Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
bases and rings questions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ian M" data-source="post: 14490" data-attributes="member: 25"><p>There may be a few reasons for using tactical mounts, ranging from "they are cool" up to the need for the simplest and strongest system available. Bottom line is that they are extremely strong and they return to almost perfect zero when properly torqued. They will take more abuse and punishment than most other designs. They are also significantly more money - over 200 bucks for rings and base. Plus they should be installed using an expensive torque screwdriver for the ring capscrews (15 inch/lb) and an equally expensive torque wrench (snap-wrenchs from Sekonk are most popular) set for 65 inch/lb for the 1/2" side nuts.</p><p></p><p>Are they essential to LR accuracy? Not if you take reasonably good care of your equipment. Fact is that there are some non-tactical mounts that are extremely strong. Personally I prefer the Weaver design such as the Warne Maxima over the Redfield design but that is mainly because of one failure I had a few years ago.</p><p></p><p>Redfield design mounts are now available in three modes - the standard mounting system as sold by Leupold, Redfield, Burris, Millett etc that employs a dovetail and opposing bolts. Then there is the dual dovetails that are touted as being stronger - these are available from Leupold and others but do not have the provision for windage adjustment. Last is the modified standard design that incorporates plasic liners inside each ring. The liners or sleeves can be oval shaped, thus enabling some offset scope adjustment, plus they are great protection from ring marks on the scope body. This modified design is sold by Burris and also used in current Sako rings, maybe a few more makes also.</p><p>Leupold makes a special tapered long range base for the standard and modified rings mentioned above - no sweat to mix Leupold and Burris etc in most cases. You can also get tapered two piece Weaver-style bases that are less costly than the one-piece Picatinny rails (a slightly modified Weaver style base - the dimensions vary slightly).</p><p></p><p>Picatinny rails allow switching scopes with ease - something that most guys don't need. You just drop the scope rings into the cross-slots, push the scope body forward in the slot and crank the torque wrench.</p><p></p><p>Hope that this is slightly clearer than mud. Bottom line is the dollar and personal preference. The recoil of a .300 mag in a fairly heavy rifle will not be hard on any decent mounting system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ian M, post: 14490, member: 25"] There may be a few reasons for using tactical mounts, ranging from "they are cool" up to the need for the simplest and strongest system available. Bottom line is that they are extremely strong and they return to almost perfect zero when properly torqued. They will take more abuse and punishment than most other designs. They are also significantly more money - over 200 bucks for rings and base. Plus they should be installed using an expensive torque screwdriver for the ring capscrews (15 inch/lb) and an equally expensive torque wrench (snap-wrenchs from Sekonk are most popular) set for 65 inch/lb for the 1/2" side nuts. Are they essential to LR accuracy? Not if you take reasonably good care of your equipment. Fact is that there are some non-tactical mounts that are extremely strong. Personally I prefer the Weaver design such as the Warne Maxima over the Redfield design but that is mainly because of one failure I had a few years ago. Redfield design mounts are now available in three modes - the standard mounting system as sold by Leupold, Redfield, Burris, Millett etc that employs a dovetail and opposing bolts. Then there is the dual dovetails that are touted as being stronger - these are available from Leupold and others but do not have the provision for windage adjustment. Last is the modified standard design that incorporates plasic liners inside each ring. The liners or sleeves can be oval shaped, thus enabling some offset scope adjustment, plus they are great protection from ring marks on the scope body. This modified design is sold by Burris and also used in current Sako rings, maybe a few more makes also. Leupold makes a special tapered long range base for the standard and modified rings mentioned above - no sweat to mix Leupold and Burris etc in most cases. You can also get tapered two piece Weaver-style bases that are less costly than the one-piece Picatinny rails (a slightly modified Weaver style base - the dimensions vary slightly). Picatinny rails allow switching scopes with ease - something that most guys don't need. You just drop the scope rings into the cross-slots, push the scope body forward in the slot and crank the torque wrench. Hope that this is slightly clearer than mud. Bottom line is the dollar and personal preference. The recoil of a .300 mag in a fairly heavy rifle will not be hard on any decent mounting system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
bases and rings questions
Top