Have a sporterized Mauser 98 at the smith’s now getting drilled and tapped for scope bases. The receiver hadn’t had the charging hump ground down so I decided on two piece warne unaltered steel bases for it. I was planning on using the vertical split maxima rings but after some reading I’m thinking about going with the Burris signature zee rings instead. Which ones should I go with? Or should I be looking at different rings?

I'd use regular ol Zee rings. They look good, are strong, svelte and lock up solid on the weaver style mounts. That's what I'm going to be running on my new mauser rifle.

Burris Zee's are absolute fhuqking Dog Schit,with perhaps only Millett below them. Hint.

Pardon some folks actually shooting. Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!.............

Burris Signature Zee rings have worked great for me.

If your gun is a heavier kicker, Burris XTR Signature rings would be better.

No ring marks. No lapping required.

Sweetie,

Signatures have THREE fhuqking times the number of 'cap fasteners and surface engagement area,along with DOUBLE the base fasteners. Zee's are THE fhuqking schittiest thing going. Hint.

You Drooling CLUELESS Fhuqktards are a HOOT! Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!..................

'Stickie,

I think you are too drunk to run your calculator.

3x!

Laughing!

Google as you MUST,Brokedick. Hint.



Pardon my simply shooting it all,as you Google aloud and fail MISERABLY. Hint.



Fhuqking LAUGHING!................

I'm VERY fhuqking "SURPRISED!",that it got 3x more quiet,when The Drooler had her nose rubbed in her own fhuqking STUPIDITY. Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!.................

3x cap fasteners?

Sig Zees have eight per pair.

XTR Sigs have 12 per pair.

8x3 =24

!00% error.

Nice try.

You are an AMAZINGLY Stupid Clueless Fhuqk...you "lucky" kchunt. Hint. Congratulations?!?





Fhuqking LAUGHING!...............

A sporterized mauser is the last application for Chinese made dogshït Burris XTR Signature, aka "Horn Rings" in stikspeek. Now, if you're a broke-dïck looking to hold down Chinese scopes for drop tests, then have at it.

Those are not Signature Zees

Keep googling.

QueenKchunt "gets" to look at other folks wares...the "lucky" kchunt. Hint. Congratulations?!?

Now WhyKchunt gets to hit edit. Hint. Fhuqking LAUGHING!





The Two Crying Kchunts together,couldn't procure a Fieldcraft. Hint.



Signatures are more than a "touch" Skookum. Pardon reality,ladies. Hint.

At least you have one another's narrow shoulders to cry upon. Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!..............

Regular ol Zees, work just fine on heavy kickers:


7 pound 300WBY:


If you really want something stronger, go with the Leupold PRW's shown on the 7 pound 338wm above^^^ The way it shoots is a testament as to how well the rings hold the scope:



Then a mauser style rifle, just for schidts and giggles for the midget to look at:



Zees on another pre 64 model 70:

Stick post up that pic of the shelf of Chinese scope boxes.

#analthon #arsestain

I agree, Burris Zee rings are right at the bottom of rings I'd choose.

I don't like the vertical split Warne rings either but I do like the horizontal split Maxima rings.

Have used plenty of the Zees, Sig and plain. The stupid part is that cut that lets it clamp down on the base. It will take a set and require a big flat blade screwdriver to pry it open and maybe a plastic mallet to remove from the base. The XTR Sigs are easier, but wider and heavier than necessary in some cases. Warne Mountain techs are strong and light, easy to install and remove with a 1/2” socket on your torque wrench, and all fasteners are coated stainless steel.

SWFA XTR clones are cheap as dirt, often included free in a package when the scopes are on sale, and made in China like most of the Burris rings. They use a 1/2” clamping nut too and so far have worked just fine without marking any scopes.

It annoys the crap outta me that Leupold doesn’t make DDs for 98s, but for ones without the hump, at least, there are regular Talleys.

I've failed numerous sets of Zee's,mainly because they are frail pieces of fhuqking schit and I actually shoot. As are Zeiss and Burris scopes. Hint.

What are the "odds",that QueenKchunt is a heel nipping lap dog,"living" vicariously?!? Hint.



Fhuqking LAUGHING!..............

The Warne maximas are a little bulky but they will hold a scope in place. Weaver Quadlocks hold OK too, for an aluminum ring. LeupoldQRW's are good. I never have liked the Burris rings and still don't. GD

Got an older fullfield II 3x9x40 I’m going to put on it for the time being. The more Ive read about the vertical split rings the more they seem like a pain to switch scopes in them down the line. The rifle is a close to 8 pound 35 whelen as it sits with no scope now and it’s not too horrible recoil wise. It is a classic gun though and I don’t want to put tactical looking rings on it.

One thing is for fhuqking certain,is that if you are using Burris glass,you'll want something EASY to change,because you are going to NEED to do so. Assuming you actually fhuqking shoot. Hint.

Maxima's are 10x superior to Zee's. As are PRW's. Hint.

Dangle a picture of the Goat Fhuqk,it will be FUNNY! Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!............

I agree with you on that, the dual dovetails would look sharp and haven’t given me any problems on another rifle they are on. They do offer the unaltered base with the windage screws but I can’t see those as being as strong and they’re definitely not as slick looking as the DD’s

The rifle on top is the one getting drilled and tapped now. The bottom rifle is a 1917 eddystone that I inherited from my grandpa after he passed away. I’m still pretty young and can shoot a peep sight pretty well but I’m more confident using a scope for hunting and would like to get the Mauser out in the woods more. The eddystone is due for a rebore or debarrel job but that’s another story.

Sticks stuff "failing" has more to do with him being a ham fisted dumbphuck and throwing his shyt around than anything else.

Leupold dual dovetail.

Those don't fit the mount he has.

There isn't much metal at the Zee Z and I've had them crack there.

I have a couple of rifles from the Boomer Era that still need the standard mounts. I use the Signatures on those because of the inserts. Never had one of the windage bases fail, nor tested them harshly by dropping or otherwise abusing them. They do require some futzing with to get straight and centered.

My bad. Just my go tos.

One piece standard with windage screws maybe? I have some of those that have stayed on through some pickup rides on the floorboard lol.

I've had them on a half dozen rifles for years and thousands of rounds without issue. I don't play musical rings on my rifles so they get mounted once and stay there.

It seems BlackShart "forgot" about her heralded Imaginary Pretend Ignore,which frosts her sheer and utter CLUELESSNESS nicely,with being a Lying Piece Of Fhuqking Schit...the "lucky" kchunt. Hint. Congratulations?!?

Fortunately for her,Imagination and Pretend are free,so even a Brokedick such as she,can "afford" to "contribute". The only thing she "shoots",are her mouth and Imagination. Hint.

Zee's are HILARIOUSLY fhuqking schitty and suit her "abilities" and "Adventures" well. Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!.................

The weaver-style bases are a great system. If you want detachable rings, get QRW's. You have a heavy rifle and a heavy scope; don't save weight on the rings. If a quick detach isn't important, Leupold makes a decent ring and the Maximas are just fine. It doesn't take any more effort to switch a scope in vertically split rings than in an other. GD

I totally agree with you there: The reason I use the Zee rings. They are not blocky and excessively big like a lot of the weaver style rings. A lot of those are too tactical looking for my needs as well. These are not tactical rifles, they are classic hunting rifles. I hate to suggest the leupold standard mounts and rings, but that is what I'm running right now until I fit a set of weavers on my new Mauser rifle:


Running an older American made Burris FFII 3-9x40 with ballistic plex reticle. Great scope for this application as well, as it is fairly lightweight, but it will easily allow you to shoot to 500 yards with that reticle. This older Burris has better glass than my new Zeiss V4 4-16x44.

That is a sharp looking rifle! And what stock is that if you don’t mind me asking?

This^^^

Many popular rings and mounts were not originally developed with the weight, length, and size of scope that a lot of people are using today.

Pretty low.

Thanks buddy. It is actually an H&R model 340 made from 1981-1983. It is a Zastava action, very similar to the Interarms Mark X or FN commercial action. The stock is what H&R put on this rifle. It is very trim and the rifle is pretty light. Lighter than a pre 64 model 70 featherweight. It may be a Bishop stock, but I'm not totally sure..



I just bought the rifle a few days ago and have been working on accurizing it. Glass bedded it, adjusted the trigger down to 2 3/8 pounds, and freefloated the barrel. Shoots very well for a light barreled rifle.

Guys saying your scope choice is heavy are full of it too. Unless 13 oz's is heavy. I'm running the same exact scope on this rifle and it balances very well. I'll develop some loads for this thing and run it out to 400 yards. I'd expect sub 2" groups at that range, even with the lowly 180gr Winchester powerpoint load I showed in another post. Good luck with your rifle. In your picture, you show a m1917. The one I posted a pic of also wears weaver bases and Burris Zee rings. That has been a great choice for my sporterized m1917's. Now, having a little experience with the old mauser actions, some were not drilled and tapped very well, so sometimes you run into issues mounting a scope because the bases are slightly out of alignment. When that happens (and it does), you may need to look at some rings that are windage adjustable. I've had to use the Millet angle loc windage adjustable rings. They work, and help to align the scope axis with the bore axis. Also, I've seen a few where the bases needed to be bedded because of ring alignment issues. Hopefully you won't have any problems like that, but it's always a good idea to check for those issues with scope alignment bars.

It’s a sharp looking rifle for sure. Hopefully I won’t have any problems with the Mauser scope base alignment, its at a reputable local smith so everything should be good to go when I get it back. My grandpa’s 1917 is a different story, it’s an eddystone with a roached out bore and I’ve thought about rebarrling back to 30-06 or reboring it to 35 whelen as well. I’ve read they had silverback gorillas tightening the barrels for eddystone back in the day and the receivers are prone to cracking and I’d hate to ruin a family heirloom. I’ll probably wind up sending it to JES and having it rebored eventually. The other issue with that rifle is the swimming pool where the rear sight base used to sit would have to be filled and welded. I’m not sure if it would be worth all that trouble to get a scope on it so I will probably leave the peep on it

Yes, those were the common issues with the Eddystones. A rebore would probably be the way to go and 35 Whelen would be a great choice. Many guys go with the 9.3x62 as well. I've seen the big hole you are talking about on some of the p14's and m1917's that were not finished. Some guys ground the ears off and left the hole. A lot of guys used one piece mounts and a single hole in the rear bridge.

I hadn’t considered a one piece mount like that. That is definitely an option and I’m sure a good bit cheaper than having the hole filled and ground down. I’m a pipe welder by trade and have no problem welding bolt handles and such but welding on the reciever is something I’d be hesitant about without getting it heat treated afterwards or something.

To each his own, but anyone tells you Signatures are no good is......wrong. I'd definitely go with Signatures. And the Zees. They absolutely self align, hold really well and will not mark the scope. Either 1 or 2 piece base, up to you. With picatinny style machined slots, the Signature Zee will slide on fine, but the cross bolt is smaller than the slot. So just seat the ring and bolt, then slide it forward a little until the crossbolt stops against the front of the slot, then tighten. Not a big deal, it won't move. With the Weaver style aluminum extruded bases, the ends are often a bit larger enough to where you need to open the Zee ring clamping slot a little, a small pita but not a deal breaker for me. i just use one piece machined picatanny rails now. And Signature Zees. Never had one fail, ever.

BTW- You're gonna have a nice rifle. I'm sure you won't go tossing it around. .

It is funnier than fhuqk,that which the gals who don't shoot,tend to "endorse" with their nothingness. Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!................

Good post.

I have Talley bases and split rings on my Mausers. No problems with them, but they probably ain’t with a cshit either. I use the Burris Zee Rings on 99’s, because I had to use offset insert to correct windage issues on a couple.

I’ve used dual dovetail bases and Warne bases with both flavors of Signature Select rings with the variable inserts to mount scopes on hard kicking rifles without issues. I guess you need really super duper rings to contain the huge stash of disposable chink scopes in stock. How much storage space is there in a single-wide?

If you're the guy that takes 10,000 pictures of targets, keeps fired targets in a collection of binders and your rifles only see the range, Zee's are the rings for you.

The last two sets of Burris 'Zee's (supplied to me by their owners) were not anything I'd use or install. I showed them the areas of concern and both opted for different set ups.

An earlier set of 'Zee's (2003-ish) I now have on a 22LR are much better, with the exception of the cross bolt screw not being a Torx config as these later ones are.

My 2 cents worth, FWIW.

Good shootin' -Al

You guys can speculate all the stupid schidt you want, as it appears you have never had a set of Zee rings break. Please show some pics of these rings that have given up on you in the field or even on the range. I highly doubt some of you guys shoot more than a box of ammo per year. Then Al mainly shoots benchrest, where his rifles are 15+ pounds. The op wants a good set of rings for his mauser. Those that have posted pictures of what works on mauser rifles, have given good options.

I've had super low zee's on my Marlin .30-30 for over 20 years. I've lost track of how many deer have been killed and wouldn't care to guess how many days it's been afield but it's a whole bunch of both. Zero doesn't need adjustment unless I change loads and it averages about 3/4" for three shot groups at 100 yards with loads it likes.

Yeah....I was pretty surprised by the poor quality of these last two sets of 'Zee's' I referenced in my earlier post. Both hunters asked me before buying them and I told them that while they weren't my first choice, I had no qualms using them based on my previous good experience with 'Zee' rings, both standard and Signature. I actually wondered if they were knock-offs but both sets came from reputable suppliers and everything appeared correct. Both sets were tried on multiple sets of name brand steel and aluminum bases. The bases were not the issue.

Besides the 22LR mentioned, two H&R Ultra Varmint break action single shot 223's have early 2000's vintage 'Zee's on them as does a Model 70 Sporter Varmint 22-250. So there's a few sets here on well used hunting style rifles. I can't imaging how many 'dogs those two H&R's have shot over the years.

I've moved on from the 'Zee's but these 4 sets will stay since they do what they need to do. All bases have been bedded and rings lapped/bedded, as per normal.

Good shootin' -Al

Sorting through my tub of bases and rings last night for a rail blank to mill, I came across a pair of circa 2010-ish Burris 'Zee's that I'd forgotten about. My assumption is the 2010 versions were made in Colorado, but I'm not 100% sure of that. I still have one set of the poor fitting current 'Zee's here (owner decided it was too much hassle to return them), so here's some comparison pics. They are different heights, but that's neither here nor there.

1- One of the current set of 'Zee's that I had trouble with:



2- Current 'Zee's (lt), circa 2010 'Zee's (rt). If you look closely, you get a hint of the difference.


3- Superimposing the cross bolts, the issue is pretty apparent. If anything, this angle makes the difference less pronounced.


Another issue on both new sets is that the distance between the top of the cross bolt and the solid portion of the ring is .010-.012 more than the earlier sample.....likely from the cross bolt being too low. Which is another reason that trying multiple high quality bases made no difference.

The clamping angle issue, combined with dimension above the top bolt and/or the cross bolt height, made the rings want to 'roll' on the cross bolt as the cross bolt was bottomed out in the slot.

I'm not bangin' on Burris, dissin' Pacific Rim products or calling anyones parentage into question...just pointing out what happened. Hopefully this might save people some frustration if they're using these.

Good shootin' -Al

Thanks for all the good info fellas.

Pics