I prefer steel myself. The 1 oz. or so you might save with aluminum vs. steel in scope mounts is of little significance. I might make an exception for the talley lightweight aluminum mounts with the integral base/ring setup, they seem pretty sturdy to me. Of the times I've had trouble out of a scope, about 95% of the time it's turned out to be problems with the mounts so I want them as strong as possible. I disagree with the poster who said the rings and bases aren't the weak link, they most certainly are the weak link in most mounting systems in my opinion and aren't the place to be cutting corners to save weight. There's a lot more stress placed on scope mounts than there is on an aluminum scope tube.
Crowhunter, your experience has been exactly opposite of mine. In over 45 years of hunting and shooting, I've NEVER had a ring or base failure, whether steel or aluminum. Now, I'ver had screws loosen, but if properly torqued with lock-tite, this won't happen. And you should lap your rings for the best puchase on the scope.
Scope failures, now, I've had. In an older steel Weaver 3x9 on a .30-06, an internal lens once broke, and the view thru the scope looked like a spider web. I've sent back Redfields and Leupolds for repair to errector assemblies. On a Burris Signature 2x7, the windage dial became a crap shoot and I could never get it to track properly.
I still maintain that the scope itself is the weakest link. Mounts and bases are redundant in strength and simplicity....scopes are full of tiny springs, lenses, and sundry internal gadgets that are just looking for an opportunity to fail. If a guy has a problem with his mounts, the issue is likely with the man in the mirror. If he has a problem with the scope, well, that is a problem we'll all face sooner or later, and usually NOT of our own doing.
