Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Do Expensive Scope Rings Make a Difference?

I'm about to purchase some scope rings in which to mount my new Conquest, and note that there is huge range of prices for new rings. Other than weight, is there a great difference in quality? I've always bought good, but not great rings, and never had one break, or had a scope move in the rings. What do the super-duper expensive rings offer that a decent set of steel rings cannot provide?

I'm listening. A couple extra screws maybe?

I think there isn't any difference, especially if you lap them anyway. The only ones I go more expensive is if I want QD rings, I like the Talleys, that way on a long trip, I take two sighted-in scopes. Of course, since doing that, I've never needed a spare.

Save your money. No need to spend a lot on expensive rings, IMO.

I've noticed the better rings tend to need little to no lapping for good alignment.

Some of the worst I've seen are Ruger-supplied rings.

My favorite rifle still has the $10 unlapped Weaver rings that I put on it 35 yrs ago. Only problem I ever had was before I learned (the hard way) that you don't put penetrating oil on your rings.
My newer rifles have a hodge podge of rings and mounts, mostly lapped because I can, that have never had any problems other than stripped screws or broken from being over torqued.
Fixed that problem with a good torque driver. That's where I would spend my money if I were you.

I try to buy middle of the road rings. I don't want the cheapest but I don't try to buy the most expensive. I have no doubt the more expensive rings are better. The question is how much better do I need.

I think inexpensive mounts are fine until they aren't. I feel the overbuilt mounts give you more margin of error for the unexpected.


The heavier my scope and the more recoil my rifle has the more I try to lean toward the overbuilt side.

I've never had a cheap Weaver ring move anywhere. I've had $100 rings break in half.

Look at the mechanics/design more than the price.

Seconds on the Weaver rings being tough and never a problem. The only drawback if there is one, they are not as 'pretty' as many.

Expensive rings make you wallet thinner.

It's easy to see open sights over Weaver bases when their Tip Off mount rings are used to hold a scope.

The Weaver ring screws are easy to loosen with a coin to remove the scope if wanted.

While not pretty the Weaver ring mount system has worked for decades.

http://www.weaveroptics.com/rings_bases/bases/

Tip-Off is a universal term for mounts intended for use on the grooved receivers of .22's. I think you are referring to the mount that unlatches and swings off to the side via pivot points on the side of the base/mount. (For the life of me I can't remember the proper term for them. Early onset, I guess!)

I can't speak to the debate of cheap v. expensive scope rings. The only scopes I use are held in rings proprietary to the bases (G&H), vintage 3/4" Redfield rings on a couple .22's, and external adjustment target scopes (Unertl, Fecker, Litschert).

I use Warne mostly and have two rifles with the Leupold Std. system. So we are talking $35.00 rings. Never had an issue. Weaver rings work and work great. I don't use them because I find it a pain to level the reticle when using them. Since the ring screws are only on one side, the scope tube rotates slightly when tightening the screws, at least for me.

Weaver called them Pivot Mount. Others made similar mounts, under such names as Lo-Swing (Pachmayr).

On the original question, I have, or have used, a fair range of scope mounts, and like others here I think the original Weaver setup is hard to beat for reliability, light weight, and its ability to be detached by hand and return to zero.

As cdb said above. Weaver ring are a royal pain in the butt to level the scope because it is twisted as the screws are tightened. I don't use them or stock them.

I like the DNZ setup, and to me it's middle of the road price wise and looks good. The last two sets of rings I've bought were Warnes, but those were bought without weight concerns. I don't think i'd want those on a carry rifle. Lots of choices out there.

I don't use anything but the two piece Talley's. I gave up on the Leupold or Redfield mounts that have windage screws in the back. The dual dove tails are OK. My brother in law had Weaver mounts and a cheap Tasco scope. His rifle held zero for years. Never moved. When I had the bases with windage screws I was constantly adjusting my scopes. Not anymore!!

I prefer Burris Zee and Leupold PRW rings...still inexpensive, but not Weaver cheap. I despise the Weaver style with the steel top that pivots. For ultra cheap rings, I have had good luck with the Weaver Quad Locks.

I have experimented with several other, lesser known rings lately. I actually really like the CVA/Durasight vertical split rings. They can be had cheaply, but seem well built. I currently have a set of Thompson Center Dimension rings on order...if the photos are true representations, they seem to be pretty nice. I will be able to tell more when they come in.

For more serious applications, I like Nightforce and Talley "tactical" rings.

Burris Signatures.Simply the best ring made.

I've used those for years with no problem. Sure wish they still made them in the USA though.