After years of everyone here practically begging the guys at Talley to build an Extra Low One-piece Lightweight

rings/bases, they've finally done it. Being one of the proponents of such a ring, I felt obliged to put my money

where my mouth is and order up a set. I called Gary Tuesday afternoon on the way back to Austin from a business

trip. As is par for the course with the guys at Talley, they shipped my stuff quickly, and it arrived this

afternoon. After putting the kiddo to bed, I decided to drop them on a rifle of mine and see what I thought.



First let me point out the new product number for the Extra Lows for a Remington 700. The number for the LOW

rings is 930700. The number for the new Extra Low ring is 920700. I measured the Extra Lows to be almost 0.1" lower than the Lows.





Here is a side-by-side comparison of the Lows an Extra Lows...





I figured the best way to show the difference and possible fit issues was to set each scope in both sets of rings

and try to take pictures from similar angles/distances. I have four of the more common scopes you see or read

about here that I figured I'd throw on to do a little visual comparison--Leupolds in 6x42, 2.5-8x36, and 3.5-10x40

and a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. Some of them are wearing Butler Creek flip-ups, some are wearing Leupold Alumina

flip-ups. This particular rifle normally wears a VX-III 2.5-8x36, so that's what I'll start off with. In case

anybody is wondering, the barrel on this rifle is a No. 3 Brux contour which is pretty close to a Remington Magnum

contour, but this one has a longer shank. Anyway, on to the pictures...


Leupold 2.5-8x36 in Talley Lows




Leupold 2.5-8x36 in Talley Extra Lows

[img]http://dnjclark.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Misc/1006339/737775873_hU4oK-L.jpg[/img]


Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40 in Talley Lows

[img]http://dnjclark.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Misc/1006319/737773741_6ewL7-L.jpg[/img]


Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40 in Talley Extra Lows

[img]http://dnjclark.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Misc/1006332/737775379_P37kP-L.jpg[/img]

Barrel Clearance Closeup

[img]http://dnjclark.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Misc/1006334/737775494_UEfvp-L.jpg[/img]

Part Deux



Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 in Talley Lows




Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 in Talley Extra Lows




Barrel Clearance Closeup




Leupold 6x42 in Talley Lows




Leupold 6x42 in Talley Extra Lows




Barrel Clearance Closeup




Ok, now if you were paying close attention, you've probably noticed something different about the setup on the 2.5-8x36 above. As I was tightening everything down, I noticed this...

[img]http://dnjclark.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Misc/1006335/737775632_Zh8hz-L.jpg[/img]

The magnification ring is now hitting the base of the Talley Extra Lows. That meant I had to move the scope back. Not a big deal, but that also meant I now had to reverse the front ring. After doing that, everything was fine. Or so I thought...

[img]http://dnjclark.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Misc/1006341/737775992_V9zGc-L.jpg[/img]

Up popped the next issue. With the Talley Extra Low rings, I was now getting interference between the bolt handle and the Butler Creek flip-up on the objective. I popped it off and problem solved. It's hard to see in the following picture, but there is some daylight between the bolt and ocular. Not much, but it's there...

[img]http://dnjclark.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Misc/1006344/737776092_cPEZn-L.jpg[/img]


I'll probably have to switch to the Leupold Alumina flip-ups if I want to run any kind of cap. I don't really have an issue with that as I really like the Aluminas, but keep that in mind if you are considering the Talley Extra Lows. I'd also caution against any scope with an ocular bigger than this particular Leupold. Unfortunately I didn't test it with the Zeiss, but I feel pretty confident in saying there are going to be clearance issues on that scope based on past experience with Talley Lows and the 3-9x40 Conquest.

To wrap up this long-winded review, I'll add that after getting everything buttoned back up on this rifle, I couldn't be more pleased with the eye-to-scope alignment on this particular setup. I can now get a firm cheek weld and not have any blackout issues.

I applaud the guys at Talley for bringing us what we've been asking for, but beware, it might not work on your particular setup.

-Dan

Nice comparison, thanks

it looks like they are fine with a 36mm objective. I am now used to the lows as they are on 4 rifles!

Good stuff Dan... already knew when I heard they were so low they wouldn't allow the power ring on a Leupold to go over. I was hoping for something .050" lower than the lows. Probably the perfect ring for a variety of fixed power scopes however.

Great review. Thanks for taking the time to post.

Clark: good post...thanks! Yum! I need a set!

Agreed. I think that's where they'll shine.

....why I want them...4X on my FW 06

Good information, thank you for the report. I may need to take a closer look at my rigs to see if all will fit with the new ex-lows.

Dan,

Thank for the good report.

That's always been my problem in using Talley's, not low enough.

I'll have to try some out now.

Thanks Dan...

So no issues with the lack of a power ring on the 6x42 but a potential issues with flip up caps and power adjustment on anything bigger than a 36mm objective?

I should have been a little more clear. Everything cleared on the objective end, even the 6x42 with the BCs. Worst case on the 6x42 with BCs, you might have to trim/grind away a very small piece of the cap if there's barrel interference.

On the ocular end, I think you're going to run into bolt clearance issues on nearly everything if you're running the BCs. Aluminas should work fine, or just don't run a cap.

-Dan

I don't run caps so it sounds like I'm golden..

Thanks for the info Dan...

Great post/pics Dan, thanks for taking the time.

I was initially very excited when I seen these were out, but now not so much. I run my leupolds as far forward in the Tally LOW's as I can go. It looks like I wouldn't be able to get away with the extra low's, at least not with my variables. Thanks again for the pics!!!

Dan,

Excellent post and pics!

Seems like these will really be the ticket for those who like to run 2-7x32's, etc.

Bill

How about the QD's? That is all I use and I would like to see the extra lows in that..TAlleys are high to start with..The extra lows would sure fit my 1x4, 1.5x5 and 3X Leupolds..I like a scope down as low as possible..

Dan, thanks for taking the time to do this. Good info!

Great pics and descriptions.

You could file or grind a bit of metal off of the rear rin/base to gain a bit more room. I usually have to file off the front of Leupold reversable bases to get the eye relief needed.

Your bolt handle's gonna scrape the ocular... I believe.

Dang! Just checked my M70's - same issue with the 2.5-8 power ring here. I have the scope mounted with the power ring almost touching the "ring", so it would have to move rearward quite a bit . . . . Would have loved to have the scope a little lower . . .

Excellent post. Thanks for taking the time to show us.



Casey

Brad: On a pre 64,I think I'll have room;I've mounted 3X and 4X Leups in Weavers,which are probably lower.Even if it hits a bit as a result of bolt wobble,no biggie.

I suspect there will be plenty of room on the Classics.



I'm gonna order two sets later today for M70's

I ordered a set through the "Outfitters Gear Shop" on the 8th after 10PM. I put in special instructions for the extra lows as they didn't have the right part number for a point and click selection.

Got the extra lows on Sat the 12th in the mail.

THANKS to Rick/Terah and Talley.

kup

Good informative report!!!!

I've heard, many times, about people mounting their scopes incorrectly and damaging them from it. Alignment being off I can certainly understand... but what about with Talleys? Just screw down and drop in scope since there is no alignment or adjustments to be done? Just proper torque when securing the tops of rings?

That's been my experience. I have two different T-handle torque wrenches I use. One is 25 in-lbs for the bases and the other is 15 in-lbs for the tops. I've never had one slip, leave a mark, nada.

Assuming perfect Talleys still leaves room for imperfect receivers and the holes therein to cause trouble.

Very good info, Thanks a bunch.................547.

I didn't get the extra lows. I got lows. Looks a little funny with my 4x33 VXII mtd. on my 700 SPS Tactical AAC-SD but I felt that I might want to be able to go to a 6x42 FXIII later.

FWIW, I lapped them. I would rather do that than mess up a scope.

Thanks for the review, Dan. Very useful for 'Fire gear guys - M700 with assorted Leupolds & a Conquest.

I tried extra lows on a bargain A7 I picked up last year and just fit a Kahles 3-9x42 with them, but fit it did and it is a dandy setup. Cheek weld is too slick...

Plenty of clearance on the eyepiece with the low Sako bolt throw, but Butler Creek flip up would need trimming to clear the barrel.

DJ

Thanks for the write up, and especially the photos!

Timely info. This is the kind of thing that makes me appriciate the fire.

Kudos!!

GB

thanks for doing this

Man, you guys dug this one up...almost a year old now.

Glad I could help.

-Dan

Dan,

Hah I didn't notice the date.

I'm a little slow.

I'm the guilty party. I didn't even notice the date just the relevant info.

I've been scouring the web to find this info. Extremely helpful posts and the pics are great too. Thanks.

Keith

Good info and pics too.I wonder if they would work on a Vanguard / Howard 7mm-08 and a 6 x 42 Leupold?

lastborn, probably going to have to go with the regular lows. I tried the ex-lows with a 42mm Redfield on a Vanguard Deluxe in .270 and it barely made contact with the bbl. shank. YMMV.
John