SWFA SS scope.

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Basically, aluminium is lighter. If you hit the gun hard enough to bend or break an aluminium scope mount, the mount will be the least of your worries.

DNZ mounts are quite good. Do not expect their "silver" mount to match any sort of silver you've ever seen on a gun and expect their customer service to be bipolar/schizophrenic and generally poor at best. But, if you buy a black one they are very good mounts and you shouldn't have any issues.
 
Well, yes and no and 'it depends'.

First, separate base from rings (if separate units). On a base, having steel is of LESS importance than having steel on rings, IMO. I'd still much rather have steel, but alum. bases don't concern me that much - I've used them in the past.

On the rings themselves - in my opinion, with these exceptions: (a) Talley brand, and/or (b) on rimfires - you want steel, not aluminum. And really even on rimfires I'd prefer steel if not Talley.

To my way of thinking the *main* reason for this is not because they can't be as stiff and hold zero on big boomers - they can - but it's because if they're aluminum (or a steel-alum hybrid like a Weaver with steel "tops" and alum "bottoms"), you are tightening a steel screw into an aluminum base/socket. Without a torx wrench on the right setting, any little over-tightening mistake can strip the aluminum if not made from the highest-quality alum. alloy - and even IF it's the highest-quality alum. alloy at times, if you torque too hard. And on centerfires, they can really work themselves loose if not tightened up pretty good. Note that this is not a concern with bases, because the steel screws only go *through* the base, but screw into a steel receiver. But it really comes down to quality the alloy and thus the maker. Generally, with alum. rings: Leupold Rifleman, Talley, or Weaver, YES. Anything else, NO.

But ideally, no/never (steel everything), except for that ultra-light hunting build with Talley rings. In my opinion.

If you DO use alum. rings, follow these rules (besides buying quality): always use a torx wrench on the right slip setting, AND if it's a big boomer (say, .243 and up), use some blue loctite to keep them from loosening.
 
Last edited:
Without a right torx wrench on the right setting, any little over-tightening mistake can strip the aluminum if not made from the highest-quality alum. alloy - and even IF it's the highest-quality alum. alloy at times, if you torque too hard. And on centerfires, they can really work themselves loose if not tightened up pretty good. Note that this is not a concern with bases, because the steel screws only go *through* the base, but screw into a steel receiver. But it really comes down to quality the alloy and thus the maker. Generally, with alum. rings: Leupold Rifleman, Talley, or Weaver, YES. Anything else, no.
Click to expand...

Well... don't do that.;)

I don't think it's valid to abuse a product and the claim then product isn't strong enough.

We're spending hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars and guns, ammo and optics. There's no reason to not be using a $50 torque driver.

I've used a bunch of aluminium bases/rings and never stripped one or had the scope slip. The only scope I've ever had slip was on a handgun and in Warne rings.
 
I get your point, but nah, I have to disagree. Sometimes we're buying a $75 .22 rifle at a pawn shop that is capable of great accuracy and deserves quality rings, and sometimes we cannot afford a $50 torx wrench after we buy said $75 .22 at a pawn shop. Spending $60 on high-quality rings makes much more sense than spending $8 on junk rings and $50 on a torx wrench to get them just right (and hoping the stars align so that they don't strip and shoot loose in the field), at least for po-folks with a small gun budget, and just one or only a few rifles.

And sometimes WE mistakes. Perhaps YOU don't. But WE do. Stuff should be *slightly-more* robust than we need it, not *just-robust-enough* under ideal conditions. IMO. ;)

I'd much rather have some of those zamak rings (variously marketed under about 10 different brands you never heard of), than alum. rings from brands you HAVE heard of, but who undertake to stamp their well-known brands on complete junk alum. rings: Traditions, Knight's, etc. (there's probably 10 or 20 examples of this). These will strip in a heartbeat - avoid like the plague. The ones I refer to are Zamak and heavy yes, but understand that the crappiest zamak/zinc alloy is still stronger than the *average* aluminum. (Not stronger than the BEST alum., mind you, but average....)
 
Last edited:
Most stuff is much stronger than it needs to be, including aluminium rings/bases. In fact, I've installed and tightened virtually every optic and base I've ever owned without using a torque driver and never stripped a single one. I never had a single one slip until those Warne rings. That's when I got the torque driver.

If you're stripping out rings and bases on a .22, you're not using much logic. There's no recoil there. Nothing has to be that tight.

Sure, we all make mistakes. Stripping the threads out of scope bases/rings requires a bit more carelessness than "oops". That takes ridiculous torque. I've never done it, not one time, installing rings/bases on everything from BB guns to AR-15s, bolt guns and handguns, steel, aluminium and countless brands.

I don't care what anybody else buys, but I can't imagine buying steel bases/rings "just in case I go gorilla on the screws".;)
 
Most stuff is much stronger than it needs to be, including aluminium rings/bases.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. That's just incorrect, as a blanket statement, seems to me. You've clearly never bought an $8 alum ring set, which are as ubiqitous for sale out there as anything... people buy them by the truckloads apparently ... and then tightened a few - it doesn't take much of a mistake to strip this junk at all - I've done it. Sure, this was without a torx wrench (I have one now), but I wasn't going super-tight, just moderately right.

That's my point - to steer people such as the OP away from the many junk alum. rings that are out there. As I say, Leupold, Weaver, or Talley, yes. Any of the other 100 brands out there, no. There may be other besides these three that are worth having (and if you know some others, please chime in and let's add to the list and expand it beyond three, to help people out and reward quality if it's out there), and are more robust than they need to be, but MOST are not more robust than they need to be, and in my opinion, not even AS robust as they should be.

I think what you say is exactly right with respect to well-known good brands like Weaver, etc. But not so much on some others which you may not have tried. There's a reason Weaver rings are $20 and other aluminums are $8 - they're better, and fit what you're saying to a T.

YMMV, I could be wrong, and all that. :)
 
Last edited:
Op's mounting a good scope and it's doubtful he'll want to tighten enough to strip the rings because the scope will deform before the rings strip.

I have a set of L M4 alum rings and haven't had any issues.
 
Not to pile on, but I was going to say what Brian said, but he beat me to it. There's a reason for torque specifications and a reason why torque drivers are made and sold.

That having been said, I prefer steel bases and ring. No engineering justification for that. Just a personal preference. (I feel in my heart that God wants rifles to be all blued steel and walnut.) And I prefer the "redfield" type mounts with the dovetails and windage adjustments. When I go to "weaver" type mounts, I've quit using the steel weaver grand slams. The last pair I bought, was mismatched in height and had the mounting holes drilled off center. They were suitable only for the trash. I have since switched to warne.

@Brian P.: I've never heard of DNZ scope mounts (ashamed to say). I looked them up and they are an integral, one piece ring and base. They appear to be very high quality. I think I may try a pair for my next mounting situation. (God may have changed his mind about the use of aluminum.) Thanks for pointing me in that direction. I always learn something here.
 
YMMV, I could be wrong, and all that.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I'd say you're wrong but I would say that you're concentrating on the exception, trying to prove that the rule doesn't exist.

Yeah, there's junk out there. Don't buy junk, unknown rings of unknown history at some garage sale and then blame the metal when you don't use a torque driver and you strip them.

Don't buy some off-brand that you've never heard of because it's $25 instead of $35, before you seek the collective wisdom of TFL members, get conflicting opinions and have to make up you own mind anyway.;)

Buy decent stuff. If you think you need to buy $10 rings instead of $50 rings, odds are that you should save up and buy the $50 rings. If you saved $10, you can save $50. If you can't, you probably should be using that $10 to pay bills or buy food anyway, eh?

In most cases it's not going to be an issue anyway. I've been broke for most of my life and I've owned the cheapest, junk rings they sell at Wal*Mart (and the scopes too) and never broken/stripped a single one.

Those DNZ rings I mentioned before are very good and have an excellent reputation. They beat out any steel ring I've ever used. I hope to never deal with their customer "service" again but the rings are good enough that I'll take the chance.
 
Gotta go with Brian on this one. I had a guy with a .300 Winchester magnum that had the scope moving from recoil. We went to steel rings and it still moved. It was a Simmons scope and the tube was so thin that the rings could not get a decent bite. I have mounted aluminum and steel bases of every description and rarely had a movement problem. The biggest problem was usually misalignment, and that included the most expensive rings and bases. "Built like a tank" rings and bases is just a sales pitch in my opinion. On my stuff I have a lot of my own machined all aluminum (7075 untreated) and can't complain.
 
FWIW: Steel are perhaps suggested most often. Aluminum rings and base's years ago were indeed troublesome. But these days aluminum rings and base's have as good a reputation as steel rings and base's do. Where I would be concerned is if your scope has ring indentations on its main tube from previously scope mounting. If there are no ring marks and the caliber your rifle is> 30-06. I don't see a problem with which ever rings & base's you choose. {aluminum or steel} One suggestion. Buy rings and base's that have a identifiable brand name >new< never used.
Never consider some third world grab bag product because they were super cheap. Those types of rings and base's you want let some other experience the disappointment.
 
Thanks fellas! Your comments are very helpful!! :) I think I'm leaning towards getting one-piece Weaver aluminum base, and Weaver steel rings. Both will cost only $55. Is Weaver company the ones who invented "Weaver-style" rail mounting system?
 
@ezmiraldo: I believe so. When I was growing up in the 1950's, I can only remember two types of rings and bases: "weaver" and "redfield". I had heard of the sako dovetailed receiver type mounts, but a sako rifle was totally alien to the poor working class neighborhood of my youth. Matter of fact, people who hunted with a savage 99, instead of a winchester '94, were considered aristocratic elite.

Your choice of rings and bases is a good one and will work fine for you.
 
Yes, Weaver "invented" their rail type bases (early 1940's soon after Bill Weaver made scopes?) for their rings to fit.

As the Weaver ring and base system was probably the most repeatable of all when the scope was removed then put back on, folks copied it in the '60's to make 20 MOA angled long bases with Weaver rings on high magnification scopes for target rifles used in long range matches. Then someone figured out it looks much like some mounts Picatinny arsenal (in New Jersey) used and the next thing was everyone had to have a "Piccy-Tinny" rail to mount everything on all over their AR's.

Aluminum bases are stronger than the aluminum tubes a lot of high dollar/end scopes have. Go figure.......
 
Don't buy junk
Click to expand...

but that's the whole point - that is much easier said than done, since a lot of said junk has semi-respectable maker's names stamped on them, and it sounds like the OP doesn't know the first thing about options. Thus my advice was sound - when in doubt, buy steel. And I hereby proclaim you, me, and him to be "in doubt" if it's not one of the 3 exceptions I mention. If you disagree, then start naming some additional exceptions, please. Be specific like I was; not vague. If you name enough of them, well them maybe you're right, it's the rule; not the exception.

The point is, it's NOT the exception. It's the rule, and those are the exceptions. I don't think you realize how much junk is sitting around on shevles being foisted on the unsuspecting public, of which the OP is a member.

No, you don't find as much junk online. But you do find it in overwhelming quantities in Academy, BassPro, Cabela's, Gander Mountain, etc., etc., etc., particularly in the muzzleloading aisle, but not only there.

Lots and lots and lots of people look at the $18 Leupold Rifleman alum. rings right beside the $7 or $8 Knight's or off-brand alum. rings, and buy the $8 ones - why not? Less than half!! It's not worth it; that's my point. The OP sounded to me like he was about to walk right into that. OK, I've said my piece; you get my point, I think, even if you still disagree.

Here, maybe this will help prove me wrong - or right: http://www.midwayusa.com/find?newcategorydimensionid=11339

And yes, I do enjoy "going gorilla" as a release every now and then, lol. "Take THAT, you crappy Walmart ring!!!" :D
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you want specific evidence about but MidWayUSA might be a good example.

I did a search for "aluminium rings" and get 74 results. I then sorted them by price and the cheapest is $36. I quickly scanned through the options and see not a single one in the list that would concern me in the least.

I did a google search. The cheapest thing there not for an airgun are Tasco rings. I've used those EXACT same rings on my 10/22, they are $3.49. There's a bunch that look just like them. I wouldn't use the Tasco or their clones on any center-fire gun. They worked fine on my .22 though and I never hurt them.

The prices go up from there. There's too many to even tell if all the results are aluminium. Some of them aren't even rings. Frankly, at $3 or $8 or $15, I don't care if they're aluminium or steel, I wouldn't recommend them and I assume that they'll work equally (whether poor or good) no matter what they're made out of.

Junk is junk. Steel or aluminium. It's not a good ring if it's $3 and made of steel.

If we're talking about quality products, I'll take aluminium over steel. Don't need the strength or the weight. I also wouldn't be concerned if I could only get steel. It'll work, the weight difference is minor. It's all good.
 
With a set of DNZ or Tallay lightweight mounts your scope will break long before the mounts. No worries with those 2. They are 1/4 lb lighter and easier to mount than steel. I can think of no reason to buy steel mounts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top