I have never discussed the issue of relative strength of the two mounting systems with anyone from Leupold, but I have in the last couple of years with the top guys from Badger and Swarovski, plus with some military and LE armorers that I really respect. Some of these armorers work with both styles daily, and their knowledge is what I particular value since they handle more equipment than most gunshops could imagine.
Metal to metal contact is made when I torque the sideplates on my Badgers by tightening a 1/2 nut. How can that compare to forcing (twisting) a steel dovetail into a steel cone so that metal to metal friction alone will hold it in place. Even if you only twist the ring in once you have probably scratched metal away - ever notice how much easier they get to install if they have been removed and replaced several times?
Besides bending a set of Redfield style rings during a hunt, and seeing them self-destruct when I remove the rings from the dovetails (as in when switching from a 1" to 30mm set of rings) I would never claim to having as extensive knowledge as many of the factory guys. I am fortunate to talk to individuals from several major scope companies fairly regularly, usually when I have some dumb question that they always answer. I have some good contacts at Leupold and will discuss this with them when I can. From a sales viewpoint, what your letter states is the ideal position. Who is going to state that one of their products is inferior to another in the same product line?
There was a point in time when I figured a scope mount is a scope mount, doesn't really matter who designed or made it or whether it is made of steel or aluminum. I have changed that opinion based on personal use, and from the saticefaction that I get when I know that my mounts are as good as the scope and rifle.
My hunts span a pretty wide range of species and types of activities, from the tailgate that you mentioned to horses, canoes and lots of walking. If the weight of my Badgers ever becomes an issue I will take up golf [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]
Bottom line here is that I believe that there is a significant difference between the inherent strength of Weaver style tactical mounts (Badgers/MK4's) and the Redfield design as made and sold by Burris, Leupold, Millett, etc. Guys like Marty Bordson can go into the engineering technical stuff to explain why this is so, I don't really give a damn, common sense tells me that it is a fact. If this was not reality, why are they universally used by the military and most LE.
Other bottom line is that a bunch of guys have convinced themselves that Dual Dovetails are just as good or better than tacticals, plus they are way cheaper. These guys simply will not spend the money, nor have they ever used tacticals (fact is tacticals are damn expensive because you really should buy a 70$ Seekonk 65 in/lb snap wrench for torqueing the suckers on with, plus either buy a torque screwdriver or get someone who has one to install the little screws on the ring caps). These are also the guys who don't like how "heavy" those mounts are.
I have no doubt that most users of Dual Dovetails will get good service from them. I see 19 dollar aluminum Tascos at the range all the time and those guys are saticefied too. But I have never heard of Dual Dovetails on Marine Corps sniper rifles, must be some reason for that...
Toes, as you can see, I have a pretty strong opinion on this. I bit the bullet and switched my hunting rifles to Nears and Badgers so that I never have to worry about my mounts letting me down again.
I would be very interested to hear S1's comments on the relative strength of the Weaver/tactical design vs the Redfield mounting system.
Mr. Ian, now that we are both calmed down, I would have to say that yes, I am in full agreement that the Badger Rings are without a doubt, stronger, and yes, better made. I wanted to state the fact that most people do not need that extra strength and weight at such an extraordinary cost. Regardless of the size of the rifle. I do not remove DD's once they are set on their basses, so the problem with metal removal isn't present beyond the initial instalation. The fact also is there that if used incorectly anything can and will fail, as has several of the higher quality rings. The inherant inacuracy in the use of "Weaver" style basses is one example. To quote Ken Marsh is one example: "Murphy's law of mechanical assembly is: Tolerances accumulate unidirectionally towards maximum difficulty of assembly. Barrels do not screw into actions at the exact same angle everytime. Scope-hole drilling and tapping ages and wanders. Manufacturers change their method for making receivers, and mounting surfaces are shaped a little differently." So as to say that we are not living in a perfect world. Also, I wold like to mention on the fact, it isn't that people who use DD's WILL NOT SPEND THE MONEY, it may be the fact that we DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY to spend 300 bucks on rings and basses. There is nothing worse than someone who belittles others because they can not afford the high end items. The idea is to get out there and shoot. To get that rifle ready for the field, and shoot. That is what this site is about. Long Range HUNTING. Not buying the "most-est." Sometimes we have to settle, so as to get that gun out there and shoot it. Not look on others with contempt because they cannot afford what we have.
Portate bien o te lleva el cucuy
Thanks Sam, you have joined my list of pros who verified that point.
Toes, I sure as hell do not want you to think that I rubbed this in personally about using Badgers etc. I agree that not everyone needs big-buck mounts and have recommended rings like the Warne Maximas many times - they just plain work and they cost about 50 bucks. There are lots of fine mounting systems out there, matter of fact there are some systems that cost more than the tacticals. I apologize for my choice of words in that post, I was cranky about some other stuff at the time and had no right to say that ANYBODY is full of ****.
My point about 19 dollar rings is that they do the job for the average shooter who buys a box of ammo from Walmart about every two or three years. I am not making any dollar value point so much as to try to say that most shooters I see at the range have some godawful stuff holding their scopes on their rifles - those see-through mounts give me the willies. Most guys seem to want to cut corners when they select mounting systems or they let the gunshop guys do that for them.
Since I have the opportunity to test a lot of shooting equipment I decided to put the best mounts I could find on my rifles. After trying a lot of styles I came to the conclusion that nothing is as simple and strong as the Badgers/MK4's.
Bottom line is that we are here to share info on long range hunting and shooting. I hope to shoot the new Nosler Accubonds out to 700 yards tomorrow, also will try to recover some Interbonds and Accubonds out at 500 from my bullet testing clay - if I can hit the block of clay.
S1 are you sure of that number [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img] , it didn't work [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] . I do understand.
Ian thanks I'll use the Warne rings, now just have to see what base will work. I'm not the hardest or easyiest person on equipment but don't want something to break at the wrong time (if it has to break).
Courage,Spirit and Honor
Pass It On