Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Just gotta say.......

.....I cannot for the life of me figure out why gun buyers will spend their hard earned money on a new rifle & a fine scope and put those old antique windage adjustable Leupold rear scope bases on it. I have never seen any that did not come loose at some point. There are so many more actually good mounts on the market.

There, I feel better now.

I've seen them increase the amount of trigger time a guy gets, guess that's a plus.

Just duck tape a flathead screwdriver to your rifle and you will be good to go in case they loosen up.

DD's are my friends..........

Ive had excellent luck with them...nary a bobble over a LOT of usage.....





There.....


is that contentious enough to be included in an Optics Forum Thread...?


Ingwe

If Bob can twist a turret Ingwe can try a Talley.....................

That has a nice "ring" to it......

I'm just sayin.......

Ingwe

I dont care for them either..but a my small rings wear a 1 piece with adj rear's..they have held tight for years now, but the guns dont see a whole lotta use.

I use the schitt out of mine, especially the varmint guns, in fact just did a .222 build and put good old pedestrian Leupold mounts on it....

Also had them on my .375...and put nearly 2000 rounds through that one while I had it...

Maybe my simple mind is just easy to please...they work for me.

Ingwe

If I were not such a subscriber to quick detach rings/bases all of my stuff would be fixed vertical split rings.

Actually they are a Redfield design that has been copied by lots of makers.
Since I've seen far more mount problems than scope problems, I refuse to use that design regardless of who makes them. Their biggest fault being very little "bite" on the rear scope ring. One solid impact, and they pop right out. E

I ran several sets for a while. No problems, but I always gave them the hairy eyeball just for all the complexity, and for what?! On a rifle where Bubba drilled the receiver crooked with a Milwaukie, maybe...

Talleys are retard-strong and stupidly simple. That's good.

never paid any attention to the windage screw and never had a lick of trouble with them.

It's one more thing to go wrong, never saw hedging bets as a bad thing. And yes I have seen them [bleep].

I couldn't agree with you more. I simply see very little need for them on current rifles, especially considering the number of better mounting systems available. I can understand the need on them years ago, when a lot of scopes simply didn't have much windage adjustment.

However, they do come in handy once in a blue moon. I had a Remington Model 7 that I simply couldn't get the windage correct with Weaver style bases and split rings. I ultimately had to convert to a Redfield style base and do a little adjusting. Of course, a Millet style ring would have worked fine, as I've had to use them on other rifles. A buddy of mine had a .338 that we couldn't get the windage close with factory rings, and had to order a set of Millet rings.

More potential downside then upside.

Reminds me of a fellow on here that shall remain nameless. He's in his late 50's and had a custom Mannlicher stocked rifle made up in 338 Federal. I asked him about bedding and he said he didn't have it bedded, to which I asked why. He said he's never bedded rifles and never had a problem.

Fast forward a bit and whilst shooting at the range the stock split through the tang/wrist area. He apparently now beds/relieves rifles, most especially wood.


Again, never seen hedging my bets as a bad thing.