What's yalls thoughts on mounting systems?

Im not talking the cheap aluminum crap people sell.

But Im willing to pay some big bucks for some no hassle durable rings. Just in general what brands do yall depend on? And what are some to stay away from?

I currently use millet and leupold rings. I see rings that are 100-200 bucks are they worth it?

For a hunting gun, I dont see the need for anything other than Talley LWs.

Talley Steel Rings . I have had an issue with a set of rings I bought but they are pretty much indestructible.

Conetrol and S&K would be good safe bets as well..All 3 are pretty much install on gun and not worry about anymore

Leupold Dual Dovetails.

S&K

Another vote for the simplicity and looks of the S&K mounts

I have never had a problem with Weaver original rings,always thought they were plenty durable.
Craig

Is your scope also made of steel, Coach? Just sayin', if the scope is aluminum, well, maybe it don't matter....

Warne non detatchable. Simple, strong as heck. Good stuff.

Burris Zee rings have worked well for me.

Both are weak.....

Talley LWs put less stress on the base screws. There is no reason to think steel are better. I also use Burris Zees.

Dang man, they are all pretty much bullet proof now days if they are made by a reputable company. If you want tough as nails and fairly inexpensive, you can go with the weaver mounts and rings or the leupold QRW or PRW's, Talley steel mounts and rings, Warne steel mounts and rings, TPS, Leupold DD's, S&K, Conetrol's. I use most styles and it really comes down to personal taste or what is asthetically pleasong to YOU:

I use the leupold QRW mounts and Rings (Quick detachable QRW) on my 375 H&H:


Talley steel mounts and rings on my pre 64 fwt's (308 and 30-06), 30-06 pictured:


Leupold Dual dovetails mounts and rings on my 300 wsm:


I run steel TPS on my FN PBR XP, which are excellent rings and tough as an anvil:


Warne steel rings on my CZ 550 American 9.3x62mm:


.......but like one poster said, the majority of the time you can get by with the talley lightweights and call it a day. I use the hell out of the talley lightweight's (aluminum) and I can attest to their strength...Some guys don't like the looks of them but they have kind of grown on me and some of my rifles :

[img]http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x401/chiefbsa/002-52.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x401/chiefbsa/007-29.jpg[/img]

Actually, the very strongest system is INTEGRAL bases that are one with the reciever and then good quality steel 4 screw rings. The only rifles that come that way as far as I know are CZ, Ruger and Sako/Tikka. My own serious use DGR is a much modified CZ with Warne QD steel rings.

IF one does not have the luxury of integral bases, I personally consider the Burris or Leopold Dual Dovetail steel bases and rings to be the strongest. Whether one NEEDS that level of strength is a matter of some debate, but I like them. I use this system on my other big and serious rife, a full on custom in my own wildcat 340 Tyrannosaur.

I'm using the leupold dd's on almost everything these days... And I do like them. Just wondering if there is something better out there.

I run leupolds PRW's on a couple Of AR's and while they work well and continue hold zero I'm less than impressed with the flimsy piece that tightens onto the rail... It can and will bend in the middle as you torque down the screws.

As far as Aluminum rings go I've had nothing but horrible luck with them. The threads strip easier, they bend when torqued... I don't even run them on rim fires.

I torque to spec, and expect the rings to hold up when I do... Aluminum is better used for beer cans. personal opinion.


I am going to look into the S&K mounts now.

Any body use the one piece designs like DNZ?

I have used aluminum rings and bases for a long time, and have never had any of the issues you describe. I think the key is to use quality aluminum parts, like Talley. Even my Burris Extreme aluminum rings on my precision 308 stick have held up fine to some pretty brutal abuse..and they are bolted to a Larue base, which is aluminum as well.

Well for durability I would almost have to put in a vote for the plain jane old style weaver rings. One set I have must be 30 years old. I mostly use zee rings now but in truth there are a lot of good base and ring setups out there. My thought is most are much more durable than the scope they are attached to so ring failure is almost a non existent issue in my mind. Best on the other hand is a somewhat nebulous word that can mean different things to different people.

TPS, Seekins, and Badger rings and mounts are excellent if you want to spend the money on them. If I was building a gun that my life would depend on I would use one of those.

However you can honestly get by just fine with cheaper mounts and rings for the majority of hunting situations. I also am not a fan of aluminum mounts at all and I am not really sure why so many people like the Talley LW's so much. If you do run those make sure you lap them as they will need it.

My personal favorite setup under $100 is a quality Weaver base and a set of Burris Signature Zee rings. They eliminate the need for lapping, eliminate ring marks, and are very durable. However traditional Weaver steel rings are pretty good as well as are the Leupold Dual Dovetail setups. I would stay away from the Leupold setups with the windage adjustment on the rear though as they tend to be weak.

Because they are light and the work.......I've never lapped a set.....zero problems.

I think nearly all the rings mentioned are pretty good and I have used many of them over time. Aluminum or not, talley lightweights are good and I didn't see them mentioned, but the DNZ ring set up has been pretty good for me as well.

For a weaver base ring.. the Burris signatures are nice, no scope markes and you can get pretty close to a zero without using the scope adjustments.

Personally getting them on straight, locktited where required, and set to proper torque is really the key to most ring/base systems.

How about a Near Scope mount...I havent used but personally but have been tempted to try a few times

Near, Murphy Precision, Seekins, TPS....ect......would all make a lifetime stout mount.

Frankly, my favorite steel rings are Burris Zee's on all-steel Weaver Bases (either Warne or Leupold's).

KISS.

Until the scopes are made of steel the material the mounting system is made of means chit! I dropped my varmint rig off a rock ledge while hunting, rifle landed on the objective bell and bent the tube of a Nikon Monarch scope. The Lightweight Alloy Talleys didn't budge but the scope was [bleep]. I cant understand wanting steel rings to mount a lightweight aluminum aiming instrument on, but that's just me.

The threads in alloy rings are more prone to stripping and alloys clamps that are over-tightened onto the rails milled into steel actions can also become a bit chewed up along the edges..

I prefer steel myself and prefer ring-mounts or one piece units if possible..

For a general purpose hunting rifle, I much prefer those with rails (or similar) milled into the action such as on Sako, Ruger or CZ's ect to negate the need for separate bases..To me, this is probably more important than if the ring-mounts are steel or alloy

When was the last time you read on this forum about quality Aluminum rings failing on a hunter? Of course excluding the threads where guys are regularly swapping scopes and wearing out the heads on Tikka Factory mounts? I have hunted the crap out of some rifles, used em as a walking stick, fallen on them, dropped them and have yet to say man I shoulda bought some steel rings! Rather than show some pics of shiny rifles on a gun bench, I'll throw this out there, scratched up, covered in blood droplets and a pic of me before busting my azz more than once with the rifle strapped to me and my 110 lb pack. I have had exactly zero issues with Talley Lightweights and every one of my rifles wears em.

I've just about used them all, but if I had to pick one, it would have to the TPS brand. Great workmanship and finish, and the scope doesn't "roll" when the ring caps are tightened. That said, I've never really had a problem with any.

Talley Screwlocks.

Hard to beat this all aluminum set-up.

The DNZ setup is so hideous, I'd never use one. I had one for a little while but I couldn't look at it, so off it went.

Actually there were a few photo's of Talley Lightweights with cracks around the screw holes floating around the Net a couple of years back.

I don't recall the exact details, but I think it was attributed to a manufacturing defect.

Regardless,if you have faith in your Talley's and they have performed well for you, that's great!

Life I said, I *prefer* steel ring-mounts and I *prefer* actions which don't require a separate base held on by screws alone..

Regards,

Peter

My first experience with Talley Lightweights was back when they were only available with New Ultra Light Arms rifles.

Melvin Forbes originally designed them specifically for his rifles, and had them made by another company. My wife got a NULA in .270 Winchester in the early 90's and I mounted a Bausch & Lomb 2-7x on it in Melvin's rings, the worked up a load with 130-grain Nosler Partitions that shot VERY well.

For the next 10 years Eileen would go to the range before each fall hunting season and shoot one shot at a 100-yard target, which would land dead-center, 2" high. Then she'd go hunting. The rifle did that every year for a decade, and her hunting included airplane trips, boat rides, and a lot of climbing up and down mountains. The ONLY reason the rifle didn't stay sighted in after a decade of hard hunting is the scope finally went bad.

Eventually the company that made Melvin's rings went under, and he approached Talley. They said they'd make Melvin's ring if they could also make 'em for other rifles. I've used Talley Lightweights on lots of rifles since, including several NULA's, and never had any problem. If you mount them straight (one of D'Arcy Echols mounting bars helps), there's no need to lap them.

If people really, truly believe aluminum mounts don't work and want gthe strongest steel rings possible, I would either go with one of the many good, heavy-duty tactical rings out there from a number of companies, or follow Safariman's advice and buy rifles with integral bases. I've had very fine luck with both CZ and Ruger rifles and steel rings, in fact they've worked just as well as Talley Lightweights.

Again, Talley makes steel rings. I am definitely a proponent of the vertical split rings. Evidently Talley was too.

I see no reason to use anything other than the Talley lightweights. With the base and lower ring made in one piece I cannot possiby see how 2 separate pieces of steel attached together by any method would be stronger. Especially the windage adjustable and dovetail systems.

Even if it were, the scope is going to fail long before the mounts.

I've used mostly Talley aluminum lwt's for the last 8+ years... never a problem and have had close to 2 dozen on a variety of rifles.

My favorite ring/base combo, hands-down. In fact, just ordered another set for an M70 this afternoon...

Can't see gumping-up a rifle with anything else unless you happen to want a QR ring, or want a little lower mounting than the Talley Lwt's give...

A few of us mentioned the talley lightweights...

Even swampy can see thru that BS.....

Given that the OP has stated that he wants STEEL rings and that he dislikes aluminum rings then the recommendations for the IMO superb Talley LW's is a moot point.

Once again, S&K. As a bonus they are not much heavier than Talley LW's either and look FAR better.

Personally I think S&K's are ugly, but to each his own.

nsaqam,

The reason a lot of people have mentioned Talley Lightweights despite the OP saying he wants steel is because they know his assumption that aluminum mounts are ALWAYS weaker than steel is BS.

I have also run into a bunch of people who firmly believe one-piece steel bases are far stronger than 2-piece bases. This isn't true, because 1-piece bases typically use 3 screws, while 2-piece bases use 4 screws. And the screws are the weak point of any scope base.

Similarly, a mount system that does away with the base/ring connection is stronger, whether the connection is avoided by attaching the rings directly to the receiver (as in Ruger and CZ) or attaching the bottom of the ring directly to the receiver, as in Talley Lightweights.

Hideous.



But you're right, to each his own

With this I wholeheartedly agree.

They make a Hubble look even worse

WOW, never heard of a 40mm Conquest referred to as a Hubble but the pic certainly does make it look like one.

Absolutely....

So far I've got a few rings to look into that I've never used/ heard of before.

My dislike for aluminum rings spawns from stripped screws, and bent rings... Not during use but during installation/removal. Personally I've never had any luck with them. Not trying to say they are weaker or starting anything... Just saying personally I prefer steel.

S&K will most likely be my next ring purchase. I like a company that stands behind their product.

S&K site

I have used S&K mounts for years, great product, and excellent customer service.

Nightforce Ultralight or Badger.

There are a lot of durable, life time capable rings made of both aluminum and steel out there.
Depending on application some have merit over others.
Blanket condemnation based on material type show the thinker likely has other areas to beef up first.

Near Mfg. Richard Near manufactures functional art. His Alpha units may not be stronger than all the others, but I doubt any are stronger than his system either.

Brad- I looked at the S&K but cannot tell how they lock down the scope? Can't tell from the sight and have not seen complete pics of them. Yours look nice. For now I am pretty sold on Talley but am open minded.

Not a fan of the look of vertical rings. It is like the rifle got a mohawk!

S&K use a steel strap with projections on the bottom. You wrap the rings around the scope and stick those projections in the bases. Opposing cone point set screws in the bases are then screwed in squeezing the ring projections together securing the scope.

That's exactly why I replied the way I did. But it appear that he's already made his mind up.

Well I used just about every kind of mount going since I started shooting 50 + years ago. I like several of the ones mentioned. But if I decide that I can't live with out an Blaser R-8. I think I am going to break with tradition, and go with a Rail Mounts rather than rings. Warnes and Talleys are my favorites. Thou I used a lot of Sako's on a number of sako rifles I owned in including a Sako 75 in 338. The key is having the mounts properly installed, not every Joe two thumbs at the gun shop can do that. Most all the scope mount problems I have seen were not due to the mount but to poor installation.

S&K, Conetrol or steel Talleys are all nicer steel rings and good choices, IMO. I like the S&Ks for their combination of strength, looks and lightweight.

I've had several pairs of Talley LWs, still have one on a 223, and mine have worked OK. Friends have had them break though, and that definitely makes me less inclined to put them on a 'serious' rifle. OMMV...

I agree, also if the bridge of the receiver is not properly machined and things are out of alignment you may have problems with the talley lightweights....but that is definately not the fault of the talley system, it's the cheap azz rifle you are puting them on!!

Customized Winchesters and Remingtons, fully trued. In the case of the M70s, bridges surface ground true. Cheap? OK.

I have and have had most all the steel rings mentioned in this thread. And I have a few rifles with Talley Lightweights and a few with Burris Signatures.
But for me Leupold Dual Dovetails are my favorite all steel ring and base system. Just simple, snag free sleek, and super strong.

I must be gettin' really old. I still like my Tildens.

I've never had a problem so wtf is yours? You are doing something wrong.....

So, Talleys live long lives on box stock Rem 700 receivers the world over, but "break" on "fully trued" Winchester and Remingtons...OK.

I don't think we are improperly installing our rings/bases, but maybe. I'm not gonna pretend I know it all or just because I haven't seen something, it doesn't happen.

No formal gun smithing education here. I just read all I can on subjects of interest and try to use the right tools for a given job. I have alignment/lapping rods and torque screws per specs. Still possible that I have done it wrong? Sure is. I've never seen or had any other ring/base combo actually break though. And that's happened twice with the LWs now. Does that mean the other will never fail, because I've never personally seen it or had it happen? Of course not...

The OP asked about steel rings/bases, I shared my opinions and experiences with the different options and mentioned the LWs because they had been previously. Everybody has different needs, requirements, experiences and expectations. Nothing personal. If you like Talley LWs and they work for you... Good, I'm happy for you! Keep using them... They work for lots of guys and that's great! But for us and how our rifles get hunted, we prefer other options now.

Cheers!

That's a picture of my rifle and the mount I's choose without question for a durable go anywhere anytime rifle.

They work great on my box stock Winchester model 70's as well. That guy needs to change smiths and buy better rifles (just for starters)....Just sayin..

There are a lot of ring/base combinations out there that are pretty much bulletproof and will last a lifetime. The simplest and best looking to me is the leupold dual dovetail, put them on properly and lap the bottom half and you'll never have to worry about them again. However, that could be said about several other systems also. Dual dovetails are readily available, look good, and reasonably priced, there's nothing not to like. As Mule Deer said the weak point on most mounts is the screws. If you really want it bombproof I think an investment in having a good gunsmith drill and tap to 8-40 is wise.

I've used the talley lightweights before and will again, they're nice rings, just a bit ugly. However, to say they're the strongest is probably stretching it a bit. I haven't had it happen, but there have been enough posters with pictures here of talley lightweights that have broken, all in the same place, to convince me that there is a weak point in them. Are they likely to break? No, they probably won't, but if you want bombproof then I don't think they're it. I doubt you could break a leupold dual dovetail without destroying the scope too. You might break the screws but it would take something pretty extraordinary to break the rings or bases themselves.

I like Leupold's Dual Dovetail mounts very much and have several sets. I bought my first set for a 340 that kept shearing the windage screw on the STD's close to 30 years ago now. My only complaint with them is that is you swap rifles and scopes a bit as I have been prone to do, the dovetails will wear out and become loose to the point the rings will move in them. Not a great thing, so I switched to PRW's which are strong nd easy to swap, but heavy. About 3 or 4 years ago I tried NEAR and have believe them to be excellent.

I don't recall anyone saying they are the strongest. That would be ludacrous...

Lots of things work great, until they don't... Just sayin'... I suspect what you expect from your gear and rifles and what I put mine through and expect are worlds apart. Mine spend a bunch of weeks out of a year banging around in a saddle scabbard, and as much or more time strapped to a pack.

Oh, the smith and rifles are just fine. They aren't Echols or Penrod rifles, but our smith is very well known and respected. He is a regular contributor here on 24HCF.

Nobody's saying your beloved Talley LWs are junk, they are a reasonable value, IMO. Just that they aren't the best thing going. Don't take it too personal boys!

You're not supposed to separate the rings and bases of dovetail setups once they've been mated, they're a one shot deal. Once they've been put together you leave them as one. So yea, if you turn them out several times they are going to loosen up, but that's not the way they're designed to be used.

Exactly my point.

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention Ruger's system and the like.

For me that is the simple choice. For other rifles I'll take Leupold DD or Warne's

Seems I opened a can of worms here.

I do like the ruger rings, m77, no 1, couple 77/22 77/17's....

Any body notice the ring screws on the ruger are a bit weaker than others?. Like the leupold... Ruger ring screw torque recommendation 20 - 24... Leupold ring screw recommendation 28...

If the thread title, "The Best/Most durable lifetime steel scope rings", is taken without qualifiers, then the mounts made by David Lloyd for his rifles are without equal.

Lloyd built the mounts individually for each rifle he produced, mostly on M98s and Sakos, with the majority of rifles chambered for the .244 H&H, a cartridge he developed and sold to H&H. The mounts were so strong that they warped the action a bit.

Unfortunately, you have to buy a rifle to get a mount. (Bill Ruger and Roy Weatherby owned David Lloyd rifles.) Wikipedia has an entry for David Lloyd, riflemaker.

Below is a photo of a Lloyd rifle with a Lloyd mount: Steel! Very durable! Lifetime!

The image is from a rifle for sale in Scotland by precisionrifles.com. gunstar.co.uk usually has some David Lloyd rifle listed.

--Bob

-did not notice this being mentioned but Coach says he torques his rings to spec. what spec.? many peopld overtighten rings and crush scope tubes/strip threads