I have been using old school Weaver rings with the large QD thumb screws for over 40 years on 1" scopes. I have never had a set fail, ever.

I have had, and know of many failures with the Redfield style turn on, windage adjustable scope rings and have eliminated them on all of my rifles.

On heavier 30mm scopes Warnes have been my go to with zero failures or issues, and I have upgraded those to Ken Farrells because they are lower with Zero issues. I tried using cheaper 30mm aluminum scope rings when I was young and poor and had several fail.

I do not know of one person who has had a set of old school weaver rings fail and ruin a hunt. Is this everyone else experience or have I just been lucky?

I was taught by a Friend/Member here that the Weavers were among the strongest rings. He came to this conclusion working with a friend who shoots lots of JDJ Contender (pistol) big kickers. I have lots of faith in what he taught me but I did have an issue with these rings. This is a picture of my American in 450 Bushmaster when I first got it years ago. I could not group this gun worth a crap I tried many things including having the fine folks at Ruger on the phone going over anything they could help with, finally they said send it in. I was stripping the rifle to ship and seen the straps were sliding. I reset the rings torqued the crap out of the screws with the aid of a wheeler torque wrench and the same thing.
I called Weaver got a really help full guy that was around and he sent me a set of tactical rings problem solved.

With this happening and the pain in the butt of keeping the scope square after you torque the screws I just dont use them anymore

BUT There have been Millions of guns with these rings with no issue, I have owned many but today I just think there are better easier choices

Hank

Dad had a set on his Pre 64 70 for what, 40 years. never a problem

Only if your dumb enough to get to between them and the scope.

Fail, no. But I’ve seen them slip from not being degreased, they leave nasty ring marks, and are a serious PITA to level a reticle. About the only thing they do is work! Still far better choices out there that are more user friendly.

I have had them fail in the same way, only more so, as boatboy illustrated above. I had them on a pre-64 Model 70 in .375 H&H, and the straps slipped about halfway forward due to the recoil.

Nope, they might be homely, but they are rugged and do what they were designed to do.

I dearly wish they’d abandon those crappy slotted screws. WTF uses those anymore?

I, too, have noted all of the above.




+1.


I've missed shots on game, with 2 different rifles, owing to those screws having come loose. I began carrying my FatWrench to the range to confirm settings before & after each session, & before going afield.

I've since moved on to other rings. Just my $.02


FC

Weaver fan for well over a half century...didn't think they could be improved on...I was wrong, a few years ago Weaver came out with the Quad Lock series, less stress on the main tube, even with a reduced surface area the actual bearing surface/ gripping power is increased. I was so impressed I took all my old rings to the milling machine and converted them to Quad Lock style. If I am selected to the Mars mission, my expedition rifle will have Weavers.

The slotted screws and the rotation during tightening are a pain but once you get them set they are as good as any other. Weaver will send new screws, no questions asked. I have over torqued a few of the cross bolts which later broke and caused poor groups but one call or email to weaver and you will be back in business. Great customer service.

I think their low rings are lower than any other if you want the lowest possible mount.

Got a set of these on a 700 classic 35 Whelen. A bit of a trick/luck to level as noted, but I'd install them again in a heart beat. They've always appealed to me as awesomely strong and at a price point I could manage at the time. They also work quite well as detachable rings. I often alternate to iron sights for cast bullet loads, but then switch back to the scope for regular hunting. The zero returns almost perfectly, and certainly more than well enough for reasonable shots on game

I to like the ease of quick removal. My A-bolt has them with a redfield scope mount peep "just in case". I will be adding the same peep to my levers with weaver pivot rings once my shop, and the mill / drill are set back up.

I've never had a set of rings by anyone fail. Have a set of Redfield verticle split rings on my 30-06 that have been on it since 1945! That's a long time. Shoot I even had a set of Tasco rings years ago and they were ugly as sin but worked! Think I have a few set's of Weaver's in there right now and have to be close to 30yrs old. yes sir, pain to level the scope with them but they do work!

Strong and the lightest mounts I've used. Never had a set fail! Ugly but they work.

I use warne and ken farrell rings. I also use ken farrell bases. I use those old weavers on my lever rifles only because they look right too me.

I have used a bunch of them because when they are paired with a Warne one piece scope base they are the lowest setup you can get for scoping your Marlin levergun. I have never had a scope slip or move with them. I have stripped out the threads on a couple because I had to tighten and then loosen about 100 times to get the darn scope leveled correctly though.

I am seeing a lot of people who don't know how to level the scope in Weaver rings. Simply tighten the one at the far-most back, holding the scope level, then tighten the far front one. Tighten them just enough to hold the scope in place without pivoting, then tighten the two closest ones in the middle about the same.

Once you have all four reasonably tight, do the sequence over, tightening the screws down.

Use finger nail polish as a screw lock, BTW. Weavers appreciate old school.

I especially like the older round crossbolt mounts that center themselves and re-center themselves when you use the older big knobs. They are surprisingly repeatable QD mounts. In 63 years shooting everything from 22s to 375s of several designs I've never had a problem with the old big knob weaver mounts and with aluminum bases.

This

I think you 3 amigos could f'''k up an anvil.

FC[/quote]
I think you 3 amigos could f'''k up an anvil.[/quote]

HA!

And I agree....

First, the slotted screws work fine, IF you use a screwdriver that fits the slot. Long ago I ground a tip for my screwdrivers to fit the slot correctly.

On the "tilted reticle" problem: I don't use the same technique as my old friend windridge. But for many years I have mounted 100+ scopes a year, due to having to test so many for articles. I often use Weaver rings, because I have a pile of bases so can fit about any rifle, even if I have to modify the bases a little, and because I also have a pile of rings in various heights and diameters.

What I usually do is mount the scope with the rings tightened just enough to allow the scope to turn with a little effort. I leave the reticle a little tilted, say 10 degrees, then tighten down one screw on one ring. If that turns out to be close to "correct," then I tighten down the rest. This has worked for decades.

Have used "Ol' Ugly" Weaver rings on rifles up to an 8-1/2 pound .416 Remington Magnum, and they have not only held zero (IF the scope does), but the scope can be taken off and replaced as precisely as many more expensive mounts.

In fact they were the mounts I used on my first .375 H&H, a Whitworth Mark X. The only "problems" I had were with various scopes--which did not hold up as well as the Weaver mounts.

John I respect your opinion
The picture I posted


Do you see that as a fluke?
Is it something I did or didn’t do?
Was there an issue possibly with this set?

What do suggest?

Thanks Hank

The hunt was over, but I once had one of the big thumbscrews pop off of a Husqvarna 1640 like a button popping off of a fat man's shirt and fly across the room. I had used that set of rings for close to 30 years on dozens of rifles and had probably over-torqued them every single time.

Not Weaver's fault at all.


Okie John