Thinking about DD Leupold bases but what height rings?

Or other options?

Pics appreciated.

I don't know what's best, but don't really care for the way the rear DD base extends forward of the rear bridge. Low may be too low? Went with the Warne bases filed open to allow use of any Weaver or Picatinny rings. This is with Burris XTR Signatures, with 25MOA, 20 front, 5 rear... Kinda a neat product I decided to try after seeing it posted around here. China though - like their regular XTRs. I've since remounted it with the 40 MOA inserts and it's high enough I'd want a cheek pad/pack or such. Not sure where it'll end up but think it's a great scope for the rifle. With the 40MOA gain and 100 yard zero there's at least 22.7 mils remaining, plus the free ten mils. Handy. So much better than holding at the top of the mountain, something like 2000 yards and 195' drop. LOL+P

This one has a wonky elevation dial and is going back. #2 arrived today and it's correct...

I have one mounted in Tally light weights right now but I'm needing to order another set and am looking at options.

Thanks.

What was wrong with the dial?

I ordered DD lows for mine, hoping they'll arrive today so I can see if it fits. I was gonna go with Talleys but man this is a honking scope, wanted something a little more solid for mounting. Trying to figure out which rail or weavers works and doesn't work and which rings work and don't work, DD's just seemed the simplest way to go.

I used Talley lows with an FX-3 6X42, and tried Leupo DD lows with the 3-9x MQ, but settled on Warne bases, which are steel & weaver-style, with Warne Maxima rings. The 3-9x MQ is a great scope on the 84M.

Seems bound-up. Didn't loosen up with a bunch of twisting and feels like something more than a lack of lube. Most noticeable on the zero end of travel, which is about 3 mils from the end with the 40 MOA inserts... Will say too that it did not behave as expected during zeroing, but hate to declare it as an absolute, as I could have been at fault. Just seemed to wander - complete opposite that I've come to expect. SWFA was prompt with a RA response via email this morning. Swapping it out and I'll report back what solution is offered.


I think a rail chop and low rings would work just a well. Talley, EGW and Nightforce make rails. Warne bases and Leupold PRWs would be a good clean option as well.

8400
Not in love with the rear base setup, though it's plenty strong. This is a set of Warne Maxima's that I filed to fit the picatinny lugs on the XTR rings, though the lug is offset in the rings, so the centered slot in the rear base throws the ring off center. I wish Burris made an XTR base for the Kimber 8400 and 84.





84m
Zee Sigs have held up to some rough handling in the sheep mountains so far. We'll see how they hold up long term. I trust them more than Talley LW's, and they're a bit lighter than the XTR Sigs...

I was thinking the Signature Zee rings and steel bases might be a good option. Mediums in the picture?

Yep, those are mediums with as much insert inclination as I could get.

Curious, I don't have that much of an offset look/fit on the Warne rear base with Burris XTR Signature rings. My ring's lug is centered, I think. Design change? The pics shown above are angled enough it's not readily apparent.

Just a bit there in front. What's up with that?

Have scope mounted about .2" ahead of this now. Will caution that over-torquing will readily bind the zoom ring. Seems 18 is max that's ok 20 too much... Purely a curiosity - the two 3-9s I just got were low serial number, 002xx, and 0009x and the second one, a week delayed, was the two-digit unit.

They may have changed the lug design on the XTR's like you say (I remember complaining about the offset lug on this forum about 8 months ago), or it could be that the bases for the 84 and 8400 have the cross slot in different locations.

Oh, the 8400... Thanks.

Well I decided to stick with Talley light weights for now. Gonna go shoot the 22-250ai in a bit. The other one is a 204 so maybe these heavy kickers will be nice to the Talleys.

I looked in my order history and remembered I tried a set of lows on my Kimber 22 with a fixed super chicken and it was a no go. Sent em back and that's how I got the mediums I have now.

My 223ai Montucky wears a Leupold 3.5-10 with M1 elevation and unless you put em on a scale, it's really hard to notice the extra weight and size of the SS. Balances better than I ever expected.

Funny how you have things pictured in your mind then once you try it, it ain't always so...

Sighted the 3-9 in on the 22-250ai and then shot the 223ai with the 3.5-10 m1. All the while thinking I'm leaving the 223ai as is. Next sale I'll be ordering another super chicken. Glass is better, it's just as handy and will take me further.

I replaced a 3-10 with m1 on mine too for the 3-9 ss. Same set up you have but mines factory rifle. I liked the two I I got in so well I ordered a 3rd before the sale ended.

With the 1 inch 3.5-10 x 40 mounted as low as possible, and the SS mounted as low as possible, what is the difference in scope height above the receiver? Thanks.

There's .100 difference between lows and mediums. Add the difference in 30mm vs 1" and I don't think it's much.

I'll measure when I get back.

I would go with mediums regardless. I have always tried to mount everything as low as possible. I've always liked 36mm scopes just because I could mount them lower.

The Montana stock is designed right for use of a scope right off the bat,so low scope mounting isn't such of an issue as it is with stocks that came from an iron sight heritage.

The mediums will give you more bolt clearance and are actually more comfortable for me on the Montana even though I like a good cheek weld.

DD Lows did not work for me. Warne bases and low rings worked perfect. I had to grind a little on the bottom of the objective BC cap but it fits good. Lugs been bedded, trigger adjusted, got some 155 Scenars loaded up , headed to the range tomorrow and see what she does.

Maxima lows on Warne bases worked for me. I had the scope moved a bit more forward though.

Here's my setup...

Running a set of Warne bases. I had a gunsmith buddy open the crossslot up so I could use a true picatinny ring. Running ARC extra low rings. Scope height is perfect. Eye aligns perfect for me, no need for any stock pack or cheek risers.

So after a bit of scope slippage in the Signature Zee rings, I decided to swap them out on the 84m 7-08 for some XTR Sigs, as well.

The same fitment occurred on the 84m as on the 8400. This set of rings was ordered a week ago, so they are very recent manufacture, I assume. The lug is offset, just like the rings on the 8400. With both the 84m and the 8400 the rear ring has to be oriented into the action, or else it interferes with the operation of the bolt if I flip it around and favour the rear of the base with the ring. I'm very curious about the lugs in your rings, now.

Can't believe you guys put such heavy scopes on such light rifles....Grin...

Jordan can you pull the lug on the rear ring, I do that on PRW rings if they don't fit right, a lug on the front one is plenty.

Jordan,

I recently got a set of Sig XTR rings, 30mm medium (lowest they offer). The lugs are offset on mine as well. Handy to be able to flip the rings around, along with the clamp if desired.

Jason

I don't mean to be that guy but those big ass 6 hole tactical mounts look like chit. To take a super light svelt rifle and compromise a little on weight with a heavyish scope is one thing but those bulky mounts really look look ackward as hell, especially in the same view as a skeletonized bolt to shave weight.

No worries. I'm more about having functional rifles, than drooling over the looks of a safe queen. As I mentioned above, I had a bit of slippage in the 30mm Signature Zee's, and a "heavyish scope" requires mounts that can handle the inertia of said scope on a light rifle with fast recoil. Sure, the setup isn't going to win any beauty contests, but having peace-of-mind that my rifle is dead-nutz, rock solid reliable, as I sit on the peak of a sheep mountain planning a stalk on a ram, is more important to me than beauty pageants. I've just had too many scope/mount setups fail on me to think otherwise. To have a bullet-proof rifle/scope/mount setup that is very capable of long shots if the need arises, and still weighs 6 lbs 10 oz all up, simply works for me.

That'd be nice, but the lug is machined into the ring.

The ARCs I'm running are narrower and fit perfect on that back ring. My rifle is finally what I consider "perfect". Next time I mess with it will be to replace the barrel when it's shot.

Famous last words?!?!

Have said it many times myself...

Hey Jordan, in general are the XTR bases as low as the Warnes? I ask because looking for some low bases for a Win M70.

I'm not sure. I haven't played much with the XTR bases, though I would if they came out with Kimber models! They look fairly low, judging by the pictures I've seen.

Those Warne rings and bases look great and just say Kimber.

I am still using the Talley light weights but the 22-250AI is the heaviest kicking Montana I have so I think I'll be ok.

After killing a few critters with the 3-9 MQ both early and late in the day, I really do like the combo. A buddy of mine picked it up and said "you know, you can get away with mounting a heavy scope on a light rifle, it's still lighter than a regular gun."

Find me a scope that does what this one does and weighs 12 oz. and I'll buy it. But until then, I'm gonna just kill stuff.

Unertl....

Guys using the warne bases might consider the TPS HRT rings. They're aluminum, look better than the Burris XTR, have the slot centered & fit the weaver grooves without filing open the slots.

I've got lotsa TPS and it all sucks. Aluminum and steel both. Hint.

Though I do enjoy how folks who don't shoot,fret "looks" on the stuff they don't have and don't use. Laffin'!

The 'Horn ring's attributes are copious mount/scope interface and glorious inclination. Fact being,nothing else even comes fhuqking close. Hint.



I hear through The Grapevine,that they'll even cough up 30+ Mils remaining on a Krunchenticker's erector. Yes...I realize you dumbfhuqks will haveta' Google it.

Nuttin' hangs with the 'Horn's,just sayin' and pardon my having it all.

I like 1" Meopta's on my Montuckys.




And my Anschutzeseses.



Laffin'!

XTR bases.






1000 BEAUTIFUL Fhuqking Words


RINK To Enlightenment

20MOA rail and NF LW Mediums. I did not like the other options I tried.

You should look into hawkins precision. They make a talley style ring with 25 mins built in and offer a level in the rear ring. Weight is 3oz and cost is +/- $125.00