Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Weaver ring question

Those of you with experience with Weaver brand rings, what is your opinion of the Sure Grip rings (two screws on each side of the steel strap) compared to the "standard" Top Mount rings (two screws on only one side of the steel strap)?

I have always disliked having to futz around so much getting the reticle straight with the Top Mount rings. The Sure Grips would seem to solve this issue, but I was wondering if they had a downside I didn't know about.

I know the Sure Grips are not available in Low, and I realize there are four more screws to get loose. But beyond those issues, am I missing something?

Thanks so much,
Gun Doc

Warne Maxima?

The sure grip mediums are very low actually. I have a set i use and like them just fine. What i use more of is the weaver tactical rings.They have a wide top strap that grips the scope without slippage.

260Remguy,

Thanks for the suggestion, but Warne Maxima rings are too high to suit me, even the lowest ones. In addition, I like the detach and return to zero of the Weavers. I am fully aware of what is available, and I rather like Weaver rings. I think the ubiquitous Weaver rings have a lot to recommend them from a design and engineering standpoint. That is why I specifically asked about those two models of Weaver rings.

Best,
Gun Doc

Those Sure Grip mediums are the same height as the Top Mount mediums. They are low as far as most rings marked medium. But the Top Mount low is about .090" lower. For some reason, Weaver does not make Sure Grip low. If I need low, I buy the Top Mount. But if I need medium or higher, I am trying to determine if the Sure Grips are as good or better than the Top Mounts.

(I am also aware that once I need taller rings, other brands are available. But as far as Weaver style rings go, Weaver lows seem to be the lowest available. And again, while some folks don't like those "cheap Weaver rings", some folks actually prefer them. Further, it is not the price that is driving their preference.)

Best,
Gun Doc

I bought 6 sets of those Sure Grip rings when I first found them. They are my fave weaver style ring. There is no downside to them as they are a big improvement over the two screw originals. Weaver should dump the original and go with these instead.

Go ahead and buy a couple sets. You'll like them.

Only once have the standard Weaver rings fail to keep a scope in place, and that was many years ago when some scope company sent me a VERY heavy 30mm scope to test for a magazine review. The only 30mm rings on hand that would mount it high enough for the bolt handle to clear the big ocular lens were a set of standard Weavers. The scope didn't actually slip during recoil: Instead the "hook" side of the ring caps would jolt loose after 2-3 shots. Eventually I had to buy a different set of rings for the test.

Other than that, I've been using 1" scopes up to perhaps 16 ounces with standard Weaver rings on rifles for several decades, and have yet to have a scope slip inside 'em. The rifles have included quite a few hard-kickers, from various .300 magnums to a relatively light .416 Remington.

Buy either Weaver rings or a leveling device, but don't torture yourself by buying both.

Too late. LOL


"I have always disliked having to futz around so much getting the reticle straight with the Top Mount rings."

Yea they can be a pain until you've done enough of them. Still no where near as easy as std type. But the first thing I noticed when I started using the old Weavers years ago was that it didn't take very much tightening of those two screws before you couldn't move the scope. So John's statement that " I've been using 1" scopes up to perhaps 16 ounces with standard Weaver rings on rifles for several decades, and have yet to have a scope slip inside 'em. The rifles have included quite a few hard-kickers, from various .300 magnums to a relatively light .416 Remington." doesn't surprise me one bit.

Warnes are my favorite Weaver-style rings, both the fixed an QR styles, that's why I recommended them.

I guess that I've missed whatever attributes they have from a design and engineering standpoint.

We each like what we like. Warnes are very attractive, but too tall for me.

The Weaver rings I am discussing appear to be made from an extrusion, where the important dimensions are apparently well controlled. From a design/engineering standpoint, it is rather ingenious how getting that extrusion right allows the rings to line up well without a lot of complex machining of the other parts. Nowadays the machining is a bit easier due to numerically controlled machining, but that does not take away from Weaver's original concept. The clamping is also strong without relying on complex machining, although I think the Sure Grips are an improvement.

It is true Weaver rings aren't "finely machined", but they are not as bulky as some rings are. Their quick detach nuts are rather small and tidy compared to some of the large levers some rings have. It is true you need some sort of tool, but a lot of things are suitable.

Weavers would undoubtedly detract from a fine custom rifle. But, my opinion only, they look good enough on just about any off the shelf rifle.

Two of the most famous "working rifles" in the world, Finn Aagaard's Model 70 .375, and Phil Shoemaker's Mauser .458 "Ole Ugly" wear Weaver rings. Those two men did a good bit of home gunsmithing to get those rifles exactly the way they wanted them. I'm guessing they could have used any mounts they wanted (within reason, meaning not a German claw mount that cost more than the rifle.) That is plenty of endorsement for me.

Reasonable people can disagree. I teach engineering design at a major university. So, I think I have education and qualifications to speak to their being well designed and engineered. But if you want to tell me they are not elegant in appearance, I wouldn't argue with you.

Best,
Gun Doc

Aside from the problem of the scope rotating a bit as you tighten the screws, my main gripe dates back to the days of steel-tube scopes. Once or twice I had oil creep under the rings so the scope could be turned by hand. Probably my fault for using WD40. A minor gripe was the cheap slotted screws.

On the other hand, I used Weavers to mount scopes on 12ga slug guns, and the held just fine. That's a pretty tough test.

I don't wish to argue with you 'cause what you or anyone else does is of no consequence to me.

I'm not an engineer, but I know what I like and what I don't like. On 1st tier rifles with Weaver or Weaver-style bases I'm most likely to use Warne Maxima rings. On lower tier rifles I am more likely to use the B-Square Sport Utility rings. I used to keep and store used Weaver rings, but I no longer keep and store them, I just throw them away when they come to me.

260Remguy,

I don't wish to argue with you either, nor did I think we were. The statement "I guess that I've missed whatever attributes they have from a design and engineering standpoint." seemed a bit dismissive, so I chose to tell you why I thought they were well designed/engineered. Besides my engineering opinion, their use by Aagaard and Shoemaker suggests they have plenty of utility.

I thanked you for your input and at no time did I denigrate your choices. I did mention they were too tall to suit me (as are the B-Square rings.) That doesn't mean they are too tall to suit you.

We each have reasons for using what we use, and neither should care about what the other guy likes one way or the other.

I wish I knew you were throwing away Weaver rings. I would have gladly paid shipping to me.

Best,
Gun Doc

It is just easier to throw them out than to take the time to pack and ship them. I throw away a lot of common take-off barrel and injection molded stocks too. I used to keep all that stuff, but all it did was take up space and collect dust.

My favorite rings pretty much regardless of price are those 4 screw Weavers. I lap them but they are pretty “straight” as is. Also they return to zero about as well as anything. I have only used the 1” mediums. They hold 14 ounce scopes without any issues. They didn’t budge on my old 7 1/4 pound 375 Ackley. I don’t use any heavier scope on my hunting rifles.

The thing about Weaver rings is that there are always 2 groups in these threads.

Those who like them and have used them without trouble on anything and everything including larger medium and big bore rifles without trouble and the other group who hates them but doesn't usually cite reasons other then they're ugly.

Did Weaver ever make the saddle of the Top Mount out steel or have they always been aluminum?

RevMike,

I have never seen a Weaver Top Mount model ring with a steel saddle. Perhaps others have.

SuperCub,

In addition to appearance (I don't find them all that ugly, but that's just me) some also complain about the scope turning as the ring is tightened. That would bother me a lot more if I did a lot of scope swapping. Otherwise I live with it on the low's. But it is one of the things that precipitated my original question about the medium Sure Grip rings.

Best,
Gun Doc

Mike,

I've never seen a steel saddle either, and have probably been using Weaver rings for close to 50 years now.

Which is probably why I can usually get the reticle square to the action on the first try. Having used them so much, I have a good idea of about how much "tilt" is necessary before tightening the top screws. Maybe 5% of the time I have to try twice.

One reason I use 'em so much is testing various rifles and scopes. Over the years I've built up quite a collection of Weaver bases, so can generally find some to fit almost any rifle. But some of my personal rifles also have Weaver rings, partly because (as RinB noted) they're very practical detachable mounts. This is handy both for traveling (where a backup scope in Weaver rings has come in handy more than once) or when testing a scope on one of my rifles. I can take the rifle's regular scope off, mount the test scope, then put the regular scope back on after the test, with no loss of zero.

On "nice" rifles where the Weavers might look too ugly, I tend to use Talley detachables for the same reasons. But Weavers outnumber the Talleys by about 2-1.