scope rings

S

skizzums

New member
sorry, I am going to start a new thread about this because my original question has changed. I am nearing the end of my mosin build, I have an archangel stock that I just got and I tapped a receiver scope mount. I have decided to go with just regular two-piece scope rings. I was on optic planet today and WOW, they have about 2000 different rings, all looking about the same, ranging from 5$ to 150$. I need something quality, sturdy and of course, will hold zero forever.

I am planning to use this rifle for 100-500 yard shooting, using a 9x scope. what is the science behind the height of my rings? I would like high rings just for aesthetics, but don't really understand what they do performance wise regarding height. I would think that too high may not be able to zero low enough on extreme long range, but inder 500yrds, does it matter?

also, whats the difference between 20$ rings and 100$ rings. I am looking at millet because they seem kinda mid-priced and seem o have a popular following. if someone can give me recommendations and reasons behind them, that would be great.

here is the original thread about trying to put my Nikon mount on the scope base w/o success, but all my generic three piece rings all fit on just fine.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5974373#post5974373

anything wrong with going with a 1" set, and what would that do different than a 1/2 set? any help and ring recommendations would be great, thanks a lot. I would lik to get them ordered by tomorrow
 
There's one rule in scope mounting- for any rifle- that has few exceptions, and that is to get the scope as low to the bore as possible.

Accurate shooting with an optic is all about comfortable and repeatable positioning with your cheekweld on the stock. The higher the optic, the higher (typically) you have to build up the comb of the stock with a stock pack/padding or adjustable cheekrest.

Some rings, like some optics, are overpriced IMO. I've always gone with "middle of the road" rings from Burris, Weaver, or Leupold in the $35-$50 range and never had any issues. "Free with the scope", and other cheap rings, will likely not be machined to the precision tolerances required. It takes very little to throw the ring alignment out of whack resulting in a scope that's not parallel to the centerline of the bore at best, or a pinched scope tube at worst.
 
I dunno; maybe Weaver rings are somewhere near the bottom of price vs. quality. But I've used them on '06s since 1950 and never had any problem.

I have a set of Conetrols on one of my pet rifles. Much prettier :) and they work quite well. Since 1973, anyhow.
 
The only "weaver style rings" I own are a set of Leupold bases Taylorce1 sent me a year or so ago, and they are steel, those paired with Leupolds steel PRW 30 mm ringsare strictly bullet proof....me likes em a lot...;)
 
If your ring are holding your scope they are good, and if they will not hold your scope they are bad, the price of them does not matter if they work. I have used some very cheap scope mounts on rim fires and low recoil center fires with real good luck. I have also had problems with some very high priced rings, on rifles handguns and an air rifle. If you are shooting a 223 class recoil then cheap rings will work. if your shooting 06 class recoil then you will need better. If you get into the heavy recoil you will need better mounts and double rings.
 
The last thing you skimp on is scope and rings

I happen to like quality Scopes and quality rings, never have I been disappointed in a Leupold scope or their mounts and rings.. With that said the last time I had a problem was the last time I picked up a weaver mount and rings and that's why it was the last time.. I belong to the club that believe you get what you pay for!! William
 
What Catfish said.

You don't need to spend a lot but one thing you have to do is make sure you install them right. I bought 3 used rifles this year with scopes on them and all 3 have scope migration problems.

The SKS scope wasn't squeezed tight enough and the scope started rotating clockwise. I learned that the person used rings with a vertical split. This ment the weaver base had to be tight along with the top screw. I later found a shim holding the bottom part of the base. Removed and installed right and it's perfect.

The Remington 22 had a scope that would shoot to the right when sat in the case for a while. I learned that the rear ring was holding just fine but the front only looked like it was holding so when you layed the rifle down on a case it would press the scope off mark and then slowly migrate back to zero. Removed rings and installed right and it's perfect.

The third rifle is a 6.5 arisaka and over the last 300 rounds it has slid forward 1/8th of an inch but always holds zero. This rifle will be fixed after deer season.

I almost wonder if a drop of locktite on the base during installation would cure this along with my normal procedure.

You should be able to find good rings in the $20 range. These days you can even buy rings with 6 screws per ring for better more solid mounting.
 
I almost wonder if a drop of locktite on the base during installation would cure this along with my normal procedure.
Click to expand...

I'd certainly try it. I also put a drop at the bottom of each ring before setting the scope in place.
 
I think the old Weaver, or Weaver style bases with slots in them with any Weaver style ring are as functional as anything. Not the best looking, but they are cheap, and work. On a budget rifle that doesn't need to look nice would be my recommendation.

Years ago it was not uncommon for the scope mounting holes to not be drilled correctly and the Weaver style rings and bases would not allow the scope to be directly in line with the barrel making is hard, if not impossible to zero the scope. The windage adjustable rings are made to fix that issue. Those were very common 50-60 years ago because they were needed. Many shooters still use them, but they are simply not needed on most guns today and there are better options if you don't need them.


Some of the really expensive mounts are just a super heavy duty version of the Weavers, often made of steel instead of aluminum. For harsh duty applications or if extreme accuracy is needed they might be worth the price. Most hunting rifles aren't accurate enough to need them.
 
Jmr40 what do you mean "most hunting rifles aren't accurate enough to need them", thats the silliest thing you've ever said, how about this one " hey if your rifle doesn't hit consistantly just use junky rings cause it doesn't matter anyway ".
I say spend the money wisely and get the best equipment you can, because there's a deer or an elk out there that deserves a clean kill. And if your a target shooter and want to achieve some real levels of success then choose the best you can afford.
 
Last edited:
hooligan, I took his comment to just mean the use of "super heavy duty" rings. I guess maybe for super-thumpers or maybe bench rest competition, they make sense. But few hunting rifles shoot inside of one-tenth MOA. :)

My hunting rifles shoot 3/4 to 1/2 MOA, reliably. .223 and '30-'06, mostly. As I said, Weavers have always been plenty good.
 
I took his comment to just mean the use of "super heavy duty" rings.
Click to expand...

That's how I took it also. Besides if you have a $300-500 rifle and install a $300-500 scope and then use the best $200 rings just to shoot deer at 25 yards was it worth it?

On the other hand if you have a $7,000-10,000 rifle, $2,500 scope, and intend to shoot deer 300-600 yards out you better spend the money and get quality rings.
 
I shot my deer this year with a used 7mm rem mag, I paid 300.00 for it and put some elbow grease into it. With those bases and rings I mentioned earlier and a 500.00 Vortex Viper HS, I figure theres close to a thousand in time and parts...
And had I seen the tenpointer I shot Nov 15th at 25 yds, it wouldnt have mattered. Just so happens Ivtook the shot at almost 200, and the rigle performed like it was built to, bullet landed right where crosshairs were put on him, it's worth the extra effort and money from me to have the confidence and equipment to take the buck....confidence is your friend...
I understand what Jimr40 said, and after reading it over and over, I dont think he was intentionally knocking anyone or anyone's equipment value.....but its cheap rifle that I work on and put the best rings bases and scopes on, and turn them into decent shooters, maybe not one tenth of an inch shooters, but maybe they could be with a better marksman behind them, maybe never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top