Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Which forever scope mount ?

Exactly.

Same here.

Just to add a rail, and rings, now add a cheek pad or ?, to get proper cheek weld ?
No thanks.
I dont want to keep adding more to a rifle.
More weight as well, or expensive stock.

I’ve got several different brands. Warnes, Talleys, Redfield. Luepold. But my favorite is EAW quick detachable.
They are a little high .Not just how they set on a rifle but in cost. At one time I had 10 rifles exactly alike except for caliber.
Instead of scoping all I could have bought a couple of high end scopes and moved them around . Hasbeen

Bausch & Lomb had that system since the 50's or even earlier. All of the scope manufacturers should make that kind of scope again. They are bullet proof.

APA Tru Loc low rings (.750) are my "forever" go to.

Here's a rock solid mounting system on my Mauser Model 66.
Claw mounts.

Leupold dual dovetail mount.
Clean looking, correct height, and proper cheek weld on my 280ai.

You don't need a "tall" rail, there's many low base options with Picidillywacker or Weaver slots. I am glad to have the options. Absolutely the lowest isn't always the best.

It's the German way. Most times the scope is carried in a padded leather case, and mounted once in the high seat.
Its strong, and returns to zero.
It's a bit high tho.
My experience with a rail, is that rings have to be high enough for the front ocular to clear the front of the rail.
That puts the scope higher than my liking.
I dont like it.....

+1.

To me picatinny rails are the answer for versatility in attaining proper eye relief (with which I have had issues on many of my rifles). On 2 of my rifles I use Aadmount rings and a 1-pc picatinny rail (which is JB-welded to the rifle). The only thing more forever than that are integral scope mounts. Yes, one of my picatinny rails does set the scope a little high but a cheek raiser is not a big deal to me, since I hunt from stands. I guess to me "forever" means you never plan to remove it. Good luck in whatever you choose.

You know, they do make high, medium, and low rings that fit rails just like they make high, medium, and low rings to fit dual doves. It's just a matter of a little research.

Depending on the rail you use...the general rule of thumb is...if you use medium rings with the dual doves...you would use low rings on the rail.

Until the front ocular hits the rail !

If you have a Savage or a Remington, go with the Iota - available without the goofy (imo) level. Second choice would be the Leupold Back Country, third Talley LW. If you do DD, use a ring that has 4 screws on the cap instead of just 2 and I have the rings welded on the underside once all is lapped and square.

I don't use rails, but what is the negative to saw off the excessive rail off once proper eye relief is achieved? If it's a forever setup, there would be no downside.

Another option for your consideration: https://www.kenfarrell.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=18_45&product_id=474

I have and use most of the better scope mounts on various rifles, but the Ken Farrell scope rings are for the "go-to" rifles I use for Hunting. Their bases are super also. Quality and fitment are the best. Suggested torque for ring cross bolt to the mount: 50-60 in/lbs.

Only if you use extended rails. They do make rails that end at the front of the receiver.

You know, if you choose the wrong dual dove tail base and ring height, the front ocular will hit the barrel, right?

They even make a rail that does not have the extension at the front.

Don't be lazy, do your research.

Now, if you just don't like a rail...say so. To each his own.

GB

There are guys who do just that. But it is not necessary. One can buy a rail without the extension. I am not a die hard fan of a rail. However, they are versatile, and worth working out the kinks.

Okay......
I dont like rails, or the way they look.