Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Has anyone actually questioned Talley?

I mean questioned Gary Turner or somone else as to why they do not, and seemingly will not make a super low mount lightweight for optics? Something that would accomodate the 36mm stuff or smaller? There surely is a market for it, considerig all the people complaining about it.

Why don't you call him? He is a nice fellow and he would be glad to talk to you about it. If you have a telephone, why waste time asking someone else to find out something that you can find out for yourself?

I am new here where is this man to call about the talley mounts in a lower version? Thanks,Craig

Uhhhhhh, and maybe you need reminding that this is an internet forum. That's what is done here.

And, I'd be interested if anyone has an answer to ULA's question - it's a legit question.

I too have pondered this - but it hasn't kept me up at night so I've held off on calling Mr. Talley.

I just figured no need to re-invent the wheel here, if someone has already called them about this issue.

Just read the above old thread, thanks for posting. Lots of people asking my same question it appears.

I've asked both Gary Turner and Dave Talley. Basically neither answered the question very well yet. They did finally start making Stainless mounts, and that was the other question I asked......................................DJ

Thanks djpainless, sounds like they are just not wanting to make them.

Here are some lightweight ring & base from Rifles Inc. I do not
know the height.

http://www.riflesinc.com/accessories.htm

They are either Talleys, or total Talley copies, I am guessing.

I am wondering if bolt clearance is a factor in not making it any lower.
Or maybe if it could be lowered, it would be only for a select few rifle models with certain barrel contours or scopes with certain diameters on back side.
I think it just gets more complicated from their aspect of the business.
Only they know the real reason.

Are you referring to their vertical split rings?

Nobody called me.


Sorry everyone I couldn't resist. My last name is really Talley, but afraid I am not the Talley everyone is wanting to talk to.

Damn, you fooled me there for a minute. I thought the big cheese was responding!

DMB--no, they are the horizontal split rings.

I would think that making the horizontal split rings in low wouldn't be a difficult design to build.

With so many people wanting lower rings and a obvious demand you would think it would be best to go forward with production or people start to go elsewhere.

+1

I'd be trading out a whole pile of Leupold bases/rings if Talley made low's that were actually LOW. While I'm not tickled with some of my setups having the rear windage screws, it's more important to me to have my scopes mounted as low as possible. I've held off replacing them with the hope that Talley will see the light. (very little light beneath the objective <grin>)

I have mounted a Leupold 10X on a pre-64 Winchester to use for some load testing. The mounts are the Talley lighweight aluminum ones. If they were lower there would be bolt clearance problems as Heeman mentioned above, so that is probably why it hasn't been done. The Leupold ocular isn't that large, either.

A big +1 tp that excellent post. I'd do likewise.

I'd order a set for my BLR tomorrow- IF they were lower. The comb of that rifle is such even the low Loopy mounts are on the high side; can't go ANY higher.

Luckily the comb of my Kimber Montana works fine with the Talleys.

Like in that song "Alice's Resturaunt" (how the HELL do you spell that??) ... if three of us complain, it's just guys bitchin'... if enough of us complain, it'll start a revolution <g>.

-jeff

-jeff