Using Burris Signature rings, I pretty much never have to fret any of this.
in a previous post i mentioned that those rings can be positive medicine for some ills--but i've never cared for the appearance of them.
one of the challenges i enjoy in working on equipment is, "problem solving", and doing it without something that i might call "band-aids".
...like checkering vs. stippeling--they both work, but one is a fine art--and functional as well. the other will jest "git 'er done".
or looking at it another way, though i'm not into cars; its like a '68 camaro with a spoiler. they were called spoilers, and i always figured the title was fitting, because they "spoiled the looks of the car..."
nevertheless, its a good thing the burris rings with their eccentric live centers are available--they are an easy and acceptable solution for those who want them...
I hear ya.
Couple of advantages with Signature rings, just can't get any other way...
Ring marks - I hate ring marks left on a scope, and the more expensive the scope, the more it irks me. Properly installed, just not an issue with these rings.
Time and money - just can't justify spending all that extra of both to solve a list of problems that a set of rings will avoid.
I've damaged one scope due to poor machining of the action where bases mount, on an Enfield P17 reworked by BSA. Bent the tube so bad that point of impact shifted 4" between 3X and 9X. Fortunately, Bushnell repaired the problem no charge for me anyway. Had Signature rings been around at the time, wouldn't have happened. And would also have negated the cost of correcting the problem with the rifle.
Appearance-wise, one has to look very close to see the difference between these and Weavers, Leupolds, etc. Certainly "ring mounts" such as Talleys have their advantages (fewer parts to go wrong) where rails of a sort are built into the rifle. But even screw on rails, such as Picatinny, I suspect can be torqued out of shape by misalignment of drillings/base surfaces on an action.
These rings are one of those inventions that I look at and wonder why all of 'em aren't made this way, eh? Just makes so much good sense!
Should also add this...
Dovetail mounts, IMHO, make Signature rings an absolute must!
First off, we use a dowel to twist the front ring into place, usually with a tad bit of grunt 'cause it's a tight fit.
We assume, having done this, the ring is a perfect 90 degrees perpendicular to the base/action. But is it??? Who knows for sure, and how do you measure it to be certain...short of expensive tools?
Then off to the range. Oh, I'm 7" to the left...I'll just take that up with the windage adjustment on the rear ring so as not to use up valuable internal adjustments in the scope.
Great! Now we've just torqued (if not permanently damaged) the hell outta the scope tube (that we lapped the rings to accommodate???) because there's no way on earth that front dovetail that we twisted into place is ever going to move to compensate.
With the Burris rings, first thing I do is loosen the screws on the front ring cap, then adjust for windage, then re-tighten, repeat as necessary. The bearings allow the scope to re-align accordingly, and we carry on without undue stress to an expensive scope that inevitably will affect how accurately it sights in for the duration of its ride atop the rifle.
Constantly read here about issues with scopes that don't adjust properly, or don't want to stay sighted in, and the first question that comes to mind is, were they installed on dovetail rings and then torqued (meaning, basically bent outta shape) with the rear windage adjust?
