Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics 1” Rings for Picatinny Base?

^^^ This ^^^

The only reason I would use med's is if I absolutely had to.

Another vote for Seekins. I much prefer their finish to Warne's, and yes, I've used both.

I use a Leupold base/ring setup on my AR. I'm using Weaver 3-screw rings on a .22 bolt action with a Picatinny rail. Both are for 1" scopes. I wouldn't have any hesitation to do either one again.

Burris Z rings or Warne Maxima. The warnes aren't light but great rings.

Seekins

+1 on Seekins. I also like MTD Premier that are Stanag and picatinny.

It seems Seekins 1” Low rings are unubtanion right now. Anybody used Farrell’s?

I like the Burris Signature XTR rings with the adjustable inclination inserts of up to 40 moa. I don't know if they are the lightest but the most adjustable and solid rings for sure.

I have a couple sets of Ken Farrell rings, amazingly well machined. but they are on rifles where weight is not an issue, they are not lightweight.
Apparently you have something against Burris Signature Zee rings ??

These are nice: https://www.milehighshooting.com/spuhr-hp20-25a-picatinny-aesthetic-rings-1-h-1/

I recently had the same question to mount a VXll 2-7x33mm on a pic rail. Al Nyhus recommended the Warne Vapor horizontal split rings, but I couldn’t find any in Canada. I could only find the vertical split ones.
I found Vortex Pro series and went with a low set. This is on a Model 7 with EGW rail with lots of clearance left to go with a bigger objective. Probably not as light as the Warne’s that Al recommended, but they appear to be solid and well made.

Burris doesn’t list Signature Zee Rings in low.

Seekins lows have worked well for me.

These are the way I would go..

+1 on the Ken Farrell rings. IIRC, he makes them in both steel and aluminum. Very solid, and light enough for me.

Also have a couple of sets of the Athlons Doug recommended and no complaints.

Ken Farrells are my go to rings for heavier recoil rifles and they are the second lowest ring you can buy. Warne Maxima's come in number 2. And I use the older Weaver split rings on lighter scoped rifles that are not heavy kickers as much as possible. I have never had a problem with any of these except I had to call Warne on a set that had an alignment issue would not allow me to get the scope on paper. They mailed a new set no questions asked and I kept the loose parts from the bad set for spares and threw away the rings.

Interesting on the Ken Farrell 1" rings. I've never used his 1" but have the 30 mm lows. The ones I have experience with are very thin front to back, open section in the top, and grooves on the inner ring. All this factored in, the ring to scope contact area is minimal. The lug is rounded rather than flat. The clamp is rather odd shaped. The 1" and the 30mm have a height of .735"

Seekins have a solid, machined in lug, are solid in their inner contact area with no inner grooves or open sections so they have significantly more tube to ring contact. The 1" Seekins have a height of .76".

I currently have the Farrell 30mm's on a 6.5 Grendel. Previously they were on a .223AI. On both, I wanted low mounts. After comparison with other rings, I only want to use them on light recoiling rifles.

For a 1" ring, the difference of .025" between the Seekins and Ferrells isn't a big draw for me considering the reduced contact area. Everyone has their preferences. They've not failed in my use, but after spending time with them, the Ferrell's aren't my first choice.

PLUS TWO!

The SIGNATURE Zee Rings are the ones with the inserts that don’t leave a mark. Once again- they don’t make the Zee Signature rings in Low.