Valdada Rings/Bases Rem 700 LTR

[PilotRPI]

I need 35mm rings for a Vortex 5-20HD on a Remington 700 LTR. There aren't a ton of options for rings. I've heard not too great things on Vortex rings. The Valdada ones seem to get good recommendations.

So for a 50mm objective, it seems I need about 28mm of clearance including a scope cap.

Half of the tube height is 17.5, and the .25 low valdada rings are 6.4mm, for a total of 23.9mm clearance.

Anyone know what the height of the 20moa valdada one-piece base is? Looks like as long as it is at least 5-6mm, I should be OK.

So should I go with the low rings? Any reason I should move up to the mediums?

Any other brands you would recommend? Looking to not spend a whole lot more than $200 for bases and rings. I do plan on lapping them as long as I can find/make a 35mm rod.

Thanks!

Jesse

 

[Outlaw6.0]

Vortex rings are made by Seekins Precision, they are among the best in the business.

If you would like to take it up another notch, try these guys.


M10 Scope Rings

I love the products from ARC & recommend them to anyone asking.



t

 

[bruce_ventura]

... If you would like to take it up another notch, try these guys. M10 Scope Rings I love the products from ARC & recommend them to anyone asking. t

What do you love about them? In your experience, how I do they compare to conventional precision machined rings, like Seekins, Valdata, etc.?

Let me say up front that to me the ARC M10 ring design looks gimmicky. I think there are too many attachment points that can stress and wear under repeated recoil. The design has one large ring screw that focuses stress into a small area of the ring and scope tube. I prefer multiple ring screws to distribute the clamping force over greater area. The hinge design has more machining operations that require tighter machining tolerances, which adds cost.

I just don't see the benefit over the conventional cap and saddle ring design, especially considering the high price of these rings.

 

[Outlaw6.0]

What do you love about them? In your experience, how I do they compare to conventional precision machined rings, like Seekins, Valdata, etc.?

Let me say up front that to me the ARC M10 ring design looks gimmicky. I think there are too many attachment points that can stress and wear under repeated recoil. The design has one large ring screw that focuses stress into a small area of the ring and scope tube. I prefer multiple ring screws to distribute the clamping force over greater area. The hinge design has more machining operations that require tighter machining tolerances, which adds cost.

I just don't see the benefit over the conventional cap and saddle ring design, especially considering the high price of these rings.

Personally, I enjoy the simplicity. Ted (owner) is a licensed engineer, his products are continuously refiined & upgraded as T&E finds issues or OFI's. I like how easy they are to mount, no getting caps mixed up or put on backwards (speaking of those that are lapped). There aren't 8 or 12 screws laying on the work bench waiting for me to lose them somewhere (i'm good at that). Both screws utilize the same torque rating as well, again simplicity.

I am not an engineer, but I do not see how a single screw can induce stress over such a short distance of a precision machined part; speaking to this design only of course. In a standard design, I feel your point has more validity to it as both mounting points are unsecured. Then again, Burris & Leupold have been doing it for years.


There are folks out there who cannot see the additional cost of a Defiance action over the venerable Rem 700 either; or the Atlas over the Harris bipod either. To me, that does not mean they are not beneficial. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

I'm reminded of a quote from one of our peers:

"Some of us playing this game are not willing to settle for second best, and are willing to pay for the best engineered equipment available."
--Joel Russo

Whether or not you agree, is your prerogative.


t

 

[PilotRPI]

Change of plans. Think I am going with the Seekins rings ("Vortex"). Seems like most people started to unnecessarily lap them. They are that precisely made. Now I just need a good quality base. Seekins for that as well?

 

[bruce_ventura]

...There are folks out there who cannot see the additional cost of a Defiance action over the venerable Rem 700 either; or the Atlas over the Harris bipod either. To me, that does not mean they are not beneficial. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I'm reminded of a quote from one of our peers: "Some of us playing this game are not willing to settle for second best, and are willing to pay for the best engineered equipment available." --Joel Russo Whether or not you agree, is your prerogative. t

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I really do appreciate it. Most of the time emphatic recommendations are void of first-hand experience. That's obviously not the case here.

I'm always interested in new mounting systems and tools. Sometimes expensive = different but not really better. I always ask myself, "What problem is this product trying to solve?" In this case, if the advantages boil down to fewer screws with one torque value, I can see a benefit in a simpler assembly process. But I also see risks in the hinge design, so I'm not convinced the product is really better. I guess I would have to test the rings for myself to become convinced. Simplifying the ring assembly process isn't a priority for me right now, though. As you said, that's my prerogative.

 

[Outlaw6.0]

Change of plans. Think I am going with the Seekins rings ("Vortex"). Seems like most people started to unnecessarily lap them. They are that precisely made. Now I just need a good quality base. Seekins for that as well?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Seekins products; if you can get the base you need, buy it.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I really do appreciate it. Most of the time emphatic recommendations are void of first-hand experience. That's obviously not the case here.

I'm always interested in new mounting systems and tools. Sometimes expensive = different but not really better. I always ask myself, "What problem is this product trying to solve?" In this case, if the advantages boil down to fewer screws with one torque value, I can see a benefit in a simpler assembly process. But I also see risks in the hinge design, so I'm not convinced the product is really better. I guess I would have to test the rings for myself to become convinced. Simplifying the ring assembly process isn't a priority for me right now, though. As you said, that's my prerogative.

Bruce, I can't speak as to the longevity of the hinge design. But what I can tell you is; the first set I bought were in 34mm, they were the first generation rings which were of far different design. I can tell you they withstood hundreds of rounds of 338 RUM holding a Leupy MK4 M5-A (being an optics guy I'm sure you know how heavy that scope is). The rings never slipped & I never lost zero, happily.


t