Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics 30mm Weaver top mount rings - a lightweight solution?

I've been considering different options to mount a 30mm scope to a picatinny rail while saving weight on a hunting rifle. I'm willing to spend the money to get good rings, but lately I've been considering some old school Weaver rings. They are pretty lightweight (aluminum saddle, steel top strap) and seem to have a good reputation. The money savings are a bonus but not my primary motivation.

The main complaint I see with these rings is that they are a pain to mount because they tilt the scope while tightening down. The screws for the top strap on the ring are flat head style instead of torx, but I don't know if that's a problem. The piece that clamps the ring to the base seems pretty thin to me, although I haven't read of that part failing. Any other concerns? I know these rings look kinda funny to a lot of people and won't impress anyone, but I am trying to think of a reason not to give it a try and haven't thought of one. I'm all ears, though - any reasons to not go in this direction?

After some discussion here, I bought a couple sets of Weaver Sure Grip rings, which secure the top strap on both sides with screws, not the clampy thing, much like a Leupold QRW. Still have the crummy slotted screws, but made in USA! Not available in 30mm though, according to the Weaver Store on Amazon.

Only trouble I’ve had with the strap was when oil, probably WD40, crept under them and let a steel-tube Weaver scope slide around. That was long ago. My uncle’s old Deerslayer from the early 60s has had a 4x Weaver in a pivot mount with the same top strap forever, and while it’s permanently scarred a number of folks, the scope never slipped.

Rocky Mt.:
Weaver rings and bases are as strong as anything on the market despite what anyone tells you and for the most part they are just about all I use. Back in the day, they were the only thing the bench rest shooters used on their rifles.
Once in a while I will have to resort to another brand for what ever reason, usually because of height or scope placement issues on a particular rifle.
Regarding 30mm rings, Weaver makes a “Tactical” set that is skeletal and screws down on both sides, so you won’ have the rolling issue that so many complain about. I bought some of these as the “Tactical” low rings as the are lower than the standard “detachable” low rings in 30mm. I am old school and prefer my scope as low as possible rather than putting my chin on top of the comb which seems to be fashionable these days.
Personally, I think “tactical” rings of any brand look a little goofy but that is just my taste. To range commandos, I’m sure they are great.
Regarding the mounting of scopes, I have never found the the “good ole” Weaver detachable rings to be much trouble once you get the hang of it. (Just takes practice)
Also, you may have to get several different ring sets of various heights to get the scope mounted right for yourself. Their 30mm description for objective lens clearance is a bit off I have found......
Good Luck

Karen,

A Melting Snowflake in Texas,TRYING to "talk" rifles,is never not fhuqking HILARIOUS! Hint.

The Weaver rings you are trying your best to swoon,with your fhuqking HILARIOUS version of "knowledge","results" and "experience",simply schleps STUPIDITY to places it's never been before. Hint.

Weaver Half Nelson rings are a series of mechanical shortcomings,due their very design,though apparently "GREAT!" In Texas,where the only shooting is done with mouths and Imaginations. Hint.

If only for starters,Half Nelson's are hurting in fastener quality,fastener driver type,fastener sizing,scope interface surface area and 1913 mount interface surface area(clamp footprint). That before you get to their cross slot interface and the trite pockets the schitty/small ring caps reside,or the fhuqking "hinge". Hint.

In fairness however,I did rather enjoy how your unbridled STUPIDITY is something you are trying to get used to,due a "life" of practice. Good "luck" on fulfilling that one! Hint. Fhuqking LAUGHING!

It were a nice touch,to fret aesthetics in true Texas Style,as you were talking out your ass! If only as a "surprise" to gals who "know" and "do" as "much" as you...BR Bench Queens are THE least demanding on things such as scope rings. Hint.

Here's some REAL World Benchrest,if only to the chagrin of your high pitched Whining and the tear stained Mascara streaming your face. Hint. Fhuqking LAUGHING!





Coulda' been a "fluke"?!?




Mechanics matter,despite your Tender Feelers,Magnificent STUPIDITY and raging Estrogen Levels. Hint.

Bless your heart for trying though.

PLEASE "tell" me "more"!

Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!....................

I've used the old-style Weaver rings for more than 40 years. I've used others too of course, but the Weavers are about the lightest option you can get, and yet I've found they stand up very well to hunting use and hold the scope securely. I also like the fact that one set up and zeroed you can take the scope off the rifle without tools and put it back on without notable loss of zero - just push it hard forward as you tighten the thumbscrews when you put it on.

I haven't found them hard to set up. I haven't found any issue with the screws either - just use a driver which fits, like any other screw. Getting the reticle level might take a little bit of fiddling, but it isn't really that hard to do.

If you want to save more weight, why not use the Weaver bases too? Going with a 25 mm tube may also shave a bit more.

Yes, the clamp footprint size/quality and the type of fasteners is my big concern. For about the same price I can grab some SWFA tactical rings, and I will probably go that route. I doubt they are much heavier.

mtn,

The SWFA's are assuredly the most bang for the buck and I've multiple dozens in service(all 30mm) and nary an "issue". The weight "difference" is an ounce at most and that's THE cheapest Insurance you will ever purchase. Hint.

Should you want/need inclination,the Burris XTR Signature Bitches are a GREAT way to fly. In 30mm,it's a breeze to add 40 MOA inclination to the equation. Secondly,if windage isn't mechanically zero'd,a portion of same can be indexed to center it up,allowing maximum erector travel and aiding zero retention/tracking/repeats. They are of course greater in height than SWFA Low's(which are of lesser height than most "lows"),but stock geometry/adjustment dictates ergo's and ease of acquisition. Hint.

Ring/rail surface area interface,along with max ring spacing,is a scope's(ANY/ALL scope's) BEST friend. Hint.

1000 words,as I head out the door. Hint.










Never been difficult to savvy,who shoots and who don't. Hint...............(grin)

I have used old fashioned weavers plenty and without issue, but the design doesn’t inspire confidence. It doesn’t take an engineering degree to figure out that there are better options now. If you want cheap and the weaver brand means something to you, 30mm grand slam rings are available and are a more sound design IMO.

Ring choice is the last place to save weight...Stock, scope and barrel contour is where the weight variables some into play. Run junk rings to save an ounce?

A quick 1000 Weaver Half Nelson Words,extrapolated ala Burris XTR Signature Medium's(their lowest 30mm offering) and SWFA 30mm Low's. Hint.




A VERY Wise Man above mentioned: ("If only for starters,Half Nelson's are hurting in fastener quality,fastener driver type,fastener sizing,scope interface surface area and 1913 mount interface surface area(clamp footprint). That before you get to their cross slot interface and the trite pockets the schitty/small ring caps reside,or the fhuqking "hinge". Hint.")

Just sayin'.

Hint..................

LMFAO

A set of those came as a free bonus with my Black Friday 10X. I was pleasantly surprised at how nice they were. Was going to get another set of Sig XTRs, but went with the freebies on my CZ 457 MTR. No gripes.

Big Stick, have you actually puked a set of Weaver top mounts? The design has always made me skeptical but I've yet to have an issue.

No matter what, seems like there are better choices...