I have a rifle that the base screw holes are not aligned with the bore. So my windage is a mile off. Looking at the Burris Posi-Align Signature rings or the Weaver Grand Slam windage adjustable rings. Although the Weavers are wider and might limit scope placement, I'm kinda' leaning towards those.

What are you guy's thoughts on the pros and cons of each?

have a rifle or two with that problem also.... neither one were much of a solution to the problem...

both times I satisfied the problem by going with Leupold adjustable bases and rings....

both rifles, are tack drivers... they were just drilled and tapped wrong at the factory.... must have been on a Friday 5 minutes before closing to keep that kind of high class quality control.....

Didn't even think of that but I do have two complete sets of Redfield windage adjustable one piece base and rings in my scope drawer. Hoping to keep it on the lighter weight side though.

Has anybody else used these rings successfully?

I've used the Burris Signatures a bunch. They work well. The inserts grip the scope tube very securely, without causing any damage or ring marks in the scope finish. The inserts are self-centering/"self-lapping", as well, minimizing stress on the scope tube. Regardless of the inclination available with the inserts to cure the problem you mentioned, those two reasons are significant in and of themselves.

If one looks at the design of the Leupold windage adjustable mount system you'll see the more you need them the worse they are.

I've used the Weaver and the Burris rings in reference to address the same problem. I'd go with the Burris rings. IME, they are of higher build quality, and the live center design of these rings cures a lot of evils in scope mounting. I had the clamping portion that engages the base crack on a Weaver GS ring.

I like both approaches better than using the STD style bases with rear windage screws. I used to have many sets of these in service, and on several occasions I found one side or the other of the windage screws to be loose. Once was on a hunt. Further, I was never warm and fuzzy about the fact that the ring and, by extension, the rear of the scope, was held on by a tiny metal nubbin.

If you need them there’s a wee bit of stress on the tube. The only rifle I have that base on I use Burris signature rings with the inserts. I should go back to the XTR bases and some good rings but I never shoot the gun. My only dust collector.

Are you 100% certain ti’s the screw holes are not in alignment? It could be the top of the receiver was improperly ground and the bases are not in the same plain with each other which would amount to the same thing.
Just asking because I have a M-70 with that issue. Fixed it by shimming the bases with shim material.

Curdog,

As near as I can tell with a straight edge it's the screw holes. This a M700 so the two base areas of the receiver are at a different height

I don't know much about weaver's but I use the XTR signature rings and I really like them.

The last couple of sets of Burris rings I bought were made in China. They're Signature Zees and they seem to work well but it rubs me wrong.

Having become more interested in Weaver's stuff, especially the Grand Slam and Super Slam scopes, I've spent more time on Weaver's website the last year or so. I believe all their rings are made in the USA. Unfortunately I can't speak to their current quality...I haven't used a Weaver ring since the 80s.

Makes for a heck of a choice, huh? Maybe I'll buy a set of Weavers just to find out more for myself.

Yeah I know. The last set of new regular Zee rings I bought were made in China too. Pizzed me off. So I found a couple USA made sets on ebay just for spares. But......I ordered the Signature Zee rings along with the insert kit and I guess I will find out if they're made in China. I wish Burris could make those Signature rings in lows, but there probably isn't enough room for the inserts.

I've been buying 30mm Weaver Rings off of Optics Planet for several years now... about $30 to $35 per set...

and just use regular weaver bases....

Windage adjustable rings without swiveling inserts = kinked tube. Burris for the win!

I am a BIG fan of the Burris posi-loc rings. I have a set on a T/C Icon that does not need lateral adjustment but I liked their look and really liked the fact that they won’t scratch a scope tube up (cough cough Talley lightweights…). I use the XTR Signatures on my large scoped Tikka CTR. I did use a set on a friend’s rifle to fix the same dreaded issue you are having. He thought I was a miracle worker. If you mount the inserts split horizontally (assuming you are not using zero / zero inserts) you get positive or negative cant, mounted with splits vertical gives you pure windage. If you do it on both front and rear ring it will easily overcome even the most retarded drill job on a rifle. If mounted at 45 degree splits you can get both cant and windage correction! The amount of cant and windage varies with the distance between the two rings. Burris has a chart, or just break outyour high school geometry book to figure it out (dammit Mrs. Thomas, you were right. Darn geometry would come in handy someday).

I shot a friend’s m700 VTR with a turn-in front base and windage adjustable rear. I noticed after 15 shots that the scope was moving forward. Tube was sliding forward thru front ring and the cut in the rear ring supposed to be held under the concave screw head had jumped forward at least halfway out. And it was only a 308! Never even considered using them since.

The offset inserts in Signature rings really are a great solution at times. I have a Mark X with misaligned mount holes and offsets solved the problem nicely.

I agree with your assessment of rear windage-adjustable Redfield type mounts. I know guys will say they're fine because they've used them for years without issue, and I don't question their experiences...but, a question I like to ask and has never been answered is, would you use a mount system that uses that style of base for both rear AND front rings? I think we all know the answer to that.