Scope Ring Suggestions

Jeff H

NW Ohio
EDIT: False alarm!
I fell into two pair of rings that look to fit the bill. If either works out better than the other, I may look for more of the same.


I'm going to shop for a set of rings, maybe four. Before I dive into the deep end, if anyone has suggestions which relate to the application, I'd consider any advice.

Forever, I've used the cheap Weaver rings - bottom aluminum, top is a steel strap with TWO screws on ONE side. I've used these almost exclusively for years because they are so low profile and so lightweight, with no gangley appendages, but they are an utter pain in the butt to install and get the cross-hairs straight. Once I get them straight, they are rock-solid, don't budge and serve their purpose well, but I'm tired of fighting.

I sent a 357 Mag. Contender Carbine barrel out to have it threaded for a can and had to strip it of everything. When it came back, I cleaned up the screw holes, screws, etc., ,and remounted my base. Easy enough. Having removed a previously zeroed scope, and NOT having removed the rings from the scope, I figured I'd probably be at least "on paper" when setting the scope back onto the base. Maybe not perfect, but close enough to re-zero easily.

Nope. The cross-hairs are visibly way out of whack - more than just noticeable. Before I go to the trouble of "clocking" the scope past vertical, so that it eventually becomes vertical as I tighten the screws on the steel straps, I think I might just look for another set of rings. I just want to find something very low-profile, very light-weight and decent quality. The heaviest-recoiling cartridge I am shooting is either the 30/30 with 165s or the 357 Max with 180s.

Right now, the only other type of rings I'm using are Calhoun's "Hunker" rings on a CZ527 and they don't make those for the Weaver base. Besides, the 527 is something of a "special case."

I've used the steel Leupold and Burris "dovetail" mounts and was never happy with them on my varmint guns.

If anyone has a recommendation, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

Jeff H

NW Ohio
:oops:
Never mind...

I just snagged a set of Leupold, Rifleman split rings and a set of B-Square "Sport-Utility" rings for less than $35 total.

Shocked the crap out of me that I could find rings that didn't look like they were supposed to hold a tow-hook to a Deuce and a Half.
 

Matt

Active Member
I think I’ve been triggered for the first time; Weaver invented the best ring and base system known once scopes caught up and had enough adjustment to compensate for the non adjustability of the base. In the old days you either were lucky with bases holes straight and barrel in line with the receiver. I come across my shim stock every now and then. I realize I haven’t shimmed a scope base for a while to get some useable elevation adjustment. The weight, size, and complexity of the Redfield system was often worth it because of the windage built into the base. With this system and shim stock (aluminum and “tin” cans made good shims) you can usually get you useable windage and elevation with the internal adjustments.

Now we’re full circle and picatinny rail is just a fancy bit of Weaver base. The rings for picatinny rail are generally useable on the Weaver bases and vice versa. To prevent the scope rolling with weaver rings you tighten all four ring screws slowly 1/8 of a turn or so and keep an eye on your reticle. Slow and steady. I’ve never had a tube turn. You’ll never kink or dent a tube or have a scope move with Weaver rings and bases.


If you don’t like Weaver rings the Leupold Marksman work fine though not as sleek as Weaver. Same goes for the Vortex non “tactical “ style rings. If you want lots of screws there is a huge selection of high speed and low drag tactical rings. My favorite non Weaver rings for Weaver or picatinny bases are the all steel Burris Z rings. Very stout.

In the last few months I found two sets of old style Weaver rings on a gun store “junk” tables
for $2 a set. One set was super low and the other one was low. I slept well that night knowing no one else got stuck with them.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
@Matt, I agree completely with everything but scopes not rolling as you tighten the Weaver "caps" (straps). I may not even disagree on that if I could figure out if I'm not holding my mouth right or if my sense of plumb and level is fading.

The ones I am talking about only have screws on one side and a "hook" on the other. I've had to fuss with every one I've ever mounted until I got it right, but one "right," it STAYED right. Now, if you haven't had that happen, maybe I'm unlucky or not holding my mouth right. Shoot, maybe I'm cross-eyed or something, because I get a reticle straight and think I'm good and it looks out of whack the next time I look at it.

On this particular gun, I have looked at it again and am wondering if the base (newer, so probably not as consistent as old?) or the claws on the rings aren't the issue with this one remounting a tad off.

It's unusual to me to find someone else who appreciates the old (style) Weaver rings, as a lot of people seem to think they are just cheap. Wel, the are cheap - inexpensive, but they work, they are light and nothing has ever slipped in a pair of them on any of my guns.
 

RicinYakima

High Steppes of Eastern Washington
maybe I'm unlucky or not holding my mouth right. Shoot, maybe I'm cross-eyed or something, because I get a reticle straight and think I'm good and it looks out of whack the next time I look at it.
No your plumb is too good! Your eye/brain interface will always try to make lines square if your head is tilted even a little bit. I had problems also if I try to check with my head tilted. Always best to put it in a rest to do the final work.

My first scoped rifle when I moved West in 1973 was a Springfield in 338 Win Mag. It had a Lyman Alaskan scope in Weaver rings and it never moved the whole time I owned the rifle, that was shoot a lot. Biggest issue for me is that before rifles were factory d/t'ed, Weaver used their own spacing system and their hole patterns never fit anyone else.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
No your plumb is too good! Your eye/brain interface will always try to make lines square if your head is tilted even a little bit. I had problems also if I try to check with my head tilted. Always best to put it in a rest to do the final work.

My first scoped rifle when I moved West in 1973 was a Springfield in 338 Win Mag. It had a Lyman Alaskan scope in Weaver rings and it never moved the whole time I owned the rifle, that was shoot a lot. Biggest issue for me is that before rifles were factory d/t'ed, Weaver used their own spacing system and their hole patterns never fit anyone else.
I spent many years as a carpenter, and it's surprising how little out of plumb something can be and drive you nuts. Eyeglasses that distort things don't help in that field.

I did remove this scope/ring combo from the base, and the base from the barrel to have the barrel threaded. I've never had Weaver rings let a scope move before, and I think this time might be more about the rings clamping to the base. I did not expect it to be zeroed when I put it back together, but I didn't want to have to fuss with the plum/level bit. Will have to do that even with new rings too I guess.

Maybe you and Matt are both onto something. I'll drag it out and look again. I could even set the action up square on the table saw, which is level, and see what happens. Nothing on the scope flat/wide enough to set a level. I swear the Weaver rings "clock" the scope as I turn the screws in, but maybe Matt's right about them not doing that and I've been fighting myself all these years.

New setta eyes in the morning....
 

Ian

Notorious member
I have several sets of Signature Zee rings that turn-in. I love the system they have that lets you rough-adjust the centered-up scope to compensate for base or barrel alignment problems or even add elevation as necessary.
 

Matt

Active Member
Jeff H. I know what ring you are describing. Get your reticle plumb and make very small turns on the ring screws; doesn’t take much pressure to lock the scope in place. Your spare thumb can put a little pressure on the tube too. It’s a slow process but time to mount a scope from scratch is about the same as the Redfield (turn in) system.

I also forgot to tout another Weaver advantage: it’s a quick detach system that stays zeroed! I’ve used it as such for years. Zero two scopes on the same rifle and have a zeroed spare when hunting away from home. Right now I’m using ithem on my cobbled up Springfield “sporter”.

I have a 2.5 x for hunting, a 6x for CBA match shooting, and a receiver sight I can drop on and all are zeroed. Just need to find a neat way to carry the Lyman slide in the field. All I need to switch everything back and forth is a quarter.
 

L Ross

Well-Known Member
@Matt, I agree completely with everything but scopes not rolling as you tighten the Weaver "caps" (straps). I may not even disagree on that if I could figure out if I'm not holding my mouth right or if my sense of plumb and level is fading.

The ones I am talking about only have screws on one side and a "hook" on the other. I've had to fuss with every one I've ever mounted until I got it right, but one "right," it STAYED right. Now, if you haven't had that happen, maybe I'm unlucky or not holding my mouth right. Shoot, maybe I'm cross-eyed or something, because I get a reticle straight and think I'm good and it looks out of whack the next time I look at it.

On this particular gun, I have looked at it again and am wondering if the base (newer, so probably not as consistent as old?) or the claws on the rings aren't the issue with this one remounting a tad off.

It's unusual to me to find someone else who appreciates the old (style) Weaver rings, as a lot of people seem to think they are just cheap. Wel, the are cheap - inexpensive, but they work, they are light and nothing has ever slipped in a pair of them on any of my guns.
I certainly agree with you about the scope "rolling" as you snug down the old Weaver hook and two screw rings. I still like them a lot. The lightest, strongest, least cluttered looking rings in my mind and the price is right too. One additional trick I use is one the smith that built my 7x57 showed me. He kept a Bull Durham ball of powdered rosin on hand and dusted a bit of rosin in the bottoms of the rings for the added tacky "bite" to prevent the scope from moving. So to this day, I rosin scopes if I am using bare naked rings.

I use the Burris signature Zee rings a lot now that I started playing silly long range games with .22's and cast loads so I can fiddle with adding elevation to my scopes. I use 20 MOA bases on three of my rifles and play with the Zee ring inserts for fine tuning.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
no one asked my opinion, but I'll give it anyway.
Burris Signature rings (with the plastic inserts), and I prefer the Z mount style (Weaver copy).
Sure I did, @JonB ! I said "anyone" and I value your opinion as much as anyone's.

I looked at the Burris rings very closely when I was sorting out the little peculiarities of mounting a scope on my first CZ527 several years ago. I like the idea, but had forgotten about them. I'm not shooting at anything far enough away with the 357 Contender that it would make much difference to get it dialed in too closely before touching the scope adjustment dials, so these didn't cross my mind.

Since I've off-loaded a lot of other stuff, I don't need to make as many compromises of the few things I've kept and I have to try to remember that when selecting "accessories" for them.
 
Last edited:

Jeff H

NW Ohio
I would say that's why you need either a vertical or horizontal milling machine. :)
My "milling machine is like @RicinYakima 's - a "set of files.";)

Played with an old Bridgport sitting on concrete blocks on a dirt floor of a three-sided shed in South Carolina for a few months once and always wanted to REALLY learn to use one.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
Jeff H. I know what ring you are describing. Get your reticle plumb and make very small turns on the ring screws; doesn’t take much pressure to lock the scope in place. Your spare thumb can put a little pressure on the tube too. It’s a slow process but time to mount a scope from scratch is about the same as the Redfield (turn in) system.

I also forgot to tout another Weaver advantage: it’s a quick detach system that stays zeroed! I’ve used it as such for years. Zero two scopes on the same rifle and have a zeroed spare when hunting away from home. Right now I’m using ithem on my cobbled up Springfield “sporter”.

I have a 2.5 x for hunting, a 6x for CBA match shooting, and a receiver sight I can drop on and all are zeroed. Just need to find a neat way to carry the Lyman slide in the field. All I need to switch everything back and forth is a quarter.

I'll try it. It sounds like I do it anyway. It's a slow, tortuous process and all looks fine, looks , good, "hey, I got this" and then, when I've made my last snugging tweak and look through the scope - cock-eyed reticle. Maybe it's just me and I'm tilting my head, like @RicinYakima mentioned. Just seems to get more difficult as I get older.

Yes, I've removed and replaced Weaver rings, mounted on scopes and replaced them with no need to rezero. I'm not sure how well that would work on long-range stuff.

When I was in high-school, my dad had a matching '06 ad 35 Whelen built on 98 Mausers, drove them to Fajen's and had them both stocked with mannlicher stocks - they were just beautiful. He had the same question about where to store the beam from his receiver sight when the scope was mounted and I suggested a pacth-box on the stock, like on a muzzle-loader. He gave me a look Ill never forget and then wouldn't even look at me for a week, let alone speak to me. I never brought That idea up again.:oops: