I am thinking old school weaver, any other suggestions ?
Scope will probably be a Leupold 4x33

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Weaver mounts.

I tried a Leupold 4x33 but it was too short,I ended up using an old m-8 4x28 Long tube scope.
this with Weaver mounts and rings.

The lowest and strongest (not the prettiest) ring I am aware off is the original Weaver with the wrap-over steel strap on top, they grip extremely well. I just measured a pair and as close as I can measure the bottom of the scope would be 5/64 of an inch above the base.

I have a pair that is practically like new laying on my loading bench, if you would be interested in them for your project you can have them for $12 shipped - that is just about enough to cover my 15 mile trip to town and postage.

drover

I like them too.

They are also really light, despite their ruggedness, and as well as that you can take them off by hand and when you put them back on, by pushing them firmly to butt up against the front of the slots, the scope will go back pretty close to zero too.

Weaver bases and Warne rings? I strongly dislike Weaver rings.

260remguy
Just curious
Why do you strongly dislike Weaver Rings ?

I have found them to be a tad of a Pain to get the reticle centered as scope will rotate when tightening

But once set up they hold up well,Lightweight and can get about as low as possible.
Relativley inexpensive as well.

That's the problem. If they raised the price, people would think they are better, which they are.

Thanks for the replies, drover there is a PM inbound
260 I haven't seen any Warne rings as low as the Weavers, do you have a link or something for them?

Weaver's without question.

Warne Maxima Series steel mounts are excellent bases.
They are very low and are of very nice quality.
I'd pass on the Weaver bases and get the Warne for sure.

http://warnescopemounts.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013-Poster-Chart.pdf

Yep the Warne or the steel Weaver ones...

I love the rugged utility of the old steel band Weaver rings, but don't care for their appearance.

Warne rings are great but HEAVY.

S&Ks don't weig a ton, look nice, are strong, and low.

wouldnt bother with any ring/bases but Talley Lightweight alloys on commercial 98 !

why would you stuff around with weavers these days, they certainly dont hold a big kicker and any rings that have sharp edges r screws exposed only end up catchin bush.

Its 2015 not 1985 !

With Mauser actions and low mounts and rings you have to be careful about which scopes you mount. Scopes with large oculars may not clear the bolt.

I have mainly Mauser actions and low Warne bases and low Weaver rings set the scope low enough that most oculars won't clear the bolt handle.

Another common issue is the mounting length of the scope tube. Depending on the way the rifle was drilled and tapped, some bases and rings may create mounting problems.

Right ..... Here's an old FN topped with an M8 4x. Fits perfect and looks right too.

That's funny ...... I've been using Weavers for 30 years on all sorts of rifles w/o any problems at all. Don't recall ever once getting those screws hung up on bush or having sharp edges problems. How is it you have?

Also, tells us you experience with those big kickers certainly not holding with Weavers. I've owned several 375Magnums and 35Whelens over the years with nary a problem, ever. I've taken 375s on two Yukon fly-in hunts and both times used Weaver type mounts. No worries there either.

You're right about one thing ...... It is 2015 and still after all these years, the Weaver system continues to still be popular and is the most copied system out there. They are flat out reliable and do work reasonable well as QD mounts too.


FWIW .... I do use Talley LWs and like them.

I had a 1.5-6x Bausch & Lomb Balvar on a relatively light .416 Remington Magnum for a while in Weaver rings. Weight of the rifle with scope was 8-1/2 pounds, and the rings held up fine with full-house 400-grain loads at 2400 fps.

Dunno what rings the comment about "rings that have sharp edges r screws exposed only end up catchin bush" refers to, but never have had that trouble with Weavers, and have used rifles with Weaver rings to shoot at least 100 big game animals.

Not sure about him but when I am messing with bush a rifle is the last thing at that party.

I roll mostly warne Maxima's with leupold or warne PRWs, QRWs when appropriate.
They are low enough to use irons over.

i like very well steel weaver and grand slam QD rings.

Paul my question will be what next rifle are you using for the third trip now that you are 375 less or 375 oprhan ....?

Phil

Hey Phil .... No plans for now, but do have Weavers on my 358Winchester just in case.

Well, Stevil, I have used them for at least fifty years on rifles from 222 Rem to 458 Winchester, and never had a scope not hold securely. Many hundreds of rounds from 375 H&H and lightweight 9.3X62 rifles have been part of that experience.

In addition, I have removed the scope to use irons more than once, and then replaced it and the zero was still within less than half an inch. Actually, have won a few coffee bets at the range with guys who didn't believe they were that repeatable.

Oh, that reminds me of something else! When you remove a scope in old Weaver mounts, the irons are easy to see, as the bases are shaped to allow easy view of them.

Finally, I cannot recall ever getting them snagged on brush, but did get a fishing line caught in them one time after I landed a nice lake trout.

Ted

PS: Also have scopes mounted in Leupolds and Talleys, which are certainly not quite as ugly.

I believe Phil Shoemaker uses Weavers on his 458 mag Old Ugly.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if he had them holding an old K2.5 or K3. Like a dear Quebecois friend of mine is fond of saying, usually while we are taking apart a moose, "Dem things are really put together!"

Ted

I believe it is a 2.5x compact Leupold.

Roger that!

I have a few Leupold M8 3X, and they are tough as nails as well. One has sustained many hundreds of rounds of 286 gr bullets at well over 2400 fps in my pre 64 9.3X62, mounted in Weaver rings and bases.

Ted

I like the old Leupold Detacho,s also had a built in Peep sight. very lo mount. Nothing at all wrong with the old steel Weavers.


Detacho,s on the LH Mauser with red pad. 6 X 36 Leupold

Weavers on the 223 LH Mauser 3 X 9 Mini Leupold

i still have a m8 3x and it s a keeper .... worked well with the 375 ruger and the 9.3x62 ...

Phil

Brian Pierce once wrote an article on the .375 ultra mag.The recoil was so violent that the front sight hood slid of the sight and the rifle would dump the magazine box on occasion.The weaver rings held up fine though.They are an inexpensive reliable mounting system.jmo