Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics What makes good scope rings?

Yeah, not "who" makes good scope rings, but what are the observable, measurable qualities that determine good scope rings.

I have just gone through the entire current thread on "what kind of scope rings to buy" and everybody suggests one brand or another and says they're the best, but what is it that makes them the best? I have probably 8 or 10 brands of scope rings on rifles, from some of the real expensive brands the cool kids all like to no-name components that came off scope-rifle package deals. I have to say, I've never had a problem with any of them.

So, without even mentioning brands or models, tell me what are the qualities that make "the best" scope rings "the best"?

Concentricity,cap surface area,fastener sizing,fastener depth,Metallurgy and mechanism(s) to affix base(s). Hint................

Material and quality or craftsmanship and how they are machined.

Never buy cheap azzed aluminum rings, and you'll save yourself from major headaches. I have buddies that have bought package rifles from Savage. They would bring their rifles over to my house and say, hey my scope is slipping in these rings, what do you think? I say, pull those cheap azzed rings off and replace them with something better!!! Almost anything fitting that requirement though.

My good buddy has never made much money in his life, so he buys cheap rifles like that. I'll just put something on his rifles that are adequate. Steel weaver Grand slam rings are not bad for the money, but they are heavy. Some manufactures use sintered steel in their rings and are not made from bar stock. Some use aluminum rings and titanium lock screws, which can be very strong. Some of my Nightforce rings are like that. If I'm buying rings that are a little smaller and not as bulky, I'm buying steel rings, like Burris Zee rings. If I'm buying rings for a tactical rifle, I'll buy something like the 6 screw XTR rings from Burris. Those are aluminum rings, that are pretty robust, but they are bulky. It all depends on your application and what the rifle is going to be used for.

For the most part, don't buy something that is exceptionally cheap and you'll be just fine. There may be exceptions to that rule though. If you are scoping a 22 rifle, it may not require a $100 set of rings. Maybe a set of $20 rings would work just fine. Most of it depends on the application. A heavy recoiling rifle should have a good solid set of quality rings and bases on it.

Just remember if you skimp too much on rings, it can bite you in the butt in more ways than one. Accuracy/precision may suffer, as well as reliability. 2 things that I can't live without in my rifles.

A sure sign of quality is price. Sub-$50 is generally garbage. But being me, I surely do enjoy seeing the garbage work! I mean, is there a better feeling than attaching weaver aluminum bases to a receiver, slapping on some vortex aluminum “Hunter” rings, and zeroing a rifle in three shots? Sure there is, and that’s the feeling one gets when the same setup is working just fine ten years and sixty deers later…

Conversely, the worst feelin the world is missing a buck because you cheaped out on your gear.

To my way of thinking, this design is hard to beat!

Had a friend that shot a WInchester model 70 in 7 STW. He was using a monstrous sized Vortex something and having trouble getting accuracy and asked me if I'd look at it. The rifle was relatively light and the scope was heavy. I lapped the rings, applied resin, and loctited ever thing and took it out to sight it in. Got zero then shot a cloverleaf. He was about ready to toss the whole mess.

Light rifle, heavy scope, poor contact area on the rings is the formula for trouble.

Never had problems with any certain brand of rings. Keep them low as you can and as far apart as you can. I see no differents between aluminum and steel. I have used every cheap ring and lots of expensive rings . Ive done gunshows for 20 years and bought lots of rifles with rings on them. I do lap most everything i mount.

Big fan of Leopold Mark 4 rings. Have never had any issues with them.

That looks gayr n AIDS

I always loctite the bases to the receiver, brother.

Reupold MK4's aren't horrid,though fairly trite on ring surface area. I muchly prefer Marty's,for that reason. Hint.




Marty Maxx 50's(steel) are easily my favoritest,of that ilk,but I prefer Swiffers for most purposes. Hint.




Just sayin'.................

I’ll just add a feature that contributes to a favourable design, for me at least, which is eccentric inserts. The inserts ensure proper surface contact, prevent scope surface damage, allow adjustable inclination in the mounting setup, and allow windage correction in the mounting setup. Combined with mounts placed as far apart as reasonably possible, as well as the other attributes that BS mentioned in the first reply, that describes everything I ideally want in a mount system (ignoring bases).

I've dozens and dozens of Signatures and they are simply without peer. Hint.



Their sole downside,is that they are taller than many offerings. Being able to correct windage and add inclination,opens MANY windows of opportunity. I love 'em. Hint...................

I agree! They are big though. Wish they made them in a size similar to the Seekins.

Not all wares are the "same",let alone close. Hint.










Lapping is important. HINT.






Just sayin'.....................

I only see 3 or 4 things that could go wrong with these

I've never understood these discussions on rings. I've had one set of Tasco rings and never anther. They were butt ugly but, they worked. Have used a good number of other's and have never had a problem with any of them. Just what could they mess up making a set of rings? I've never felt a need to lap them and only used lock tite one time. Red! Had to have a gunsmith remove them when I did!

Actual use,tends to sway things. Hint.




Just sayin'....................