misterc01
Well-Known Member
I like the ones I get from eBay.
Which scope mounting system preferred
- Thread starter Philward
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
freddiej
Well-Known Member
normally I call on the P-rail or weaver steel bases, Leupold (SRW or PRW) or Burris signature rings. I have had too many problems with Leupold STD's. Now Leupold duel dovetails are absolutely awesome. I like SK's but I can not get them every time I need them. Badger Ord keeps me happy with their MOA offset rails.
I've switched all of mine to Near Manufacturing from 30-378's to 308's. By far the best I've used and Richard will make whatever you like and do so quickly. For hunting rigs I would suggest the Alpha Hunter for strength, durability and light weight.
Ken Farrell base and rings
Never heard of these. I'll check them out.
ntsqd
Well-Known Member
I think pictinney mounts are ugly. I've long disliked the Weaver mount system for the same reason. Well, that and their rings that used a steel band with a hook on one side and the screws on other one side really suck to square a reticle.
OTOH I've long preferred one piece bases for their added rigidity. It may not be a lot more, but it's more than a two piece base has. Small ejection port actions are likely inappropriate for a one piece if used to hunt.
My flat tops convinced me of the utility of a pictinney mount. I'm moving towards all but the ultra light rifle project having pictinney rails that are epoxy bedded to their action.
Rings for a pictinney type base that have the scope clamp screws above and below the scope (instead off to each side) are a No-Go for me. One set of those from Warne was enough to ruin me on those forever. Speaking of Warne, I don't see that name mentioned. Pretty sure that I understand why.
OTOH I've long preferred one piece bases for their added rigidity. It may not be a lot more, but it's more than a two piece base has. Small ejection port actions are likely inappropriate for a one piece if used to hunt.
My flat tops convinced me of the utility of a pictinney mount. I'm moving towards all but the ultra light rifle project having pictinney rails that are epoxy bedded to their action.
Rings for a pictinney type base that have the scope clamp screws above and below the scope (instead off to each side) are a No-Go for me. One set of those from Warne was enough to ruin me on those forever. Speaking of Warne, I don't see that name mentioned. Pretty sure that I understand why.
No, the good old fashioned ones designed by Redfield decades ago.
Wolf76
Well-Known Member
Dnz reaper is what I've been going to these days. All integrated and perfectly lined up rings.
Picatinny rail and LaRue Tactical mount and rings for me. As for why....besides getting a great price on them, I like that I can remove the mounted scope, rings and all and put them on another rifle if I so choose. In my opinion, I paid what I paid for the guarantee of precision machining and longevity.
I've never tried those verticle clamping style, look funny and seems they would snag on stuff easily. Clean looks and smoothness is why I like the s&k skulptured bases and rings plus they have windage adjustment front and rear. Only for standard calibers though, no magnums. 270 win and 7mm-08.
I'll second the Ken Farrell rings & bases! I have 2 sets of them. Here's the link.
FTRshooter
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I'm a fan of the XTR version of the Signature rings. Nothing comes close in my opinion.
