Opinions for LR Scope Mounts

[JD222]

I'm a varmint-target shooter that's just beginning to long range (max 700 yards) target shoot. For years the only mount system I've used has been picatinny or picatinny/Weaver style 1 piece rails with Warne QD rings, the rails being Talley, Warne, Nightforce, EGW, or Farrel.

I've always preferred these because of the options I have for placing my rings & scopes where I like them. I can always get a perfect scope fit & space my rings as far apart as possible.

I don't see a lot of guys using this set up on their rifles. Is there a reason? With the rails, I can buy nearly any MOA configuration that I want or need.

Just wondering what mounts most LR shooters use & why.

Thanks.
Jim D

 

[dmj]

I use basically the same as you have described and basically for the same reasons as you. Long range for me is up to 800 yards. And extreme out to 1000, which to a lot of these people is a chip shot. So I'm not sure I qualify as a long range. I believe that reason some use different set ups, especially on hunting rifles, is weight reduction. Every ounce counts. But for me it's good quality rail and good quality rings and hopefully mounted right.

 

[velvetant]

I use Warne 20 moa base and Seekins rings on most of my rigs for the same reasons you stated.
I'm still new to the LR game but I'm getting out to 1450 yards with this setup.

 

[Rick Richard]

All of mine are setup as you described. I would bet most LRH/shooters do the same.

 

[MudRunner2005]

I'm a varmint-target shooter that's just beginning to long range (max 700 yards) target shoot. For years the only mount system I've used has been picatinny or picatinny/Weaver style 1 piece rails with Warne QD rings, the rails being Talley, Warne, Nightforce, EGW, or Farrel.

I've always preferred these because of the options I have for placing my rings & scopes where I like them. I can always get a perfect scope fit & space my rings as far apart as possible.

I don't see a lot of guys using this set up on their rifles. Is there a reason? With the rails, I can buy nearly any MOA configuration that I want or need.

Just wondering what mounts most LR shooters use & why.

Thanks.
Jim D

Over the years, I have converted every single rifle I own to a picatinny rail setup...Even my rimfires. My guess is that a lot of people probably still think that they can get by just fine with old school Leupold rings and dovetail mounts (the old school hunter's standard). I once thought those were the best, too, but as I got older and learned better, I started swapping over to a pic rail. The 1-piece pic rail also helps to strengthen the action, by improving action stiffness, which can improve consistency and accuracy with heavier barrels. The pic rail setup also allows you to swap scopes & ring setups quickly and easily, and it also allows you to keep your scope leveled in your rings. So if you're in the field and need to remove your scope, and then re-mount it, you just have to check your zero...No messing with levels or special tools.

 

[LDHunter]

If you look at all the steel in an action and then the relatively thin picatinny rail and the four little screws that attach it to the action I think you'll find there is very little stiffening of the action happening there.

But having said that I like Picatinny rails for other reasons including convenience and use them when I can.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Is there a problem using Burris Tactical? Those rings are really Hercy.

 

[velvetant]

Is there a problem using Burris Tactical? Those rings are really Hercy.

They are a cheap ring price wise but very beefy, if you use them on a precision rifle I would lap them for alignment.
I have a set on my heavy barrel precision AR15

 

[Rich Coyle]

They are a cheap ring price wise but very beefy, if you use them on a precision rifle I would lap them for alignment.
I have a set on my heavy barrel precision AR15

I agree with lapping metal to metal. The ones I am thinking about have an insert like the Signature rings.

 

[LDHunter]

I agree with lapping metal to metal. The ones I am thinking about have an insert like the Signature rings.

You must mean these... I LIKE these rings... I think I'll try out a pair!
http://www.burrisoptics.com/mounting-systems/rings/xtr-signature-rings

 

[LDHunter]

For those of you not familiar with the Burris Signature rings here's a good review that explains how they work. IMO it's worth the read.
Tactical Tech: New XTR Signature Rings from Burris « Daily Bulletin

I've used the Zee Signature rings for quite a few years but you can bet on rifles I'm looking to eke accuracy out of and that have heavy scopes and recoil I'll probably be using these in the future.

 

[Rich Coyle]

You must mean these... I LIKE these rings... I think I'll try out a pair!
XTR Signature Rings

I don't know anything about them except they have an insert. Therefore I don't like or dislike them. That's why I mentioned them.

LDHunter,

That's fun info. I normally use Talley lightweight rings and lap them. This sounds like a very versatile and inexpensive solution to keep the reticle centered.

 

[dok7mm]

Another advantage, to using the rails, is that on some of the shorter lightweight scopes, you have a restricted mounting surface on the tubes. Sometimes, this interferes with setting eye relief, by crowding the bell portion of scopes against the rings.

I had this exact problem, trying to use Hawkins rings to mount a 3-24x52 March. Ended up using a rail and had plenty of space for proper mounting and eye relief. I'm sure this isn't a big problem with longer tubes.

 

[MudRunner2005]

If you look at all the steel in an action and then the relatively thin picatinny rail and the four little screws that attach it to the action I think you'll find there is very little stiffening of the action happening there.

But having said that I like Picatinny rails for other reasons including convenience and use them when I can.

So, attaching 2 pieces of metal together doesn't make it stiffer and less susceptible to flexing downward with another piece of metal hanging off the end of it? If so, then we've been fabricating things wrong for centuries...