Which do you prefer and why?

Signatures don't mar the scope but do raise the line of sight.
Talleys are available in light weights but are ugly

IMO the best mounts are S&K, sleek, light, bulletproof and windage adjustments in both bases.

I much prefer the Burris Signatures because of their inserts, it keeps from scratching your scope and holds it tight. the best thing about the inserts is that you can buy additional offset inserts to correct for windage or to add elevation for long range shooting.
They make them in standard,dual dovetail and my favorite is the Z ring that can be mounted to Weaver or picatinny bases.
RC

This makes no sense at all (like most of your posts) guess you must be hittin' the whiskey jug a bit early today eh ???

S&K's are nice looking, Conetrol's are even nicer looking, but the OP asked about Burris Signatures and Talley's.

I think the Talley LW's are about the best there is. I like the 1 piece ring and base. Just don't see that you need that other joint in your mount unless you plan on removing the scope often. I also think they look good.

The Signatures are about the most scope finish friendly rings out there as well as being versatile.

For once, no he hasn't - it does make sense as they don't make low Signature rings . . . so they do not allow you to mount most scopes as close to the rifle as other rings.

Personally I like the Talleys for function and looks.

Wrong, if you choose the right base ring combo, you can mount as low as you want

I respect your opinion but disagree on both points.
RC

Burris Signature rings DO NOT allow you to mount as low as possible. They smallest rings are mediums.

Not the best picture to show the gap, but these are Leupold DD bases, which are lower than burris bases. And the rings are Burris Signature 30mm Mediums (lowest I could go).

I've scene the same combo in Talley Lows and they close the gap nicely. I chose the Signature rings for the benefits mentioned. If I had a lapping kit for 30mm rings I most likely would have gone with Talleys to save some weight.

Leupold 4.5-14x40 LR (30mm)

Then show me a Leupie 2.5-8X36 mounted as close to the barrel (normal sporter) with Signatures as the photo below . . . while you're looking for that, keep an eye out for the Easter bunny - they're probably hiding in the same place.



A couple of months ago, I wouldn't have been so strong in my opinion, but now that Talley is making the Extra Lows, it's not even close in terms getting the scope nice and close.



Hey, I understand the looks part - Chevy vs. Ford, etc. I have a set of Signature rings on a heavy barreled varmint rifle - good application there and I like 'em. Have you even tried Talley's? Why do you disagree on function?

The only argument which could be made with regard to the functionality of the Talley LW's would be that there is no windage adjustment possible in the rings.
I much prefer the more useful functionality of great strength due to the one piece design.

I use only Signature rings, for several reasons.

They don't mark up a scope.

More importantly, they compensate automatically for any potential misalignment caused by mounting screw drilling in the action, which is probably more common than we know. Misalignment causes torquing on the scope tube, which can even bend it...had this happen on one of my rifles. No need for lapping.

With rear windage adjustable mounts, a slight loosening of the front ring caps allows the scope to pivot when adjusting the rear. This is, IMHO, critical. Dovetail rings, by necessity are a very tight fit to the base and aren't going to move as the rear of the scope is moved side to side. There is no way that this adjustment will not cause torguing...unless they're Signature rings.

My scopes are all 40mm objectives, and I've found that Signature medium height rings place the scope as low as need be. 1/8 of an inch, frankly, is not worth fussing over.

IMHO, Signature design makes all other rings somewhat obsolete.

FWIW.

I recently bought a set of Signature rings with the duel dovetail. The reason was because the pre64 Win I bought had the mounting holes drilled off-center. I talked to the people at Tally and they said they didn't have anything that would be able to correct it.

The Signatures hold the scope tight without marring. I bought the insert kits which allowed me to adjust the scope without torging it. I mounted them in Leupold bases and they are mounted low enough to use in the low comb pre 64.

My example of this was with an Enfield 1917, which had been sporterized by BSA. Near as I can figure in the process they machined the rear surface of the action poorly, which tilted the base slightly. The resulting misalignment actually bent the tube of a Bushnell Scopechief 3x9. Bullet placement shifted 5 inches between 3x and 9x. I sent the scope in to Bushnell, who fixed it no charge, and suggested I have the rifle checked for problems causing misalignment. They were right, and when I had the rifle customized, the smith confirmed and corrected this.

Signature rings weren't around at the time, but I'm sure they would have prevented the damage to the scope.

If such a problem shows up on a rifle, Signature rings should provide a reasonably inexpensive quick fix.

If they were truly a one piece design it would be pretty tough to get them over the eye piece or the objective, would love to see an instructional video on this procedure, I prefer at least a two piece design so I can mount them on my scope.
RC

deerhunter5555,

I'm with sir springer on this subject. Recently I saw a 4-16X Swaro for sale. The seller was up front to tell me the scope has ring marks. I asked my funsmith what a Swaro with ring marks is worth. He said,
"Any scope, no matter how much the original purchase price was, is not worth more than a couple hundred bucks."

I have actually sighted in a rifle by using the Signature off set insert rings. Tedious but fun. When I finished, the scope was not bent or stressed in any way.

I don't know what all the fuss about low mounting is all about. I like to mount a scope so that when I shoulder the rifle with my eyes closed in a cumfortable shooting position and then open them, I am looking right down the center it. I get that with Signature Zee mediums.

The 30mm Burris Signature DD mediums are lower than the 30mm Talley Lows, by a little bit. The eccentric .01" inserts will get you about 20 moa forward slope in the Sig's.


16x42 Super Sniper in 30mm medium Burris Sig's.


Leupold MK4 3.5-10x40 in medium Burris Sig's.


Same Leupy in 30mm Talley Lows.

i've really come to love the insert design of the Burris Signature series of rings. i would have them on all my rifles if possible for the reasons all ready stated above but i will repeat some, adjusting the scope with the offset inserts to get the rifle sighted in without useing up any or very little internal scope adjustments is just right in my book. the self aligning inserts keeping stress off the tube of my scope is another big pluss. another 1/8" of height that could have been lowered by using the others? i'll live with the 1/8", a low fitting scope that is marked up and bent with internal stress to all the adjustments due to the kinked tube, just doesn't do it for me.

I'm also a big fan of the Signatures. I agree that it seems like the Mediums aren't as low as some others, but I've never bothered to measure and check them out. They work for me.

Among the attractions of the Signatures is that they are relatively inexpensive, and allow you to avoid or compensate for some issues that otherwise might end up being expensive.

A minor down side is that the Signatures require a bit more care to install than conventional rings, including some fiddling to get the proper amount and direction of offset.

Well worth the effort, IMO.

Paul

Tell your gunsmith that I'll take every high end scope (Swaro, Zeiss, et al) he comes across for a coupla hundred bucks, even with ring marks.
I'll even send him a prepaid mailer to make it easy for him.

I prefer Talley Ltwt. Never had a problem with them.

Everything Burris I buy seems to be crap. From the Fullfield II scope that wouldn't track (honest) to the Ruger-style rings that I broke a screw to the Rem 700 bases that didn't seem to be right as far as the rings being straight.

Only Burris rings I had that seemed right are an old pair of Zee rings that I have.

The Signature rings are a very good idea, but when I tighten them, the caps don't seem to be straight (the top ring half seems to have more gap fore or aft and are not straight to the bottom). I guess they slide a little on the plastic insert and there's only one screw on each side to tighten. I think this problem for me would be solved if there were 4 screws to hold the tops on instead of just 2.

I like the look of Talley.

I have a set of Signature rings, and they are nice.

Since I don't do a lot of scope switching, ring marks are the least of my concerns.

When installing the ring caps, I've found that snugging down the screws by alternating side to side, while holding the cap centered, should prevent this. I'm also careful to insure that the gaps between the cap and bottom half is roughly equal on each side. And I resist the temptation to torque the hell out of the screws as the plastic bearings crush around the scope tube.

I've yet to have a scope slip due to recoil, including on my 300 WM. I think the inserts actually improve grip.

I've tried that and can get them even if I try. But wonder if they'll become uneven after much use?? Probably not and it's not a worry for me because I use strictly the Talley LW's on hunting rifles now.