Yesterday I missed a relatively easy shot at a coyote and spent last night trying to determine whether it was an equipment problem or an operator error. The rifle is a 2011 NULA 20B in 308. What I found was that the lower portion of the front Talley lightweight scope mount was cracked completely through lengthwise. I always use my 1/4" Armstrong torque wrench to install scope mounts and did so on this rifle (25 in/lbs for the bases). Has anyone else had this problem with the Talley's?

I've seen pics here of the top half breaking in half and always assumed too much torque. Do you have a pic? I'd love to see it. My guess is that a call to Melvin will get hou a replacement. If that fails, I'd call Talley. They'd probably like to know as well.

I've taken a couple of pictures and can email them to you. If you want to post them to the Campfire, that is ok as well. I've had trouble with photo bucket the last couple of times and don't have the time right now to wade through that process.

I'll talk to Melvin on Monday, but posted mostly to get an understanding if this is something that has happened to others. I have the LWs on my ULA 28 (300 WSM) and my Forbes (30-06). However, I'll give up the small weight loss gain for something absolutely reliable.

My email address is [email protected]

Ken

I cracked a top ring on a set of Talley's. They ain't bullet proof for sure.

Have had several top ring caps pop. Light, yes. Absolutely reliable, no.

They belong on 270's










:-)

You buy cheap you get cheap. What do you expect for $40?

Pay for the good Talley stuff & you'll have good stuff.

I guess I thought all Talley stuff was "good stuff".

"You know they're made of the same aircraft grade aluminum as the landing gear on Jet Aircraft"... No, actually they are not... Though I remember one "gun writer" who repeated that little gem like a bobblehead anytime the Talley LWTs were brought up. He was corrected by an actual aircraft engineer, on this site, a few years back. Would mention a name, however, he frequents this site AND does not take kindly to being seen as anything but THE authority on such matters...

Makes me wonder how much "common knowledge" is repeated claptrap, with those in the know not taking the time to set the record straight. Lest they ruffle sacred cow type feathers and argue with idiots. BTDT...

People actually commenting on their own area of expertise. Damn, what a concept. It may catch on but I doubt it...

Regards, Matt.

fwiw,
The UPSIDE to this is that you can contact either Melvin Forbes OR Dave Talley. I've met and dealt with both through the years. It would be awfully difficult to say who is the greater Gentleman. Both are a PLEASURE to deal with and talk to... To say nothing of carrying product support to a pseudo religion. Great ambassadors of the shooting sports...imho

Regards, Matt.

I've had two crack on one of the top threads similar to jds44's. They were on a rifle that was abused though, spending a lot of time on a tractor and atv...it took a beating and had nothing to do with recoil. I can say one pair showed no change of zero but didn't test the other.

I still have several rifles that wear TLW's, but generally go with DNZ's if I'm buying now.

I've had one crack. Still have a set on one rifle that's been great for years. Unless ultra light is the ultimate goal I would use other alternatives.

I've had the top half crack twice and a buddy recently had a couple of screw heads pop off.

Clint....Do you still use them?? Or are you going with something else now??

I still use them but dont get a warm fuzzy feeling. Mine broke years ago. Just when I started feeling more comfortable my buddy had a few screw heads snap off. Threads like this make it worse.

I have quite a few and use them exclusively now unless it's more of a long-range or tactical rifle. I don't like to use them unless I buy them new and I'm the one torqueing the screws. You never know what a previous owner has done.

Weaver bases and their classic steel rings for under $30. Good luck destroying those. Only problem I've seen with this "cheap" setup is trying to get the Weaver roll just right or the thumb-screw working loose. Locktight solves that last problem.

257,

Any idea if the Talley failures are related to a certain vintage of rings, or are they all susceptible?

Thanks,

Jason

Jason,

No idea. I've got older Talley Ltwt's on ULA's with the hex screws instead of Torx, and I haven't had any problems. I've had good luck with all of them, but I'm careful about NOT over-tightening my screws. Not saying the rings are not at fault......but I've never had a failure. I'd guess that I've used 30 or so sets over the years.

I'll second that. Talley took care of me one time when I had an application problem. Melvin answers his phone when you call......or used to. And they'll both take care of their customers.

Proven, albeit heavier, alternatives:

Kill it with Millett

Not a fan of Leupold PRS, but I've used them. Warne I've used, too....but no longer a fan. The DD mounts/rings I like.

Wreck it with Weaver!

For a bombproof non-QR system it's hard to go wrong with leupold dual dovetails.

I don't see the fascination with Talley rings. I bought a set after reading about them on this forum and I was extremely disappointed. I highly doubt I'll ever buy them again. I'd rather have scope rings such as the Burris rings that are a few ounces heavier(probably won't even notice once on the gun.) And have a ring that is 10x the quality

Not so...I had a set on a XP-100 in 35 Remington that the dovetail sheared off. Nothing is 100% fail proof

I'm assuming Steely is being a bit sarcastic here, but I have actually had very good luck with the Angle-Loc rings. I have them on a couple of slug guns and they have held up fine. Conversely, I have witnessed the Millett turn-in rings fail miserably.

I have always been under the impression that Talley Lightweights were a high grade mounting system. They have always worked well for me. Hopefully, this failure is just a one off event.

Millet Angle Locks are the only ring I have every had absolutely fail. Junk, at best.

Anymore, my go to is a Weaver or Picatinny base and Burris Zee rings. I have had, and like, Talley LWs in the past, and they worked find. I just like the weaver/Pic setup better.

Perhaps the reason I have not had a problem with Angle-Locs is that mine are all 20-25 years old. I would not buy them today.

Very possibly, but I think the entire design is faulty. There simply isnt a large enough bearing surface gripping the rail to make me confident. Even before the set I had actually failed, I was in a constant fight to keep them anchored. When I finally got them tight enough to stay zeroed, I had torqued the ever loving piss out of them.

I'm surprised all of mine aren't cracked. Finally bought a torque wrench and was a little shocked at how much I over did it.

Yep. I had some on a 25/06. Groups went to hell. Fuggers cracked....

Weaver actually makes some nice stuff, are usually cheaper than comparable Leupold or Burris, and many are Made In USA (beware of blister packs sold in big box stores), but don't get mentioned much. They just don't offer these in a low profile ring.

I saw a top cap on a set of Talley LW break on one of Karnis' rifles a few years ago. It looked like a bad casting with porosity. Talley are great folks to work with. I had a set come with two rear mounts in the package. They fixed me up quick.

No expert on this stuff, but wouldn't these tend to clamp squarely upon themselves, moreso than the dovetail? The Warne designed rings, both the Maximas and the Leupolds, are superior in detail. It's likely some have broken too, and like Talley, they'll stand by their product. I'd like to see a Talley LW style ringmount made from steel.

Talley(steel) fixed rings and bases. Much better looking and virtually bomb proof.

Problem solved,

Leftybolt

Finally, somebody got it right..........

When I bought my M700 SS Mtn rifle in 1993, I put the Uncle Mike's of Oregon labeled Talley's on it (had not heard of Talley's yet). Two weeks prior to elk season, one of the top caps of the Talley's broke across the screw hole. I didn't use a torque screwdriver, but knowing they were aluminum I was very careful not to stretch the threads too much.

Weaver bases and Burris Zee rings have been the lightest, reliable setup I've found so far.

Casey

I am a commercial user and I use a lot of Talley light weight rings on about everything other than heavy long range rigs and have never had a problem. I only torque the caps to 14 inch pounds and the base to the receiver to 18inch pounds. A light weight 300 Wby is one of the sharpest recoiling rigs around and they hold fine even with a 6.5-20x50 30mm scope.

Nothing will wreck and aluminum part quicker than over torqueing.

Speaking of torque, this screwdriver is it! Never seen any mention of it here but it is the way go.

http://www.kctoolco.com/wiha-adjustable-torquevario-10-50-in-lbs-p/28506.htm

You will need this quarter inch adapter.

http://www.kctoolco.com/wiha-bit-holder-adaptor-blade-for-1-4-bits-p/28581.htm

Yes , my numbers a bit higher I use but not much , and I do not tighten one than move to the others I progressively tighten like a lug pattern on a car/truck and never had a problem.

Anything mechanical can break. The marketplace is full of options which benefits the consumer.

Fat Wrenches are a joke until you buy one. Had a smith suggest that torquing action screws is like tuning a guitar. Makes sense to me.

I agree, Fat Wrenches are a joke. Thats when I landed on the Wiha.

What problems did you have with the FW?

16bore, my apologies, I didn't mean that the way it sounded. I missed the part where you said "until you buy one", inferring you liked them. My original intention was to agree with you. Even so, I went away from the fat wrenches because the scale is ballpark at best. Try to set it on 18lbs and you'll see what I mean. It is not precise enough for my taste. Is it better than nothing? Heck yeah! Much better.

FE maynot be as precise as some bit far better than 6 pack and bubba wrench

@ctsmith


Gotcha. Im always after a better mousetrap for sure. The scale is a tad wide on the FW. I'll admit, I never took tourque values seriously and snugged everything farmer tight. Not anymore. I was pretty shocked at how heavy handed I'd been in my stuff once I started messing with the thing. Had to eat a little crow too. Crow tastes better when groups are improved.

I do think that the difference in bases being 18# or 20# might be insignificant as long as they are all the same. But that's a guess.

Commercial USER here too and then some.(grin)

Now I've never seen a Safe Queen Fluff Rifle "break" a component or "wear" something out,so consider the facts of my actual trigger time and that of gents I run with "jaded",should it make the pill easier to swallow. Great time for Window Lickers to scroll on.

Hint.

I'm not gonna [bleep] LW's,despite my having broken multiple sets. I like the little bastards and simplicity has long been appreciated by me. Pards are of a like mindset and EVERY one of 'em that Shoots/Hunts more than a smidge,has broken at least one set too. Hint.

None of those failures were atop Boomers,as I know noone who fields one so configured. Hint.

It is IMPOSSIBLE For me to "forget" the bajillions of rounds expended and thousands of miles of transit,along with copious bumps/bruises associated with a decades long run of DD satisfactions,less a SINGLE failure of any type. Their sole lamentation,is that 30mm DD Signature rings went the way of the Dinosaur,which sucks heavy ass.

Mull them facts,as you please.

In objective overview,I reckon most of The Troops are gonna go Retro and re-rock DD's as a default...though there is some smitten with DNZ,but I cain't stomach the trite ring spacing.............




(a 'CUBIC Addendum)

Increased ring spacing/max spacing available on a tube,is the single greatest cookie you can toss a scope for both rugged/reliability and zero retention.

Have been around lotsa DNZ and they all suck heavy ass in that department,so are given a wide berth due that constant.

If/when they attain their first clue and nip same,I'll ride that train.

Perfection(and an extry 75MOA)...if only for conversation.




Perfection.



Perfection.



Extended front DD Cookie.



I hate rails,but sometimes you just gotta. Rifle on far right of frame,has inherent advantages going in,due that spacing.



No DNZ's for me.............

The spacing hasn't bitten me yet and I like the 1 piece setup but DNZ is making a Talley-like two piece mount that (I assume) can be reversed to play with spacing. I think they make them in both 1 and 2 screws per ring. I've not used them but it's nice to have options:

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/30...mington-700-howa-1500-weatherby-vanguard

Big Boxer, do you prefer the Signatures (inserts)? Ever had any Signatures slip?

I'm thinking the 2 piece will give you the ability to reverse for wider berth... Don't swear them off yet. Guess I need to order some of the two piece DNZ's to find out.

Jay, I can't get past the cheesy "DNZ" stamp on the top half.

I'm not much of one to focus on looks but would be happy to do without the ring-top-tramp-stamp...

I'm trying to get there

Yes, aluminium castings in particular don't have much ductility, so overdo the torque and you are apt to get a fracture that looks just like the one pictured earlier in this thread.

When I purchase the Talleys I also purchased a torque screw driver. It was a real eye opener to realize how lightly I was tightening bases and rings.

What Ringman said IIRC they only call for 17 in/lbs where most others are 25. Got two sets no issues so far. ..

Shooter 1-"Yeah, had a scope ring snap on me, blah, blah, blah."

Shooter 2- " Hear that alot. They're junk. Stupid Tasco rings".

Shooter 1- "Actually it was a Talley".

Shooter 2- "Oh man, those are awesome rings!"


Go figure. In my book, gear that lets you down is junk, I don't care who makes it. Between pinch marks and broken rings, why would you use Talleys when it's easy to avoid them?

This. I've use the LWTs for a very long time and have never had an issue, apart from one shearing off a base screw, but that was due the rifle taking a very bad fall. It certainly wasn't the fault of the rings, which are still doing their job on that particular rifle. And all the kudos here on Talley's customer service are well-earned, in my experience.

I've had the same basic experience, and have been using Talley Lightweights since before they were made by Talley, since they originated as the rings melvin Forbes designed for his original Ultra Light Arms rifles in 1985.

Dunno how many rifles I've had them on, but it's at least a dozen, many used for pretty rough hunting. They've also traveled all over the world in airliners, float planes, small boats, safari trucks and saddle scabbards. Haven't marked up a scope yet, either.

There's probably a reason they have recommended torque values.

Update: I talked to Melvin and he quickly sent me a new base. Just part of his normal great customer service. He also asked that I send him the cracked base, which is now on the way to WV.

Talley calls for 20-25 in/lbs of torque on the base screws and 15-20 in/lbs on the rings.

'smith,

The Signatures add surface area to ring/tube interface,which always adds the warm/fuzzy. They are concentric like a bastard and malleable to boot,which also adds to the warm fuzzy. The bastards bite and that is the best of news.

Downside is the schit fasteners Burris uses(especially on Zee's) and I've broken more than a few of 'em. The eccentrics are the strong suit,their surroundings their weakest link...typical Burris SCHIT.

ALL rings should wear eccentrics,for both increased scope life,as well as the reliable arrangement of mechanically centering windage and maximizing elevation erector travel.

I've had base/ring designs in my melon for decades and should apply same,some day...as noone does it right..............










'oz,

I've puked 'em at multiple torque value(s).

Hint...............










Ringman,

You are reliably amongst THE dumbest of fhuqks.

Wow............










'303,

Do tell about the "rigors" imparted both sets.

Laughing!.............










'ball2,

You couldn't knock the new offa used pair of boots,with a tailwind and a downhill head start.

Pretend ain't real Sweetheart,no matter much you Imagine it to be.

Hint............










'Windage,

It is seldom that I contact a Manufacturer,post puke...and the thought would never cross my mind on something that has a sub 40 Clam Entry Fee.

Most are in a hurry to mount schit wrong and then [bleep] the Manufacturer,after the fact.

LW's is farrrrrrrrrrrr more concentric,than most OEM receivers.

Hint...............










MD,

I've multiple dozens of LW's and have noticed several constants through the years...none of which are LW specific,nor close.

1) Rifle shoot LOOSE,they do not tighten. Hint

2) Round count tells the true tale. Hint

3) Padded case travel,don't test anything. Hint

4) Tough weather and atmospheric conditions,do metals(all of 'em) NO favors. Hint

Due their design and metallurgy,LW's will reliably fail before many others and that fact ain't disparaging,but rather an objective overview of reality.

Granted...most will never begin to tax the system,but them who shoot more than a smidge and in tough conditions,will certainly fail same. Off the top of my head,I think I've only broken (3) of 'em in 100's of 1000's of rounds and 100's and 100's inches of moisture. Including both 6-48 and 8-40 fasteners(700 and Montucky bases). Though in fairness,I break/wear alotta schit out. Hint.

Again,I'm simply reflecting upon water which has passed under the bridge and prefer LW's to many mounting systems,but could not cite them as being the most rugged system I've ever fielded.

Just sayin'.

Hint.............










'bore,

ALL Arms Manufacturers vehemently recommend NOT shooting Reloads too and go so far as to waive all "rights" if done.

Shooting reveals things,that not shooting....simply won't/can't/don't. I've seen farrrrrrr more failures due loosetitude,than I have tightitude and rest assured,results have ALWAYS interested me.

Hint.....................









'ger,

Shooting daily,is the warmest AND fuzziest of preventive measures.

Schit pukes.

Hint.................






('dendum)

RDW,

I like the way you think.(grin)

I'd go further with integral base/rings that wore eccentrics and had inclination both...along with maximized spacing betwixt rings.

Have had an AMAZINGLY fantastic round of weather here and it's been sensational for LR Rimfire Fun. Had a pard fighting mad a coupla days ago,as we were stretching things out,because he was Hungchow in regards to both erector travel and subtension and I still had a coupla 100yds to go on my Anschutz 54. Other pard in tow,was tooled in accordance on his 54,as I was and actually eeked a red kchunt hair more erector travel,than I. I had 38.5 Mils on the erector and 10 on the glass.from a 50yd zero and he had 40.5 and 10,at like distance,with like fodder,though my barrel is exactly 50fps and shorter to boot.(grin)



The top 54 in the McMillan T-hole Sillywet is KING,due the speed advantage(40's at 1290fps on the nose) and the 75MOA 1913 rail/10x Fixed Fhuqker melding. I can reach the 750yd line with it.

Middle one is a short range turd,due the 25MOA 1913 and 3.5-10x MK4 M1 Jarhead 'Dots. I had extrey,extrey,extry 75MOA 1913 rails,but the glass needs swapped out to utilize same and retain a 50yd zero,less being forced to hold under to arrange same. Plus he was slumming Eley EPS at 1100fps on the nose,so had ZERO chance. I had a full 250yds on him(he only 90MOA total all in on the erector and reticle),which is a bitter pill to swallow,but I did my best not to bring it up more than about every 30 fhuqking seconds.(grin)

Bottom rifle wears 75MOA rail/10x Fixed Fhuqker,but spits schit slower than mine,as mentioned(same lot).

Last flight of The MK4.(grin)



Being mechanically centered on windage,is the ONLY way to realize max erector latitude and lotsa folks are in a hurry to miss that point too.

One of these days I'll buy a lathe and mill,to finally make some GOOD schit that connects ALL the dots.

In fairness,his Hummer was The Hummer KING and the 18" Lilja spout(22" as issued,but he bucked it back) really stacked 'em in there,with only 21.5 Mils remaining on the erector and 10 on the windshield...it'd still reach the 800yd line with 17 V-Max. Great news,as it gives me reason to build another rifle.(grin) Torn on converting my Anschutz 1827 non-Fortner to Hummer or building a Full Out Dirty Duty Bitch on a 77/22. Decisions,decisions.



LOTSA voids in the Mounting Market,but I've yet to accuse a fhuqking Bean Counter of having a fhuqking clue..................(grin)










'ball,

Is this where you wax eloquent on the SWEET "satisfactions" that are your's,due the fact that Stupidity is THE gift that keeps on fhuqking giving?!?

You poor poor Clueless Kchunt.

Wow...............










MD,

1) I've shot away no more than (4) barrels on a sole receiver slated to LW's. Probably shoulda kept track through the years,how many barrels total,as it'd be an intellesting tidbit.

2) Never lost a bet big enough,to be forced to slum a Pony. Hoping my Luck continues.

I've broken alotta schit,in alotta ways and it's a constant Theme,that my wares look like they mighta even been used a smidge.

3) I've seen some rather impressive Yard Sales and a rifle don't take a lick,in a good case.

4) I've been rather lucky with LW's myself,given the countless hours and countless rounds of exposure and but a few failures accrued upon a goodly sized herd of Hard Use Rifles...which is why I couldn't begin to [bleep] 'em. Though I can certainly state,that they ain't THE Grail for rugged reliability,let alone even close.

I've a hunch,that I've prolly more than a few sets yet on Active Duty. Were they S/S...they'd NEVER have a failure,if only for starters.

There ain't too Many Mounting systems I've not got or haven't shot and far and away THE most ruggedly reliable for their weight,is DD's. Weld 'em to the receiver and hell...they become Legendary.

Though I did shoot that rifle to destruction and actually cracked the bolt...............




PS and by the way,if only as an aside.

Light Rifles are tougher than Pigs,due their lesser mass conjuring less inertia,in a spill. That when talking like mounting systems.

If I drove Pigs as much as I do Light Done Right Rifles...I'd have farrrrrrrrr more failures.

Hint............

Yeah, like Burris Signaure and Z's in LOW and rails that are half the thickness of what the market offers.

The good news is I'm not on campfire parole so I can post as much bullscheit as I want. How 'bout you?

Stick,

Always interesting to read your comments. Here are a few more of mine:

1)Some of our rifles with Talley LWT�s are on their second barrel, but still have the same mounts. The cartridges have ranged up to .375 H&H class, and the rifles have broken many scopes, but not the mounts.

2) A leather scabbard tied to the side of a horse is not a padded case, and neither is being slung next to a packframe, whether empty or full of meat. Have gone through a rodeo, and fallen while hiking mountains, where scopes were banged and dented and even bent, while the rings remained intact.

3) Even hard-sided padded cases do not prevent rifle damage when tossed around by airline baggage handlers, especially in Third-World countries.

4) Our Talley-equipped rifles have seen a few �conditions� here and there, including bouncing around in open boats (sometimes in saltwater, including coastal British Columbia, the Arctic Ocean, Hudson�s Bay, and yes, even Alaska), elevation changes from sea level to 10,000 feet, and -30 to 100+ Fahrenheit in plenty of rain and snow. We don�t spend as much time in the rain as you do, but have been soaked more than once, here and there.

Maybe we�ve been lucky over the past 25+ years of using LWT�s, but if so I�ll continue to play the odds.

Don't recall any claims of rigorous use what I was getting at is I've mounted two sets without stripping or breaking anything by going easy on the torque. But seeing as your asking SFA to speak of both sets < a year old and they're sitting on 260s. Couple hundred rounds thru one set at nearby range maybe 3 through the other which has been hunted with a bit maybe a dozen times with no endos or other mishaps.

Here's a hamfisted pucker sandwich...

What's the story on that?? Yours?

Yup. Farmer tight.

Unless you're referring to the 135 SMK's. Those are mine too. What can I say, I like 270's....

Add me to the list. I was sitting on the deer stand yesterday morning and casually touched my front ring and noticed some of the screws were loose. I kept looking at it and figured out that the front ring was broken on one side. I got to looking at it more closely back ring was cracked too.

I can't figure out what happened. The rifle went from my safe to my truck and as far as I know, it was not dropped or anything. The only think I can figure is that it spent the night in the truck and the temps were in the lower 20s. Maybe it got cold and brittle.

Plain old Weavers sure aren't as pretty, but they are just about a light and dead nuts reliable.

Those are nice, too. Haha.

I'm sure there's been tons in colder weather conditions that have not broken. How much torque and are you going to throw a 30-30 as a backup in the truck next time??

I don't know how much torque but they had been fine for the last ten years, so I wasn't really expecting them to break now. And I always carry a 30-30 in the truck.

I am not claiming they are superior to any other ring out there but the product is sound. There is nothing wrong with the Talley light weight ring design or materials. Both are first rate as is their satisfaction guarantee.

If you have a ring cracked as shown above I can be almost 100% assured they were over tightened sometime in their lifetime. On any ring, if you are seeing pinch marks you are exceeding the design limitations by a long ways. I think the torque spec Talley supplies is kind of high. I have good luck with them at using the low end of their recommendations.

Over tightening is the number one error I find with scope mounting. A few years ago I was speaking with a friend who was design engineer at Leupold and he said that was the number one cause of tracking errors on returned scopes.

That Wiha torque screwdriver is an excellent product. Any torque wrench is better guessing.

Speaking of tightening...

Found and old LW from a 10/22 that the base mounting holes were goofed up, so I figured we'd play a bit. Using a 19mm socket as my "scope" (measures 1.04") I grabbed the fat wench and tried to blow the top half. Started at 20# and at 45# the first head popped. 50# a few more popped and drive bits started coming apart. Found a hairline crack that seems to be skin deep. Put the top in a vice and gave it a squeeze and it's still not broken. Recesses aren't puckered either. I wouldn't hesitate to use it. You can see the line above the bit.



Actually tougher than I thought.

Very impressive! Interesting that the bottom half holes didn't strip out. Check JoeBob's hypothesis and stick it in the freezer overnight and do the vise test again.......just for fun.

Running outta T-15's

I won't mention hunting 2 seasons with a rear that was only finger tight...

Ummmmmm......That sounds like a personal problem to me.

Steels often show a transition to brittle behaviour at low temperatures (depending on the alloy), but aluminum alloys generally don't perform much different at cryogenic temperatures compared to room temperature.

Maybe that mount just took a bump, without you noticing.

'303,

The "particulars" of your "rigors" was even fhuqking funnier than I factored and I was weighing the humor quotient HEAVILY! It is a right proper Dichotomy that your year's worth of "use",is what we call a morning's jaunt in these parts. Perspective of course being everything and one of many reasons,why you couldn't critique ANYTHING. Hint.

You are always going to do better,by shutting the fhuqk up,taking notes and applying same. If only due the fact that someone who "does" as "much" as you,is certainly in no position to be answering questions...as you NEED to be asking them.

Thank me later.

Hint.

Laughing!

And if only to cheer you up,I've managed a touch better than 4000rds of centerfire this pass alone and just how many decades is that,for you?!? Do tell. PLEASE do not let the cat get your tongue,nor the couch your kchunt. Hint.

Re-laughing!

Wow +P+...............










'bore,

I've failed 'em in numerous ways and always aboard modest recoiling Dirty Duty Rifles,that see copious time afield and obnoxious round counts. Have puked more than a few fasteners too,but when citing an LW failure,I'm talking something structural puked in regards to the ring proper.

I smoked al least (2) sets of LW's on my Ti 7-08 and maybe 3...but cain't recall for certain,so will attribute only a brace.



Though in fairness,there ain't too much schit I don't break. But in fairness,I can't know anyone who schleps a rifle as often as I,let alone shoots as much...so I've got "unfair" advantages in puking schit.(grin)






Hard Use do schit to thangs.

10/22's are great at eating both mounting systems and glass and I'd NEVER try to make an LW "work" there,as it ain't in the cards...and I've better than a dozen a 10/22's.

AMT came close to getting it right,with their integral dovetail,but they need D&T'd for security. Conjoined with a 25MOA 1913 rail and you make nice gains,that will stay put. 75MOA would of course be warmer and fuzzier...but it is,what it is.

A Bob rail overshoots the integral dovetail and a coupla holes keep all from walking..........












'Bob,

Seen it multiple times...but we don't get the temp swings.(grin)..............










HG,

Had (2) pards fail 'em this year on Critters(Dall Sheep and Caribou),both having to resort to using a back-up rifle that their partners were schlepping(nice when everyone is gunning GOOD schit).

I think the boys know their way around rifles,more than a smidge. Laughing!

DD's are coming back in force,simply due the LW Puke Rate as NOONE has ever puked a DD. Dump an extended front on it,to maximize ring spacing and glass lasts better too. Give a thunk to eccentrics mechanically centering windage,shim as one pleases to bolster erector travel and "luck" starts to happen in non-lineal fashion by literal default. 50+ MOA of erector travel on the otherside of a 162's 250yd zero at 2850fps launch,will cover some real estate and nip atmospheric conditions. Hint.

[img]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/841/jdkd.jpg[/img]

Hint.

But I'm talking folks who actually shoot and knock the new offa schit and go through alotta barrels.

Re-hint.

Things like Marty's 20MOA double-lugged/clipslotted 1913 rail are purty warm and purty fuzzy,in their ability to not budge and fend abuse.

[img]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/196/jql4.jpg[/img]

Ring spacing,ring spacing and ring spacing are the biggest cookies you can toss a scope's longevity/reliability.

[img]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/538/lOIGsa.jpg[/img]

Just saying.

Good talk.

Laughing!................










'oz,

Steel mounts,don't break like alloy mounts.

Unless you are talking chickenschit fhuqking CZ JUNK.(grin)

[img]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/855/fb2k.jpg[/img]

To the chagrin of Window Lickers everywhere,spent primers remain THE Supreme Tutorial and will reliably reveal more than a smidge.

Hint.

Hell...it's easy for me to say,if only because I got it all and LW's are light years away from being the pinnacle of rugged reliability.

Would LOVE to see 'em in S/S and wearing an extended front option,for max ring spacing...................







(Addendum):

Joe Average is CLUELESS as you attest. I do not know a single soul who schleps the Weavers you cite,though I've more than a few kicking around and they are utter dog schit.

Hint.................

Likely solution is to get Weaver standard detachable top mount rings. Not sure if it's just me but it seems most hunters who can shoot and bring home the meat use simple Weaver bases and rings.

BS: 10/22 hard on scopes?+ Wow I guess we must use different optics?

You had a SS fixed fail on a 10.22 Laffin

Now I have an air rifle.

He must be thinking about air guns that rely on heavy spring tension for pellet propulsion. Those are notoriously brutal on scopes. Beeman used to sell scopes that could withstand those two stage vibrations.

This is very interesting. I have never seen someone with both Weaver bases and Weaver rings in Oregon. The animals here are, therefore, safe from the hunters.

Nope.....I mean....yea. Air guns are hard on scopes. But so are 10/22's. Had a Leupold 3.5-10x fail and started to research it. You two might do the same.

I don't know anybody that uses them, either. The Weaver Grand Slam steel bases and steel rings were good....but not sure that they make them any more.

10/22 ain't no bolt gun. 1/8" rod inside 1/4" gas line will make a thud out of a tink.

I have hundreds, maybe thousands, of Yellow Jacket rounds through my 10/22 with a Tasco mounted on it. Nary a problem. Next time buy a good scope.

"Maybe thousands"? My 12-yr old son can go through a couple of 525-round bulk packs in one weekend. "Maybe thousands"?? That Tasco sure is tough!

Yea. I know. Leupold is schitt fo' sho'! 10/22 is a pussycat on scopes as you say.

Great advice there.

Put a SWFA FF on a 25MOA rail and watch the fun begin.

'Course I gotta thank Stick for that one.....

I've got a Nikon 4x Rimfire on there now and it's holding up great. But "his 10/22" is about worn out. Mine is in much better shape. I'm going to give the boy a single shot next time we go out. Can't afford that schitt any more.

Can't remember the total travel, but I'm still at the crosshairs out to 330 yards with a 50 yard zero. That schit is funny.

I didn't know quoting torque specs from the manufacturer required your highness' blessing thanks for setting me straight on that. lmfao Pretty slow night or what? I'll pass on longcocking about how much I shoot too thanks, never found much good in that