Hi - I am seeking the opinion of those who have used / handled both the Dednutz and the Talley LW mounts. Are the dedntuz similar in weight to the Talleys, or are the Talleys still the best choice for a light weight mount?

Talley Lows lighter.

Dednutz Xtra Lows lower.

Both rock solid.

Are you THAT worried about a couple oz?

GE

Talleys.

Have you used Dednutz? If so why the Talley's?

Talleys are trimmer, slimmer, lighter, look better, and I can't find any fault with them.

I've handled the Dednutz stuff, and a couple rifles with them, and can't say they are a bad set-up. I just find Talleys more appealing, and can't see changing something that definitely ain't broke.

I have both, and prefer the 1 piece dnz system. Plus the talleys seem to scatch the scope if you remove it.

The real advantage with the DNZ (and the reason I have a set, but many more Talleys) is it does drop the scope a tad lower.

Doecamper had issues the the Talleys being too high for her to maintain cheek contact with her M7. I switched to DNZ and a 2-7x32 Cabelas Alaskan Guide and it fits her perfectly.

I continue to be absolutely amazed by Talleys stubborn refusal to offer an xtra low mount in the lightweight series for glass with up to 36mm objectives. Lightweight rings for lightweight rifles that (surprise) are ideally suited to lightweight 32 mm to 36 mm scopes.

Grrrr ...

GE

I pick Talley based on experience. But if I remember correctly Dednutz is attached with only three screws, which is not a system I prefer.

Brent

Every scope that I have removed out of Talley LW's has had ring marks/dents on them. Although I was never the one to mount them so I don't know how hard the "screwed" them down. I always use a torque screwdriver on mine and am very careful so I don't know if that would help. I still have LW's on one rifle that being my NULA which I see the weight savings being worth it.

I would like to try the dednutz someday though. I will probably get a set for my BAR safari 338WM, it has leupolds on it now which I hate.

My favorite by far is the Warne maxima rings, they are very tough and if you are the kind that likes to swap scopes around very often they don't leave ring marks and I consider them to be a better option when I am not worried about the extra 5-6oz.

I've heard more than a handful of people say that about the Talley lightweights ... but I've had a few sets of them, and had multiple scopes run thru each set ... and without exception, NONE of my scopes have exhibited any 'ring marks' from the Talleys ... I mean, even simple surface rub marks ...

also, never have had a scope "slip" in my talleys either ...

I love talley lightweights on a hunting rig ... while they could be lower, they are plenty low enough for me ... the price is right, they are tough, light, good looking (my opinion, obviously) ... they just flat out work, and well ...

While I don't have any experience with Dednutz mounts, considering if mounts both are good quality a one peice base is always stronger than a two piece even with only three screws.

I prefer two peice mounts like Talley's but I know going into it I'm giving up a little strength in trade for asthetics, a little less weight, and easier chamber access (though the latter has never posed a real problem for me).

That is many tactical mounts used by military and police are one peice bases.

Bill

Talley needs to make some ex-low's and just solve this problem once and for all <G>.

Emphasis on low mounting is frequently overrated vis a vis eye alignment.....within limits of course.

I was looking over the Deadnutz mount for the M70 Winchester last week. The one I examined was designed with four screws - maybe they have updated their design.

Talley LW's have never left me wanting anything more or less

+1

I like the DN's mounts on my Savage as the rings are closer than a two piece mount and it gives me more choice on scopes and placement.


erich

DNZ's design has 4 screws, or at least the set I put on my Model 7 a month ago did.

I must say that I am extremely impressed with the DNZ mounting system.

I think they look great as well...

+2 ...

+3

Dednutz are 4 bolters . They are both made of similiar alloys and I doubt the weight difference is worth writing about.

I have a mix of both and am leaning towards the DNZ for future mounts. The DNZ for a Tikka was 2.7oz vs 2.oz for the Talley.

Their 10, 20 and 30moa bases for the M700 are the best deal on the market, about $80. I really dont see a Nightforce rail and rings at $300 being any better and there will never be an alignment problem. Some have reported the need to lap but I started to lap the first two and they showed about 90%+ contact and I did not even bother to cut through the anodizing.

I own both.

I like the Tally's, they are strong. I like the DNZ's better, they are stronger.

For all practical purposes they weigh the same, so while for most users it may be academic, I will take the extra durability of the DNZ.

1

I dumped my Talley low's, poor check weld.

One piece scope mounts are a waste and I like to carry my rifle
by the scope.

Why I use Leupold low QD's.

If anybody else agrees with me I may be forced to change my opinion.

Roe Deer?(grin)

Agreed 100% about eye alignment and cheek weld trumping some arbitrary standard of what "low" means... And the Talley's are about perfect on my Kimber in that regard, low or not.

However for whatever reasons I need the scope to actually BE low on my M7 and M700's (except the Sendero), and the Talleys are just too high. Likewise my BLR. Even with the scope bell right on the barrel on that BLR, I'm still wishing it was lower. It's like they split the difference between iron's and a scope, when they figured the comb on that stock, or something.

If Talley would make some LW's that were the same height as the Leupold setup, they'd sell me some more rings, that's for sure.