Which is better, dual dovetail base/rings or Weaver style?

if it were me, I'd go DD in a heartbeat ... DD's are never a bad choice ...

Weaver style like Warne are the best thing going for me.

+1

I have rifles with both styles. I purchased a Marlin XL7 recently and mounted a Vortex Viper 2-7 with Weaver style Warne rings and bases. DDs are are good looking and they're excellent mounts as well.

both are great

I have used both over the years. And both have their good and bad points. Biggest problem with DD's is scope damage. It is harder to set up a pair of DD rings. And IMO it is a must to lap those rings.

I actually like the Warne bases and rings the best.

I lap any scope before I tighten the screws. And I have to take off alot less metal with Warne rings than any other system I have used. Take into mind here that I am talking about reasonably priced bases and rings.

Bottom line is I have noticed more scope rings and tube damage over the years with DD rings. Tom.

It depends what you want them for. DD look nice and last long.

Weaver-style is removeable and much cheaper.

Weaver.

Talley LW's...


Travis

Weaver over DD.

Weaver

DD though both are tough. DD just look better,IMO. No need to lap them either. Burris makes them in their Signature series(inserts).
I don't mind the Leupold version either. With either I mount them with a 1" wooden dowel, tighten on it, and then give the dowel a couple hits which relieves any tension. YMMV.

Weaver Engineering makes a scope mounting tool set that includes both the pointed 1" steel bars for aligning rings,and a one piece steel bar with a handle for lapping rings.Both make aligning DD's a snap amd eliminates concerns about marring scopes with DD's.

It is also very useful for aligning rings on bases using rear windage screws,since the bar can be used to tighten windage screws before you mount the scope,which prevents tourquing the rings out of alignment as the screws are tightened.

Sure you don't mean Wheeler Bob?

Yeah Scott you're right...it's Wheeler. Sorry!

Other than looks I really don't believe there is a great amount of difference in strength between the two if quality Weaver style bases and rings are used. The Weaver type is far easier to mount. One way Weaver is superior IMHO is if you remove and replace the rings. The dovetail type is really a one time install and lose strength every time you twist them out and reinstall them. Properly installing dual dovetail rings without alignment bars is a bit difficult. Warne Weaver style bases and Burris Zee rings look pretty good IMHO.

Once you get them lined up right it always seemed to me the DD's would be the stronger.

But....it also seems to me like they get a bit looser if you've got to take them off for some reason.

That said, I've pretty much switched to Talley LW's. Pretty simple system for a pretty simple guy.

I'll break ranks and go with DNZ's.

Exactly; they�re a one-time use system. The dovetail relies on a friction fit, so each time it's rotated in place you lose a little more metal. With the Weaver system, or a Picatinny rail, you take the rings off, and put them on something else...as many times as needed.

I like the Weaver style a lot, and imo the best rings under $100 are the Burris Signature Zee rings by far.

Better than warne??? I think the ZEE rings are good but feel the warnes are much stronger and have a much more positive recoil lug. They also don't mark my scopes.

Warne rings ought to be good, they weigh enough.

Really??? you must have never used the signature Zee rings, I would take a set any day over the warne. plus with the inserts you can ajust windage or elevation and they wont mark your scope the warne's may

As to the OP's question, I think the weaver style is a bit better than the dual dove tail. either will work well but it depends on the specific application.
Weaver style bases absolutely SUCK if they are not anodized aluminum or steel (most picatinny rails are anodized but make sure) and as mentioned the dual dove tail is a one use deal

p.s. either of these two method's is superior to the windage screw rear base that is perhaps the worst idea EVER !!!!!!

While DD are not good for scope swapping you can take the ring tops off, remove scope, and then take the bases off without having to remove the ring from the base and in that way they are good for more than a one time shot.
The Burris Signature Zee rings are great rings but the screw pretty fugly IMO. I have a few sets but prefer the DD version in more refined applications.

What if you need to adjust the alignment of the rings? What are the chances the receiver you�re transferring the base+ring bottoms to is identical to the receiver you pulled the base+ring bottoms off of? Not very likely, which means you�re going to be moving the ring(s), and the original friction bond will be weakened because you�re losing a small amount of metal as you scrape those surfaces against one another.

Agreed. Right in front of them on the useless scale are the windage adjustable rings, like Warne and US Optics offer.

Uh, what you talking about Willis?
Thinking your thinking a bit too much on that one.

Magnumdood,

I'm with FVA on this one.

How do you adjust the scope rings if your reciever is not exactly the same with the Weaver Z mounts?

Point is, you can't, unless you lap just like with the DD mounts.

If your reciever isn't drilled and tapped straight you are going to have the same problem no matter which mounts you use unless you have an adjustable base. Hence the reason the windage adjustable rear base mounts are so popular with some folks. Or the Burris signature rings w/posi-align inserts. These mounts attempt to compensate for loose tolerances in gun manufacturing

I don't care for either of those options or the Weavers simply because I think they're ugly. Leupold DD mounts, IMO, are attractive, strong and I personally have not had a problem with them causing damage to any of my scope tubes.

If you use caution and have a little patience with DD mounts it can be done correctly without the need for lapping. Fact is, many people just don't have the patience to do it right, YMMV.

I also happen to really like the Talley steel fixed ring/base combo. Many complain about these causing damage also. Again, I'm not seeing it with my scopes. Having said that, when I mount a scope up, if things don't appear to line up correctly as I'm working then I stop and find out what is wrong and then correct it before I proceed.

I have a Winchester Model 70 that's 30 thousandths of an inch off in regards to the rear reciever bridge. Leupold DDs didn't work, neither would the Weavers if I had tried. You could visibly see the scope tipping up in the air when you placed it in the rings. Tightening down the rings on the scope would have surely bent the tube. I called up Talley Manufacturing regarding this and they did their level best to help me fix the problem and get my rifle functioning properly. They machined me a custom base that was .030" higher than their standard Rear Win 70 base, would not allow me to pay extra for the trouble and it was shipped the very next day. Furthermore, three days later Mr Turner from Talley called me personally to see if I had recieved the new bases and to make sure that my problem had been resolved.

Wow, now that's customer service, above and beyond what Weaver or Leupold would have done.

I believe Talley will be getting more of my business in the future.

Leftybolt

I like,

Talley one-piece light weights
Leupold Weaver bases with Burris Rings

I no longer use the Dual Dovetails.

Cannot argue which is better...only know what I like.

You get a one-piece Weaver rail and bed it to the reciever. You then buy some decent rings and you're in business. I've never had to lap good rings or Burris Signature rings. And you can move the rings from rail to rail. The DD is a one-use system.

Personally I am not a fan of weaver rails over the port of bolt guns.
I also prefer to put a ring system on that I intend to be there for the life of the rifle so personally ease of swapping a scope doesn't come into play.
I can see the merit if you carry a back up scope but I just take my chances. Worse comes to worse you can usually borrow a rifle.

In all fairness, I set up ALL my rifles with a Picatinny rail in the "tactical" fashion, even if all I'll ever do is hunt with it. I am slowly (they're expensive, but they are the best mount out there, hands down) encasing all my scopes in Near Mfg. Alpha mounts. These are unimounts, but the name is taken, so he (Richard Near, owner of Near Mfg.) could not call them that. I bed the rails (Near Mfg. rails) to remove any stress the receiver run-out induces. Richard makes an Alpha Mount that is for the hunting scope. The Alpha Mount is a technological marvel. He makes them from a composite alloy that is lighter than steel, yet stronger than steel and aluminum.

My goal is to have a Near Picatinny rail on every firearm I own, and every scope in a Near Mfg. Alpha Mount. That way, I can move scopes around to different rifles, or even handguns, without having to worry too much about the initial set-up.

Sure, some receiver holes will be oriented slightly differently that other receivers; I can isolate the outliers and keep a permanent optic on them.

I haven't found that at all. Put a little anti gall lube on them and they're fine.

So, it's your finding that anti gall lube prevents any metal loss when the dovetail is turned into place?

I think the bigger issue using DD more than a time or two, I'm talking complete undoing /redo, is stretch rather than metal loss.

I've dis/re assembled them several times and didn't find any problems. No galling "dragmarks" or whatever. The torque on the ring wrench required to turn them back into place didn't indicate they had worn loose.

I'm not saying I'd use them on/off over and over again, but the ones I've tried sure didn't wear out in one pass.

leupold prw's !

I use Leupold dual dovetail, on all of my guns. I would not hesitate to use Talley's or Burris Signature rings with inserts. There all great mounting systems.

Stretch is the culprit.

I yield to superior intelligence and knowledge. I was working from experience; I never got more than two full mountings before the dovetail became noticeably easier to turn into place. Operating on the premise in handloading that by the time you are getting pressure signs you are way over pressure, I believed that if I noticed it was much easier to turn by the 3rd installation, the damage (stretching apparently) had begun much earlier.

They do turn easier, but were they loose?

Steel is pretty tough. Maybe the working surfaces are just getting burnished, and so they twist with less torque under the same clamping force.

I'm not saying I really know either, just thinking out load.

When comparing the force needed to turn it in on the 3rd time vs. the 1st time, I believed the joint was weakened. Could I wiggle it? No.

Both have worked well for me. I mainly use Warne or 1 peice deadnutz now.

DD's don't take to being moved around alot.

JM

On my expensive optics I use Near Mfg. one-piece Picatinny rails and Alpha Mounts. For lesser optics I still use a one-piece Weaver rail and Burris Signature rings.

Perhaps "better" is a relative term.

Working from my experiance; I have installed DD sets where the rear ring would be much easier to turn into the base than the front...and vice versa. Would that make a difference or make the overall sysem loose? I doubt it.

If one defines better as easier to work with and align, then one may be perfered over the other.

I reserve the right to have my preference...I extend to others the same right. In doing so, I do not concider myself yielding to another's superior intelligence and knowledge...nor they to mine.

It's simply--a preference.

[
p.s. either of these two method's is superior to the windage screw rear base that is perhaps the worst idea EVER !!!!!! [/quote]

Not the worst idea ever, but an idea that is no longer relevant. The windage adjustable rear base with dovetail front was designed for the military, I believe, to allow mounting of scopes on rifles that were NOT factory drilled/tapped. The windage adjustable feature allowed scopes with little or no windage adjustment to be sighted in. The one piece base allowed the base to be shimmed without seriously affecting ring alignment. Remember that early scopes, even with internal adjustments, were 3/4" or 7/8" tubes.

That said, I no longer use this system and prefer the Talley steel rings/bases to just about anything.

But regardless of modern ring/base preference, our modern factory drilled/tapped guns no longer require the features that the original Redfield mount/base offered.

Talley Lightweights or Weaver Style.