Ok folks, put in your pick for the most durable scope mount system for a 700/Custom Clone, so Ruger and Sako Set ups excluded
Most have seen/heard of the adjustable rear base systems failing, lately Dual Dovetail, and in the past aluminum Talley Lightweight. What do you consider to be the most failproof on the market?
Burris Signatures are the best to me. I used some Talleys on my ultralight rifle and had to lap a lot to get the scope to fit. The Talleys are 2 1/2 oz while the Burris Signatures are 5 oz.
I prefer a pic rail, one that has the full slot all the way accross not the valley in the middle of the slots. the EGW heavy duty would be an example of what I like. Weaver makes one there are others. This way I have ONE mounting system on every gun I own. I can move and easily install a scope on another gun. If I want a load development scope on that gun, no problemo. I have one that stays mounted in leupold QRW rings bam its on.
for premium rings I like the nightforce ultra light titaniums. There are lots of others, weaver skeletons, leupold QRW's steel, aluminum, just lots and lots of options on rings. I don't see there being a heavier duty more optioned setup.
Without going to big overbuilt tactical style mounts I've found Burris Sig Z rings excellent for durability and accuracy. Actually I'd put them up against most of the tactical/target stuff too.
I just "surveyed" my collection of centerfire rifles and aside from rings that came with various rifles, found at least 15 different kinds of scope mounts, including some from Burris, Griffin & Howe, Leupold, Precision Reflex, Seekins, Talley, Warne and Weaver.
First place in numbers is a tie between Old Ugly Weavers and Talley Lightweights, but my harder-kicking rifles tend to have steel Talleys or various tactical/Picatinny rings. However, I must comment that I've never had any problems with Old Ugly Weavers or Talley Lightweights, despite some hard use of both.
Growing up, the ugly Weavers sure did seem to serve an awful lot of people really well, and for a long time. About the only time you saw "them fancy Loo-poles" was if a rich relative showed up to hunt once or twice a year. In all seriousness, I can't imagine a R/B being any closer to indesructable than the Talley steels. You would about have to strip or crossthread the screws on one to compromise it. John
Excluding tactical pic rail type systems- I really like the S&K SKulptured Bases and Kontoured rings. Lightweight, strong and good looking. The steel Talleys are also a great product, IMO. Both strong and look great on a classically styled rifle.
Having seen them break, I've zero interest in the Talley LWs anymore. Others have had better experiences with them, and that is great...
ETA: I just noticed your other thread RE: VX3 vs. Nightforce. If you're building a more 'Target/Tactical' rifle, my suggestions might not suit... If I were putting a Nightforce on a rifle I'd not use the Talleys or S&Ks.
yea, but a sample of one doesn't bug me much. somebody on that thread talked about thinking the concave radius on the base was too small so when the base was tightened to the receiver, it had to spread open a little. kinda my thoughts too, but without knowing for sure it wasn't operator error or a incorrect base (packaged wrong perhaps), I'll carry on knowing they have worked for me for a long time.
the Burris DD bases may be an option for those with nagging doubts from the leupold thread. they look solid, and my M70 .375 AI has a fairly heavy scope in a set of those.
yea, but a sample of one doesn't bug me much. somebody on that thread talked about thinking the concave radius on the base was too small so when the base was tightened to the receiver, it had to spread open a little. kinda my thoughts too, but without knowing for sure it wasn't operator error or a incorrect base (packaged wrong perhaps), I'll carry on knowing they have worked for me for a long time.
the Burris DD bases may be an option for those with nagging doubts from the leupold thread. they look solid, and my M70 .375 AI has a fairly heavy scope in a set of those.
I'd like to know which are MIM and which are milled steel.
I don't know anymore but the longer I'm at this stuff the more I am leaning to a cross slot format.
My 375 H&H has the cross slots: steel bases/rings: Leupold PRW:
They are ungodly strong, but there's a fine line between what's going to work and work well vs. something that is going to last the lifetime of the rifle... Bob, you know some of the rifles we shoot, last a few generations
What I've personally witnessed the most was folks adjustable bases fail, due to stripping typically. Believe it happened to me once as well.
Therefore I like to KISS. Talley LW is simple, but a few have failed it seems. Failure itself is one issue, diagnosing the cause of said failure can reveal if it's solely the result of product failure. Likely some directly and others not so much related.
Wrongside, I have been curious about the NF, but no plans soon due to funds, should I deem an NF worthy of its price tag. I am neutral on that NF but do know the brand has many loyal happy users. That said, many are Tac shooters who have much twisting mileage on glass.
65BR, First place in numbers is a tie between Old Ugly Weavers
I can get behind old Weavers especially the 30-40 year old vintage in gloss that have faded to that lovely purple 'patina' extra points for miss-matched screws! I think most any all steel Weaver style system can't be a bad way to go the sheer amount of them still truckin along tells us that...
You guys scare me. I've never once went hunting and worried whether my ring or base set up was going to fail me. I've mainly used David Gentry's ultra light wrap around rings and bases on most of my rifles. I can no longer get them due to David's passing. powdr
Add me to he list of fans of "old ugly weavers". A good rugged setup, that you can remove and replace without tools and without notable POI change, and very light too.
I also like claw mounts, but they are very expensive. Very handy for instant removal and replacement of scopes though. I also have a couple of rifles with dovetails, and lever-release ringmounts (steel ones, by Lynx), and if they have a stop or something like it to index against they work well too - I've never had them fail.
I am definitely not a fan of Redfield Jr style though, nor do I much like turn-in mounts.
I like mounts that allow a scope to come off easily in poor weather, or for travel (or if I have a bad spill) and go back on again without needing to re-zero. Not everyone may share that preference though, and so their choices may be different.
Ok folks, put in your pick for the most durable scope mount system for a 700/Custom Clone. What do you consider to be the most failproof on the market?
As for 2 piece bases:
Leupold Mark 4 rings and bases are beefier than any mentioned thus far. PRWs are also very good.
I still have bunches of the fugly old Weavers in use. They work well.
I'll never get why the Burris Zee rings are popular. Only 2 screws in the rings, a noticeable thin spot, and a round cross slot screw. The screw isn't as beefy as others, makes less contact with the base than others, has a GAY slotted head, and I have seen the heads sheer right off when tightened. Plus they require lapping more often than not. No thanks.
Burris 2 piece Picatinny with Burris Xtreme tactical work well also......
I don't know how there could be a stronger and more secure mount than the original Weaver base and original "wrapover" ring. They are not the prettiest but for lightweight and secure they are as good as it gets. Also they have a good return to zero if one just alternates tightening the mounting screws.
I recall reading a test of various base/ring combos years ago, perhaps in an early edition of Rifle, the test was conducted using a heavy recoiling rifle and in the end the Weaver combo came out on top.
I can recall having a couple of scope slippage issues but never while using the Weavers.
Leupold Mark 4 rings and bases are beefier than any mentioned thus far. PRWs are also very good.
I still have bunches of the fugly old Weavers in use. They work well.
I'll never get why the Burris Zee rings are popular. Only 2 screws in the rings, a noticeable thin spot, and a round cross slot screw. The screw isn't as beefy as others, makes less contact with the base than others, has a GAY slotted head, and I have seen the heads sheer right off when tightened. Plus they require lapping more often than not. No thanks.
Burris 2 piece Picatinny with Burris Xtreme tactical work well also......
[/quote]
You nailed it on the Burris Zee rings. The "why" of it is because too many guys listen to the doink behind the counter without actually thinking and looking for themselves and whenever you only zero your rifle once per year and fire one or two shots per year to tag-out, not a whole hell of a lot will go wrong or fail. Most guys just don't spend enough time on the range or with the tools of their "trade" in-hand.
What are the specs (weight, cartridge, scope) and how many rounds you put through the rifle on which they failed?
I've got a few sets of them and with a little loctite and self-control when torquing down the cross slot screw have had no issue. I don't shoot a ton but more than the stereotypical deal you describe; in each of the two rifles I'm thinking of probably around 1k/yr?
![[Linked Image]](http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/chiefbsa/media/002_zps10cba909.jpg.html)
I think most any all steel Weaver style system can't be a bad way to go the sheer amount of them still truckin along tells us that...