Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Windage Adjustable Scope Mounts

I'm in need of some windage adjustable scope mounts, so Talleys are out. Already tried them actually, which is why I know I need some windage adjustment. I only had 4 more clicks remaining to the left.

Obviously the most correct COA is buy a rifle that has perfectly drilled scope holes. After some cursing at the range I'm past that now.

I believe my choices to be:
1. Leupold windage adjustable bases and rings
2. Burris signature rings (on Leupold bases? never really figured that out)
3. S&K mounts and rings

Anything else better out there? I'm leaning S&K right now. Anything bad about the S&Ks?

Thanks gents.

joelkdouglas,

I see you are fairly new here. I have not seen adjustalbe mounts in years. With that I will suggest Burris Signature rings with the plastic inserts. You can get lot of adjustmetn by switching to differnt inserts.

No experience with S&K mounts...sorry..

LOTS of experience with Leupolds on various rifles and nary a glitch with bazillions of rounds fired...all good.

This will be in contrast to whoever chimes in next, as the windage adjustable leupolds seem to be universally hated here...except by me

ConeTrol rings and bases are another choice. I have them on four of my rifles and have been very happy with them (except for the price!). Considered S&K but others on the Fire report that they are taller than ConeTrols so have not tried them.

Just getting ready to mount my first set of Burris Signature rings for an old, optically excellent, Pecar scope but the cross hairs are off center in the current rings. I got the Burris Zee version that are supposed to fit Weaver type bases. Later today I should have the rifle bore-sighted and then can tell if they will work as planned. (Did also get the Burris off-set inserts.)

I've used Conetrol's , Burris Signature's, Redfield style (the Leupold and everybody else's windage adjustables), and S&K's.

Of these I'd go with the S&K's every time unless money was tight in which case I'd go with the Burris Sig's.

They will work just fine in your Leupold bases as will all the other Redfield style rings.

Try Millett Angle-Lock bases and rings.

Millett is a long way to spell junk.

I'd have to agree with mathman on this one.

Obviously some folks like them as they still sell them.

All of the windage adjustable rings or bases are inherently weak. If the rifle is not a heavy kicker I'd try it before buying a new rifle.

The S&K's and the Conetrol's aren't weak but their designs are completely different than the Redfield style.

I'd say they are every bit as strong as dual dovetails though I don't know if this has been tested.

The burris signature zee's can be mounted on cross slot (weaver) bases.

If money is no object then look at EAW. If you google new england custom guns they sell them.

They make several mounts but these have a front ring that you start at 90 degrees to the rifle and then swing the scope into to a locking back ring.

You can adjust the elevation at the front ring with two screws that are lockable. The rear mount has screws that let you adjust the windage and they just move the scope in the arc of the front mount so no binding at all. They are designed so that you can put your scope on the rifle with the elevation and windage centered. Then center the scope so that you retain the full movement of your turrets.

Once you set them and lock them you can take the scope off and put it on and it will zero very reliably. A full set of bases and rings is about $400. You can save $100 by getting IOR rings which are a Hungarian EAW clone.

The big problem with the Redfield style, adjustable bases is that they have very little bite or gripping surface on the ring. One good, solid impact on the scope and they can pop right out. I've seen this, so youy can't run fast enough to give me that type of base.
I've also used the old B&L adjustable mounts. They are vulnerable to damge from impacts as well and are very frustrating to adjust.
Dave Gentry makes some good, tough, windage adjustable bases. Very light, very trim and not cheap. Have had them on my .25-284 for a while now. They have survived a couple of rock bouncing falls w/o problems. E

Since the front ring sits tight in its konus with a sizeable chuck of shaft against the base surface prohibiting tilt in the event of the lower front ring stem lengthening, your "on good, solid impact on the scope" would have the bend it upwards by about half an inch in order for the rear ring to bent open those two set screws.

Looking at the dimensions - this argument points to faulty installation.

I have no qualms with these mounts on a hunting rifle.

I like the Conetrol and S&K style rings/bases. Both are sleek, solid and windage adjustable. I've used them on small caliber rifles up to 340 Weatherby and they've worked perfectly for me. Burris Signature Zee Rings are stout also and perhaps a bit cheaper. Depending on the rifle you might use "Redfield" type bases & rings from a number of manufacturers, but they would be far and away my last choice. I've had more than one "Redfield" type come apart for a variety of reasons--some were my fault, others were due to the inherently weak design.

Weaver type bases and Burris Signature zee rings and get the offset insert three insert3 kit.

If you decide to go with the Burris rings you can PM me if you have questions. I have a set on one rifle with the offset inserts and they work great with no stress on your scope. You can correct both windage and elevation problems with the offset inserts.

The Leupold/Redfield type mount with adjustable windage will definitely work, but the harder-kicking the rifle the less secure it is, since the scope is mostly held in place by the front ring. That said, I have a bunch of them on lighter-kicking rifles and they do the job.

The Burris Signatures are a deifnite step up, as are the Conetrol/Gentry/S&K, which all use the same basic windage system, with opposing windage screws in each base. In fact the bases for the Conetrol and Gentry mounts are interchangeable.

If you really like the Talley rings, you might consider sending your rifle to Talley to have them fitted. Many if not most factory rifles that run out of windage adjustment with fixed mounts don't actually have misaligned mounting holes. Instead the top surfaces of the action are tilted a little, due to poor polishing. Talley can machine the bottom of Lightweights to compensate, which probably wouldn't cost much (if any) more than a different set of mounts.

I just finished rescoping an old tang safety Ruger in 25-06. The rear base was visibly offset to one side of the rifle.

I used the Burris Signature Zee rings and ordered the set of offset inserts. The set contains three poly inserts of .020", .010" and .005" offset. I set the front end of the scope 20 thousandth's to the right and the rear of the scope ten thousandth's to the left. If my math has not failed me, that gives 24 moa correction with the scope rings spaced 4.5 inches apart.

That put my first group less than four moa off of the bull with the scope's cross hairs centered.

It sounds to me like the perfect answer to the OP.



I used to use only Burris/Redfield/Leupold windage adjustable one piece bases with the appropriate rings. That allowed me to switch scopes at leisure between several rifles.

Then I discovered that after removing and replacing the front dovetail a few times, it became very sloppy in the base. I restored the accuracy on a couple of rifles simply by replacing a worn out dove tail ring and base set.

I absolutely love the Burris Extreme Tactical bases as they offer multiple slots for latitude in ring placement, and I use the Burris Signature Zee rings with them.

I seem to recall seeing three different setups with these rings break loose. The tactical guys recognize this as a problem as well. Doesn't really matter how it occurs, just that it does with these and doesn't with lots of other setups. E

I have been thinking - mostly not much good comes from that...

My experience with this type of base covers -

6mm Remington
.308 Winchester
9,3x64

Only that last is what I would classify as "somewhat of a kicker".

But - to further "think" -

on that rifle only scope used was Weaver K2 2,5x20.
I in general tend to favor light, compact scopes.

So - to build on MDs post; since scope mass will also have input,
as will, I wager, shot frequency and amount, I will recognize a inherent "weakness" of the design -

hence my modifier "for a hunting rifle".

The tactical guys E mentiones - tend to

use bigger, heavier scopes and shoot much more with them than most hunters.