Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Old school Weaver rings, has anyone had them fail?

FC[/quote]
I think you 3 amigos could f'''k up an anvil.[/quote]

HA!

And I agree....

First, the slotted screws work fine, IF you use a screwdriver that fits the slot. Long ago I ground a tip for my screwdrivers to fit the slot correctly.

On the "tilted reticle" problem: I don't use the same technique as my old friend windridge. But for many years I have mounted 100+ scopes a year, due to having to test so many for articles. I often use Weaver rings, because I have a pile of bases so can fit about any rifle, even if I have to modify the bases a little, and because I also have a pile of rings in various heights and diameters.

What I usually do is mount the scope with the rings tightened just enough to allow the scope to turn with a little effort. I leave the reticle a little tilted, say 10 degrees, then tighten down one screw on one ring. If that turns out to be close to "correct," then I tighten down the rest. This has worked for decades.

Have used "Ol' Ugly" Weaver rings on rifles up to an 8-1/2 pound .416 Remington Magnum, and they have not only held zero (IF the scope does), but the scope can be taken off and replaced as precisely as many more expensive mounts.

In fact they were the mounts I used on my first .375 H&H, a Whitworth Mark X. The only "problems" I had were with various scopes--which did not hold up as well as the Weaver mounts.

John I respect your opinion
The picture I posted


Do you see that as a fluke?
Is it something I did or didn’t do?
Was there an issue possibly with this set?

What do suggest?

Thanks Hank

The hunt was over, but I once had one of the big thumbscrews pop off of a Husqvarna 1640 like a button popping off of a fat man's shirt and fly across the room. I had used that set of rings for close to 30 years on dozens of rifles and had probably over-torqued them every single time.

Not Weaver's fault at all.


Okie John