Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics ROBUST Hunting rig rings/bases

In years past I have broken several pair of Talley Lightweights. Just as I began to grow more comfortable with them the thread surfaced here at the Fire with numerous reports of breakage. Where there's smoke there's fire, and the smoke is thick. I've grown weary of failed optics and mounts and moving to scopes with a reputation for reliability. The Talley's were the weak link.

I have never warmed up to dual dovetails, with no good reason, I just couldn't grow comfortable with them.

The other alternative would be a picatinny setup but I do not like a solid rail and height is also an issue.

Enter the Burris steal two piece rail with standard picatinny rings, as introduced to me by John (Hondo). The rail is .17" thick (front Rem 700). With both Seekins low 30MM and 1" rings the finished height is .400 which is exactly the height of low Talley LW's. The bases weigh a combined 2 oz, roughly the weight of Talley LW's. The rings weigh 4 oz. The net effect is 4 oz heavier than Talley LW's. I can live with 4 extra oz for exponential increase in reliability. I have high confidence in this setup.

Been using Seekins myself whenever possible. Glen makes a really nice ring for the weight/cost.

Seekins are good no doubt. The missing link for me was the thin two piece steel Burris bases.

No doubt about it. I was looking to put Warne steel bases on my Kimber but they are Weaver and I'm pretty sure the Seekins won't mate (at least they don't with the Weaver bases I have on an RAR). For the RAR I used Maxima Lows but the set-up is taller than I like.

The Burris has picatinny groove and lug dimensions, but is not a true "picatinny" because of the full rail specs. The match with Seekns rings is perfect.

Kinda of reminds me of my first car, a 1972 Dodge. Sure it was big, all steel and robust. It could plow though walls, but I'm sure the passengers would be beat to hell.

They really need to come up with an all steel scope that doesn't use glass.

Good info CT. Not made for the Kimber otherwise I'd try them next.

Steelhead, its a balance, and at a cost of 4oz for reliability, I think I like it. From a size/proportion standpoint, there is no difference between Seekins and Talley LWs.

I've been using a 1" and 30mm pair of Seekins low rings and really like them.

I like that! Do they make the base for a M70?

I don't like it because I can't use the scope as a carry handle.

Looks like a very solid setup you've got there. Great looking rifle too.

yes

Thanks Scott....found them

Do they come in 8-40pitch screws? My 700 action is drilled/tapped for 8-40s.

Warne steel Maxima bases seem like the same level of toughness to me, and are bit more svelte in the 2-piece versions.

Warnes are "weaver" specs. Pictanniy rings will not work on them.

Clint I know you sold them but what were your thoughts on the APA's?

Thanks for the post. Those bases are exactly what I'm needing.

The APA's are probably my favorite. The set I had were the lowest available at .16". Combined with the .17" Burris base the total height of .33" is too low for 40mm+ objectives, which is unusual for any picatinny combo, and the reason I sold them. The next APA size up is .27" which is slightly higher than the Seekins lows at .23". The Seekins low combined with the .17" base yields my target height of .400". Because it met the target height, and because Seekins makes good stuff too I decided to roll with them, not to mention an $80 price difference.

Seekins also makes 1" rings. APA does not.

If cost is not an object and an APA height meets your target, then I'd roll with them. They make for a more svelte arrangement (cosmetic only).

Doesn't seem to be any bases available for the Kimber 84M