Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Aluminum vs. Steel in rings & bases?

Does one work better than another? What say you? Thanks...

Aluminum is lighter, of course. And in my experience, you have to be careful when tightening the screws in aluminum rings to ensure that you don't strip the threads.

I personally prefer aluminum Weaver-style rings and bases because they're lighter and the QD rings are detatchable and repeatable, should you need to change scopes or use open sights.

Steel rings are perhaps a bit stronger, but since the scope is probably made of aluminum (yes, there are exceptions), the aluminum bases and rings aren't gonna be the weak link. That would likely be the scope itself.

I prefer warne bases and rings,they are steel. I think either is fine though.It's more important that the scope is mounted properly.

I think for most uses aluminum works fine...and as stated earlier, you just gotta watch out for stripping screws. for tactical or military applications, i prefer steel though...its heavier, but stronger. I generally use steel on all of my rifles except for my rimfire stuff, but i cant really say its any better or provides a more solid base to mount a scope on. either will work fine, as long as you do what highridge suggested and mount your scope correctly...

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.

I think the DNZ system has a lot of good to be said about it. Otherwise I feel steel is better IF lapped and properly fitted.
Otherwise you might as well use aluminum and hope it won't damage your scope with gouges and scrapes.

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.

Have you ever been walking in steep or uneven terrain and fallen while hunting? Maybe bumped your rifle pretty hard? Not the time to be wondering if your scope mounts are strong or not.

What Crow hunter said....+1

Steel

GaryO,

I think I typed that name earlier this evening. Anyway, I use aluminum Weaver bases and steel Burris Signture rings. They are the ones with the inserts.

If the Signature was aluminum, I would still use them because I want the insert. There is never scope damage by the rings.

My experience with mounts is twice. Both times the mount screws broke in a fall. The rings and bases were still fine. The screws have been replaced with 8X32's. On the other hand, I have had over a dozen scopes fail for one reason or another.

If I am scoping a rifle with weight being a major concern, I'll go with the Talleys.
Now for a regular sporter weight, steel bases and rings are fine.
Actually I think the base screws are the weakest point and not actually the base or ring metal.

I also go with Talley steel rings/bases for all my rifles.

Not enough difference in weight from the aluminums to worry about.....IMHO.

Tough to argue the merits of steel.............

[quote=shortleade]Have you ever been walking in steep or uneven terrain and fallen while hunting? Maybe bumped your rifle pretty hard? Not the time to be wondering if your scope mounts are strong or not.

..........or maybe the fall knocked your scope's zero off. THAT scenario is more likely and has indeed happened to me. And more than once.

I use Seekins Precision aluminum rail and rings on most of my rifles.Skeeter

steel for me. i can handle the extra weight.

The last set of steel rings and bases I weighed came in at 6 oz. The Talley lightweights were 2.5 oz. Considering the rings and bases are in 1 piece, I agree with you, they are plenty strong enough for my uses. By carefully choosing your scope and mounts you could save close to 1/2 lb on your rifle.

The difference between 6oz and 2.5oz is only 3.5oz, less than 1/4 pound, not close to 1/2 pound.

Lapping Aluminum rings is almost a pleasure, compared to lapping Steel rings.

Burris Signature every time.

Last mod I went with Weaver style bases, but paid the extra for Leupold steel. Look a lot better, and aren't hard to clean dirt traps like the hollowed out Weaver aluminum.

Have used dovetail bases in past, but think will stick to Weaver style in future.

As for weight difference? IMHO, false economy.

Have used nothing but weaver rings and bases for 30 years on everything from a 22 l.r. to 375 H&H and have never had one problem. Prices is right and not to heavy. Probably not the prettiest girl on the block but not bad.........