Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Weaver style rings/bases question

I have never used these style rings, except very recently on my son's .22 lr, so I am not very familiar with the benefits, or problems with this mounting system. Do all "Weaver Style" rings fit all such bases? Specifically, I am getting Warne bses, so can I use any Weaver style rings? Which ones do you prefer, and why?

Warne Maxima?

Weaver Grand Slam?

Burris Zee?

Leupold PRW?

Other?

I use Warne rings on my higher quality applications and B-Square Sport Utility rings on my less expensive applications.

Jeff

My last couple of mounts have been Weaver bases and Burris Signature Zee rings.

Dale

I believe I've used all the "Weaver Style" rings... I like the Burris Zee and original Weaver.

I like the Burris Z-Ring's for a few reasons, they are solid but not too heavy, they wont leave ring mark's like most ring's , you can use the offset inserts to correct for windage or add elevation for a long range rig......a no brainer

Except for my rugers all of my rifles use std weaver bases and various rings. For my for lack of a better word "better" rifles I use the std zee rings and have had very good luck with them and I like the looks of them. I do have one set of the weaver quad lock rings on a stevens 200 and aside from the fact that they are a bit wider than the zee rings I have found them to be very serviceable rings and inexpensive. I also have one set of the original weaver rings on an old 22 mag I have. They are not the prettiest rings and they are a bit tricky to get squared up on your scope w/o canting it as you tighten the screws, but they are very durable and fairly light weight. To answer your question most all of the "weaver style" setups are interchangeable.

The Weaver system is a very strong mount, it is the basis of today of the picatany system. The old weaver rings had an aluminum bottom and a steel half ring system top, that would most surely mare a scope. I have alot of the Burris Zee rings on rifles, they
are simble and strong all steel. The Leupold are very good but more costly and more bulky.

Perhaps I've been lucky, but in over 40 years of big game hunting, I've had no problems with aluminum Weaver-style rings (save the occasional stripping of the screw threads). I've also found the Weaver system to be perfectly reliable when swapping out a scope for another that was previously mounted on that rifle--the return to zero is usually within 1 MOA. This is why I always carry a spare scope and rings with me on hunts, a habit which has largely replaced carrying an extra rifle.

Since modern scopes are mostly aluminum, what's wrong with aluminum mounts? Properly designed and manufactured, they should be just as strong as the scope.....

I have used Weaver rings and base's for years on many,many hunting rifles and never had a problem one. IMO they are just as strong as the Redfield/Leupold ring, base set up. They make cheap Weaver style rings that I would never use but with Weaver brand rings and bases I don't think you can go wrong.

Not the slickest looking, but as strong and dependable as any. I like the original Weavers best. I've used them as semi quick detachable rings on many occasions with no loss of zero. With Weavers and some other Weaver type rings they quickly come off with a simple screwdriver, or the back of knife blade in an emergency. The Warnes look a bit better, are just as strong, but I can't do that with them.

That depends on which Warnes:



These return to zero quite well.

To answer your original question, yes, all Weaver-style rings will fit all Weaver-style bases. So, as an example, you can put Weaver rings on Warne bases, or Warne rings on Leupold QRW bases.

The steel Leupold and Warne bases are lower than the aluminim Weaver bases. Weaver bases and rings are the lightest because they are made largely of aluminum.

There are some no-name "blister pack" Weaver-style rings that I would avoid for anything except maybe a .22, but the major name brand rings are all good. Personally I have Weaver, Leupold and Warne setups on various rifles and don't have any complaints. I have a slight personal preference for the Leupolds.

Weaver's steel grand slam bases and rings are junk compared to Warne, in my experience. I have had a couple of the Weaver bases that weren't machined square. One of them was so bad that it was easily noticeable just by looking at it. If not for that one, I would not have checked the others. My current Warnes are more square, have a more attractive finish, and are even a few grams lighter, if that matters. And the Weaver grand slam rings I tried to use were so out of round that they scraped my scope, and one of them doesn't clamp down onto a base quite like it should because the small piece that does the clamping isn't machined the same as it is on the other ring and it binds. I lapped those rings and torqued them down as tight as I could on a beater rifle, but would never buy another set. Warnes are, once again, better finished, better machined, and lighter weight.

Thank you gentlemen, as usual this forum is a fountain of good information.

Burris Zee rings, use them on all of my rifles. They are trim looking and strong as heck. Spence