Back in the day I used Leupold rings and bases. One of the rings twisted in a slot in the base. Are these used anymore?

I still use dual dovetails here and there. I think there’s better myself most of the time but for some they work well.

Got them on my Kimber and a Bergara. 7-08 and 30-06, deer hunting so not really stressing anything too hard. They work fine.

Yep. Still made, prefer the dual turn in rings if I am forced to use them. I’ve switched everything to Talley bases and split rings. I have one bolt rifle with Leupold windage adjustable bases and rings. It’s a G 33/40 Mauser 30-06. I use weaver bases and Burris Signature Zee rings on 99’s.

Still use 'em

Although Burris with the plastic inserts worked better for me

Easily raise the scope rear & lower the front with the plus or minus inserts

No marred scope bodies...great idea !

Always liked the rear windage adjustable style

Most cases I'd never have to use internal scope windage to sight in

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1548177844?pid=165508

Question, can you use Leupold Dual Dovetail bases and Burris Rings with the inserts?

I'll probably be called a Leupold basher but I bought a pair for my 300 Weatherby in early August. I am disappointed with the quality of the rings. They seem "cheap" to me compared to other brands I have purchased recently. I also don't care for the logo on top of them. That said, I now have a little over 200 rounds on that set-up and they have been fine.

Yes, but the Burris Signature rings for DD bases were hard to come by last time I was looking for a set.

I’ve pretty much moved to Leupold QR rings.

Dual dovetails still work. There may be better choices too, but there are certainly a lot worse.

I use them in place of older adjustable mounts for turretless scopes.

I use them on a lot of rifles. They work just fine.

I used them most of the time unless I'm using a Talley one piece or a Picatinny rail. I prefer the dual dovetail setup with twist-in rings both front and rear over those with a twist-in ring in the front and a screw-adjustable rear after a period where I had a number of sets of the "standard" (front twist, rear adjustable) rings come loose in the rear. I think it was a manufacturing flaw as several friends had the same things happen at about the same time who had never had issues before.

Same answer.

I forgot to say, they look very good too.. Sometimes more fitting than other mounts/rings. Most of my pre 64 model 70's wear them. I like the sleek look. Have had a lot of other mounts and rings, but the DD's always seem to get the nod. You don't have schidt hanging over the ejection port, like you see with some mounts, they are rock solid. Many pluses to consider in my honest opinion.


I've had issues with the old school standard mounts. The windage screws are the weak point, so I avoid them at all costs. Recently sold off many sets because I knew I'd never use them on my rifles or any of my buddies rifles, so down the road they went. Made almost enough money to buy another rifle!!!!....

That’s why I switched to Talleys, no issues since I did.

I think you are refering to Redfield jr type mounts.

Front base was a dovetail and rear base had opposing screws.

That type of mount has caused many to think they had a scope problem as the mount tends to move.

If you have twist in dovetails both front and rear that would be a dual dovetail and is a better solution.

Currently some form of Weaver cross slot is the most popular for a durable solid mounting solution.

I'm kinda surprised that there's not a FF2 in that pic.


I, too, have a large tote filled with JR, STD, and DD bases and rings. Should get them listed. No chance at this point that I'd have any use for them.

Burns:

Do you have a preferred pic ring?

I've always use a dab of blue locktight on the windage screws, never an issue. I boresight it at the same time and adjust the windage screws to center.

I have starting using talleys more and more though on the past few rifles.

Absolutely. But as pointed out elsewhere in this thread DD Burris rings with the inserts are tough to come by - in my experience.

Yeah, I just searched the crap out of them and you’re right. Thanks for the heads up WF.

Beretzs:

I might have a set squirreled away; if you're in desperate need I can look.

I’m not desperate and don’t wanna put you out, but I’d appreciate it.

I have a 64 QT tote box full of Redfield and Leupold turn-in bases and rings, but only one set are installed at this time, on a Ruger 44 International.

I like the Leupold QDWs but they are heavy.

Been using a lot of Leupold Backcountry with good sucess.

I wish Leupold would do the QRWs in aluminum.

Burris Signatures as mentioned above are handy if you need some tilt but are big.

I understand that Leupold QRWs are made by Warne, same material as Warne's Maximas, but a different design.

Durasight QD rings aren't bad if you need medium or high rings.

TerryK: I have used the Redfield "twist on" rings and bases for MANY decades now - then when the copy-cat Leupold "twist on" rings and bases came along I also began using them.
No problems to date and I am certain I have in excess of 100 (one hundred!) sets of these ring bases in use right now.
I was at my local gun shop this mid-day after Antelope scouting and the owner was mounting a scope using the Leupold "twist on" rings and base.
I do "lap" my rings when using these style rings and bases.
Again I consider this "twist on" ring and base system strong and reliable (no shifting P.O.I.!) - plus it looks great on a Rifle.
I still recommend them to newbies putting together Varmint or big game Rifle and scope combo's.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I still have two sets in use with the rear windage screws due to restrictions mandated by those rifles. Never an issue with them, but standard Talleys or now the small, neat Warne Weaver bases get most of my business. I just replaced a set of standard Weavers on a 336 and the Warnes are a bit lower, and better looking. I also had to go back to a Weaver base on my newest FN because the Warne blocked the view of the front sight through the Lyman 57. Weavers have a tunnel down the middle.

I keep an old cheap scope handy for aligning the rings. I twist the front one in with a dowel, then tweak the alignment until the scope moves freely in both rings. Burris rings with inserts are the ones I prefer for these mounts, Warne, especially Mountain Tech, for Weaver-style.

I pretty much use them on all my rifles. Some have the redfield and some leupold.

There we go. Nice looking set up.

I know you love some FF2.

The Redfield and Leupold versions with the rear that has the dual windage screws. Have some of those and hate them. I need to change the ones I still have out to something else.

I use DD's, Warne slotted bases or picatinny with split rings any more.

Transitioned away from rear windage adjustable a long time ago.

If weight is an issue, I am not afraid to use Talley lightweights. Never had an issue with them.

I don't *like* using them, but still do occasionally...I much prefer Talley LW's on hunting rifles.

The only potential downside for the Dual Dovetails can be using up too much windage in scope if the mounting holes on the receiver are a bit wonky for alignment.

With good alignment and receiver contact, they make a nice, clean, sturdy setup.

Good shootin' -Al

These Leupold double dovetails have been on this Ruger round top for many years and have worked as intended. Sturdy and simple, could not ask for anything more.

Classy rig! 👍

Consider the twist in mounts a terrible way to mount a scope. When you adjust rear windage you put torque on the scope tube that soon or later is relieved resulting in point of impact movement. If you are able to mount stress free they work but if there is any stress on the tube it can eventually be relieved by hot cold or jarring. They have been used widely for years . If you adjust rear windage there is no good way to determine if stress exist in the tube. I have mounted scope this way ,sighted in, thentapped the front ring with a hard plastic hammer and saw point of impact move. Love them if you like but expecting the scope tube to turn the front ring when rear windage scew is adjusted is a bad idea.
Sometimes the rifles so mounted are the ones that need resighted often. A good scope mounted correctly in a good bedded rifle should not need resighted unless ammunition is changed.I have rifles with other mount systems that have not needed resighting in 25 years. Good shooting.

Agreed on the twist-in fronts/windage adjustable rears.

People just don't understand what's really happening when they adjust the rear windage screws. Add to that the very small amount of contact between the sides of the rings and the windages screws and it's amazing they work as well as they do.

Good shootin'. -Al

Except for the Buehler mount with the front base clamp screw, which allows the front ring to gently rotate during windage adjustment. Once you’re lined up windage wise during bore sighting, lock the front ring clamp screw down tight and you are windage lined up with no stress or binding on the scope tube. I prefer the Buehler system over the Redfield for ALL vintage scope applications!

Yep... the Buehler mounts were well designed.

Al Nyhus: Your quote =

"Agreed on the twist-in fronts/windage adjustable rears.

People just don't understand what's really happening when they adjust the rear windage screws. Add to that the very small amount of contact between the sides of the rings and the windages screws and it's amazing they work as well as they do.

Good shootin'. -Al"

I think maybe you (and perhaps others?) do not understand how to properly install a scope in "twist-in fronts/windage adjustable rears" rings!
In brief I will explain where you may be going wrong and how I have LONG prevented your perceived worry/error.
FIRST... the scope mounter MUST align the twist-in front ring and the adjustable rear ring to the bore AND to each other - and then set them BEFORE installing the scope!
PERIOD!
They must be aligned and set BEFORE installing the scope.
I use a heavy steel lapping bar (either 1" or 30 m/m) to "align the rings" and then tighten/set them!
Then I lap the rings.
NO.... problems have occurred for me and for the many dozens of folks I have mounted scopes for using this "align the rings first" method.
I have been doing this for 35 plus years now and virtually all "unexplained" scope "situations" have disappeared.
I spend a LOT of time in gunshops/sporting goods stores around the west and I have looked on in horror countless times as young "counter-people" mount scopes in these type rings and then but the scope in un-aligned rings and then they "torque over" the adjustable rear ring to then try to align (bore-sight) the set-up.
This will often lead to troubles.
My advice NEVER "adjust" the adjustable rear scope ring with the scope in the rings.
AND... using a long "carpenters square" a scope mounter MUST first align the front "twist in ring" with the bore of the Rifle!
My proven method will initially take a tiny bit longer but it WILL be worth the slight extra effort.
I have posted my method here on and elsewhere in detail many times in the past and it was the result of a learning process for me.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Never issues with that component but did have their mount windage screws shake loose one time resulting in two distinct horizontal groups with a 7 mag. Expended about a dozen target rounds before figuring it out.

My 30-378 literally ate up the windage adjustable mounts. Went to Talley, and all remains stable.

Agree. One should not use his scope to torque those rings into position.

Your explanation on this mounting system is spot on. -Al

P.S. I do savvy stress free scope mounting....been doing it for several decades.

Methinks VG hasn't the first clue about whom he is addressing.

VG, can spot a neophyte better than anyone.

Lol

🦫

VG is always the smartest person in the room. Sheesh!

Yep! alignment is key and wonky receiver/holes are a nemesis! Hung around too many machinist in my time.

Alignment is definitely key. So is buying good rifles where you don't have to worry about such things. Just sayin. I personally don't just use these on my Winchester model 70's:


They work just fine on other rifles as well. Tikka's shown below:





No alignment issues with these rifles either. ^^^^^ The Windage adjustable mounts go hand in hand with Remington 700's, old sporterized military rifles and Leupold scopes.

I had a set like that on a rifle I bought long ago. Tell me, how did those rear screws not impart a hell of a torque on the scope when they were turned? Were they supposed to be used as windage adjustment?
I removed mine because I didn't like their looks.