Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics What's good or bad about old school Weaver rings/bases?

Weaver rings and bases were about all my grandpa used on his rifles when I was a kid.

So what is good and bad about them?

Weaver rings and bases are lightweight and strong. They're not terribly expensive either. Weaver also makes various mounts for just about every rifle ever manufactured (or so it seems). They work.

They are also a little harder to set up as far as getting the reticle centered.

Dan

Would the 4 screw tactical rings hold well and still be fairly light weight?

I have an aluminum EGW Picatinny rail with Weaver aluminum 4 screw tactical rings. They're heavier than the "old school" set up by a few ounces but plenty strong.

I prefer the Weaver system to other ring/mount set ups. But I will generally use something like Burris Zee rings on the Weaver bases. The Zee rings are purdier and easier to set up. I also like Warne too but they're heavier.

I honestly don't know how well tactical rings hold on standard bases. I know tactical rings and picatinny bases go together like carrots and peas.


Dan

The good,
Inexpensive
Lightweight
Detachable

The bad,
Prone to denting scope tubes
Cant reticle when you tighten them
Ugly

Denting scope tubes is definitely NOT a good thing!

Put Weaver rings and bases on a M700 back in the 80's. Hunted it HARD for 30 years. Don't think I had to adjust the zero more than 3 times in 30 years. They are strong and light weight. Trying Talley lightweights now. Ask me in 30 more years...

Blacktailer..Why not just stay with something that works so well?

I'd agree with all of that except the denting part. I've never dented a scope with them, and I suspect that any denting is down to the person who put them together on the rifle.

They aren't a thing of beauty, but beauty is as beauty does, and they are very light and in my experience they are rugged and do a very good job of maintaining zero. The canting is a small issue which you can easily deal with once you know to tip the scope that little bit before gradually tightening each screw on the rings (a little on each one at a time, so they bear evenly, until they are all torqued up). You can also take the scope off without tools and replace it without significant change of zero, as long as you remember to push the rings hard forward in the slots as you tighten the clamping screws.

I've used a lot of different mounts, and I like these.

They also tend to replace more precisely if you tighten each cross-bolt down alternately, a little at a time, like lug-nuts.

I used to push the scope forward while tightening the cross-bolts, but these days I set them up while mounting the scope so the cross-bolts are as far apart as possible, without any "wiggle room."

I used Old Ugly Weavers on a .416 Remington Magnum with no problems.

The Campfire made me do it!!!!!!!!!!!

The denting issue is a left-over myth (that's mostly disappeared) from when the saddles were also made of steel. You could torque those screws down till the top strap was flat with the saddle........now, with aluminum saddles, the screws usually strip out before this happens.

The only logical way to set them up. They are fine tools that just work. My 9.3x62 has worn them since 2000 with zero issues, great return to zero and they allow the use of my open sights due to the base designs "trough".

I have a Weaver ring and base set up on a Savage 99 F in 300 Savage. It wears a Weaver 2.5X scope. I have not had to adjust the point of impact one time in almost 20 years of hunting. Light, strong and hold zero. Oh, also cheap, whats not to like?

I've used this combination on several rifles over the past ten or so years - easy to set up, easy on the pocketbook, easy on the eyes, working great.

I have countless Weaver set ups, spanning decades, with not a single issue....

Simple, cheap, they work. I have several deployed on various rifles both rimfire and centerfire with no problems.

I like the low-profile, wide steel bands that rarely if ever dent or scratch a tube (my 30+yrs of using them).

dave

Its the only base & rings ive used. Working fine since 1975

Light, strong, simple, and affordable. Not the most attractive but so what. I have been using their quad-lok rings recently and love them.