Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Question for JB on Weaver Rings

Just remembered another reason I put the coin-screw on the bolt-handle side, despite the "clutter."

For quite a few years I was doing a lot of horseback hunting, often with rifles using Weaver rings. While there's always plenty of discussion about the correct way to place a rifle in a saddle scabbard, the consensus among the horse guys I hunted with was in front of the saddle, on the right-hand side, buttstock up. This didn't interfere with normal mounting of the horse from the left side, and allowed the hunter to keep an eye on the rifle when riding through timber, and pull it out easily with his right hand, for whatever reason.

A lot of those guys used Weaver rings, not just because they were common and "affordable" but because they were rugged, and the scope could be mounted very low on "traditional" bolt-action rifles. The coin -screw heads were also on the same side as the bolt-handle. AWAY from the horse's body, where they weren't subjected to as much jolting pressure (and hence possibility of being rubbed loose). That placement (with all the clutter on the right-hand side) also allowed the rifle to slide out of a scabbard more easily.

One other reason a lot of those hunters used Weavers was the ugly, cheap rings were among the most dependably repeatable detachable rings of the day. They still are, if you know how to tighten them. Some horseback hunters would bring along another Weaver in the same rings, already sighted-in, just in case the first scope went screwy, or they had a horse-wreck.

Here's one of the photos that started this discussion, of a pre-'64 Winchester Featherweight .308 Winchester with an old K4 Weaver in Weaver rings. Please note that the coin-screw knobs are not anywhere near the ejection port, and in fact (as in most scopes) even the windage-adjustment cap (much smaller in that old scope) sticks out farther than the ring-knobs, and in the front section of the ejection port so has more potential to interfere with case ejection.

As I noted earlier, modern scopes with much taller windage knobs are far more likely to interfere with ejection (or loading another round into the magazine) than the Weaver ring-knobs.

True .

I recently put a 2.5 -8 Leupy on a Savage 220 slug gun . Due to the length of the action to get the eye relief where it needed to be I had to use a rail . Looked at every low ring I could find . Top mount Weavers were the only option to get it where I wanted it height wise .

The horse/scabbard thing makes sense.
The Rifle just LOOKs better with knobs on the L side. And the newer knobs are bigger.
Personal Preference thing.
Jerry

Jerry,

Always good to hear from somebody who believes there's an aesthetic reason behind which way to turn Weaver rings, which have rarely been considered beautiful.

Personal Preference
Red / Blue
Ford /Chevy

That’s all.

Jerry

Good point. I'd like to see more "lower" rings offered. Many ring makers don't even offer them.

Really low rings used to be far more common because many hunters wanted to be able to also use iron sights, because scopes often fogged or were otherwise unreliable. Most rifle stocks were still designed (and some still are) primarily for iron-sight use, so for the best scope alignment, they needed to be mounted low. (This is why also why Weaver rings were designed to be easily detachable and replaceable.

Today most factory hunting rifles don't even come with iron sights, so tend to have higher-combed stocks, and aftermarket stocks tend to have even higher combs. Many stocks also have adjustable-height combs, so the shooter can tweak it, rather than trying to match scope height to comb height. Plus, many of today's scopes won't even work in really low rings, because their objective and eyepiece bells are so large.

As a result, there's not as much demand for really low rings. In fact one of my gunsmith friends, Charlie Sisk, has found that most of his customers are better off with medium-height rings.

Makes perfect sense .

I don't think that Remington started putting stocks on hunting rifles that were designed primarily for shooting with a scope until they introduced the 725 in 1958.

Even with scopes that have objective bells that are 40mm or smaller, some stocks have such high combs that the average guy who has a defined neck wouldn't be able to align their primary shooting eye with the scope with low rings.

Back in 1966 I bought a Model 70 push feed. I was all into things shiny back then. Anyway, the sporting goods store where I bought it mounted the scope, a Redfield 4X. They mounted it in Weaver mounts. About twenty years later I belonged to a local gun club that had a number of bench rest shooters as members. I was out at the range one day shooting it and I commented to one of the bench rest boys about maybe changing my mounting system because I thought they looked cheap and unattractive. He stopped me and picked up one of his bench guns and sure as hell there sat atop it a pair of Weaver rings and bases. He said they may not look like a cadillac but they work like a Rolls Royce. He said there was no stronger or more reliable mount. They were simple but dependable. I left them on that rifle. I've still got that rifle and it is my go to hunter to this day. And it still has Weaver rings and bases on it, although they are a more modern ring and the base is now a Weaver rail. I have three rifles with rail bases and Weaver style rings. They aren't the only thing going but they work well and better than most for less money.

I bet more big game animals have been killed with rifle using Weaver scope mounts and Remington Cor-Lok Bullets than any other brands

I think JB posted that pic just to show off the group.

OK, not really. But is a pretty nice group.

+1

GunDoc,

I posted that photo for more than one reason--but one was indeed the group!

It turned out to be the lead photo on an article I recently wrote about hunting rifle accuracy for SPORTS AFIELD. It illustrated what a pre-'64 Featherweight can do with better bedding, which in this instance was a couple of flat-plastic bread-bag clasps behind the recoil lug, enough to truly free-float the barrel.

I have put them both ways, kinda like em better like this

[quote=jwall][quote=Mule Deer




The horse/scabbard thing makes sense.
-----------------------------------------


** < For Clarity >**

For a horseback hunt I'd mount mine like that.....but THEN I'd swap them back to the L side.


Jerry

Jerry,

Please note that the coin-slot screw-tops on the Weavers do not block any part of the ejector/loading port. Which is the major reason I posted the photo. Also checked the other 9 of our rifles with Weaver rings, and they're all well clear too.

I understand and thanks.

To me, a personal thing, MAYBE being R handed, I look at the right side of the rifle more than the L and it just LOOKS cleaner.



I'm not telling anyone it's the only way to do it. I'm not saying there IS a wrong way to do it.
(not being smart here) - it's a Red /Blue.....Ford /Chevy type thing.

Jerry

With 1 exception, installing a 7/8" Lyman Alaskan on a previously bubba'd Winchester 54, I haven't used Weaver rings for years. I use Warnes on 1st tier rifles and either Warnes or B-Squares on lower tier rifles.

There is a tote in the storage unit with dozens of sets of low, medium, and high 1" Weaver rings, some that are probably 60 years old.

When I used them, I always put the thumb screws on the right side. I don't know why, just did.

260-you should sell some of those low Weavers to those of us who are still trying to figure out which side to mount the thumb screws!