Help need info on the best detatchable rings/bases



I have on order from Jerry Rice Nor -Cal precision my new 300 RUM tactical..
well if I put the Nightforce 5.5-22X56mm I can't get the thing in the scabbard... way to big....

so I was talking to some guy who said go with the detatchable rings/bases.. ok sounds good but are they.. and how repeatable to zero are they on and off????

whos got the best???

I figure Ian or Dave or S1 might know the answers to this

many many thanks....
I had the opportunity to use virtually all of the current detachables a while back, shot them on the same rifle, same scope under optimum conditions (zero wind, constant light). Mounting systems that I used were Warne (Supreme and Maxima), Leupold (QRW and QR), Talley, Talbot and EAW. They work fine for hunting accuracy, but all exhibited a slight change of POI. There was also a definite settling-in after about three shots, even tho we tried to re-install uniformly. Most of the mounts returned the scope close, but none stayed within the kind of accuracy you will need for LR work with that rig. That is just my opinion. They are great for hunting rifles, that rig of yours ain't no standard huntin' rifle.
I have repeated the shooting with Badgers and they were better - as in virtually bang-on. More money, require a Sekonk wrench, built like the proverbial brich outhouse. You spend that much on your scope and rifle, don't want to cut corners on the mounts - right.
Look for a smaller scope?
Ian, a couple of questions about your post if I may. Have you tested any of the QD type ring/base assemblies like those from Armalite and A.R.M.S. ? I ask because it makes more sense to me that it would be easier to have a one piece unit return to zero than rings from a stress standpoint. I don't know if they are heavy enough however for the job. I have just purchased the #35 QD base and ring set-up from ARMS and so far am impressed by how tight the tolerences are and how it lapped in but I have now hasd a chance to test. I have read very good things about both of them but mostly on small bores and one .308.
Also I have always used a Snap-on dial type in/lb torque meter to tighten Badgers, MWG's etc. Does the Seekonk offer soemthing better in the way of tightening? Thank you,
WYO: If you are interested I have a one week old 6.5 X 20X 50 Leupold with side focus,target knobs, shade etc that might work better in your scabbard. If you are intested in working out a trade on your NF let me know.
I have the seven types of mounts, did not use the two that you mention so cannot comment on them, sorry.
The Sekonk is a relatively small "T" shaped snap-wrench, they are calibrated to given torque specs. Probably the best model actually is set at 65 for tightening and 80 for loosening, that way you can take your rings off (this is for the large 1/2 inch nut that tightens on the side of the MK4 or Badger style rings). As you know, 65 is also the suggested torque for stock bolts so the tool is good for checking and tightening them.
I use a Mac torque screwdriver for the capscrews in the rings, set it at 15 inch pounds as per Badger recommendation.
No doubt your Snap-on does as good a job, not sure if it would be as small and portable. My Sekonk fits into an RCBS die box.
Thanks Ian, I found the site on that torque wrench, very neat unit. You mentioned the MK 4's What is your opinion of them compared to the Badgers? I have a chance to buy a set but I know what the Badgers will do. Thanks again
Can anyone identify this mount?If you can find one they return to O & take the beating of the BMG.Needs a cleaning though=CJ
I was a little reluctant to state numbers because they sometimes bite a person, but we found very similar results (0.5 moa) very consistently, as you suggest. Like you, I use Nears and Badgers. Have had scopes go back on without need for any adjustment more than a few times. Expensive but look at how they work...
Did you know that Richard Near has moved to Alberta?
Hey guys....

thanks for all the input...

I think I'll have to build a scabbard...

I knew someone would make money off me on this deal , just didn't think it woulda be the local leather guy....
MK4 rings are good. Some authorities suggest that they are not quite as precisely manufactured as some of the competition. They do not have serial numbers to keep mated bottoms together like Badgers. Reality is they can be lapped if necessary, a fairly simple task that some guys make a big fuss over. Most guys don't feel the need to lap Badgers. No doubt some individuals would lap them, bed them and spring angel-dust on them for good luck.

There are two eras of MK4's that I am aware of, the originals which had the ringsplit about 3/4 of the way up the side profile of the scope (smaller top cap), and the newer ones that have the ring split at the midpoint or halfway point of the scope tube when looking from the side. The older ones have kind of a rough looking inside surface, the newer ones are smoother and have a more rugged profile.
Badgers have a different finish, softer looking and less like blueing but it stands up very well. There are several other good tactical rings but Badger has the name and much of the market for good reason.
Since tactical style rings are steel (except for a few aluminum Badgers and others that might be in existence) they are heavier but I think that the ruggedness is worth the few ounces. I have never heard of a problem with Badgers, can't say that about hunting-style mounts.
Warning! This thread is more than 22 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.