Since I'm starting to down size, and going through stuff, I'm refining what I am wanting to keep.
What I am keeping, I'm going to change scopes to what I have learned I like, and in my budget.
I may change a scope or 2 to Nightforce, but Leupold's have served me well.
So, with all this in mind, the question now comes to mind, mounts.
What would you guys choose for mounts ?
I have talley's on most, and Leupold dual dove tails on some.
In my box of bases, and rings, I have a long action Conetrol set. Would this be better, strong, worry free, forever, over say, the dd's.

There are so many mounts out there, and I've learned I DON'T like separate bases, and rings that clamp like Weaver, Burris, Warne, etc.

Gimme some of what you guys use for your forever, mount, and forget set ups.

Spuhr, Masterpiece Arms, Near Mfg and Aadmount rings and mounts to name a few.

Leupold backcountry's are looking good.
Any one have a review of them ?
Googled, and found some chatter from here.
Pricey, but nice.

https://redhawkrifles.com/hawkins-long-range-hybrid-rings/

Near Alphahunter..nothing remotely close in quality and design. Cry once

Don't like that Near mount at all.
The Redhawks looks nice, but no need for a level I'm not sure I could see, or want to take my off the target to make sure I'm level.
Might be good while mounting a scope tho.

Seekins bases and rings on all my serious rifles. I also bed the rails.

A good-quality rail from one of several manufacturers and Burris XTR Sig rings.

I dont, and haven't liked the rail and rings thing.
Had that kinda set up on a 300 rum, and soon changed to dual dove tails.
Made my scope sit too high to me.

Wheres everyone's scope mount comments ?
Everyone using clamp on mounts ?
Where are the conetrol pics ?

I use a rail and Seekins rings on everything my friend...

Ditto. Preferably a rail with lugs or pins.

Adjust cheekweld to suit. Lots of options out there.

I have Talley bases and Talley rings. I have one set of Leupold dual dove tails on a Kleinguenther K-15. If you have Talleys and dual dove tails you should be fine.

I have Burris signature Zee rings on several Savage 99’s. They seem to be real good!

If you don't plan on ever removing the scope, Leupold Double Dovetail basses with Burris Signature Double Dovetail rings. Using the offset inserts to set your scope up as close as possible to your zeroed range with the scope reticle centered. Leupold Double Dovetail bases look better than the Burris, used with the Burris Signature rings its a really nice looking set-up.

Phil

You're excluding many many excellent mounts that are coming highly recommended, so that's going to limit the discussion considerably.


There's Talley LW, Leupold Backcountry, and Deadnutz.

What else?


The Leupolds do look good to me, but, forever means Picatinny.

Talleys haven't failed me, nor have the dual dove tails, so I think I'll just stick with what works for me.

I do like the looks of the back countries, but I'm too cheap to pay that much for machines Talleys.

Talley signature bases and screw lock rings.

Talley lightweights, for me at least, have taken a serious beating. I also attach all my bases with loctite, not just the screws but the bases themselves.

Dual Doves are my favorite for hunting guns.

Just don't like the height of the rail set ups unless I've got an adjustable cheek piece.

I'd like to see more folks ditch the Picadilly standard height and make lower rails. That'd be a good thing.

Exactly.

Same here.

Just to add a rail, and rings, now add a cheek pad or ?, to get proper cheek weld ?
No thanks.
I dont want to keep adding more to a rifle.
More weight as well, or expensive stock.

I’ve got several different brands. Warnes, Talleys, Redfield. Luepold. But my favorite is EAW quick detachable.
They are a little high .Not just how they set on a rifle but in cost. At one time I had 10 rifles exactly alike except for caliber.
Instead of scoping all I could have bought a couple of high end scopes and moved them around . Hasbeen

Bausch & Lomb had that system since the 50's or even earlier. All of the scope manufacturers should make that kind of scope again. They are bullet proof.

APA Tru Loc low rings (.750) are my "forever" go to.

Here's a rock solid mounting system on my Mauser Model 66.
Claw mounts.

Leupold dual dovetail mount.
Clean looking, correct height, and proper cheek weld on my 280ai.

You don't need a "tall" rail, there's many low base options with Picidillywacker or Weaver slots. I am glad to have the options. Absolutely the lowest isn't always the best.

It's the German way. Most times the scope is carried in a padded leather case, and mounted once in the high seat.
Its strong, and returns to zero.
It's a bit high tho.
My experience with a rail, is that rings have to be high enough for the front ocular to clear the front of the rail.
That puts the scope higher than my liking.
I dont like it.....

+1.

To me picatinny rails are the answer for versatility in attaining proper eye relief (with which I have had issues on many of my rifles). On 2 of my rifles I use Aadmount rings and a 1-pc picatinny rail (which is JB-welded to the rifle). The only thing more forever than that are integral scope mounts. Yes, one of my picatinny rails does set the scope a little high but a cheek raiser is not a big deal to me, since I hunt from stands. I guess to me "forever" means you never plan to remove it. Good luck in whatever you choose.

You know, they do make high, medium, and low rings that fit rails just like they make high, medium, and low rings to fit dual doves. It's just a matter of a little research.

Depending on the rail you use...the general rule of thumb is...if you use medium rings with the dual doves...you would use low rings on the rail.

Until the front ocular hits the rail !

If you have a Savage or a Remington, go with the Iota - available without the goofy (imo) level. Second choice would be the Leupold Back Country, third Talley LW. If you do DD, use a ring that has 4 screws on the cap instead of just 2 and I have the rings welded on the underside once all is lapped and square.

I don't use rails, but what is the negative to saw off the excessive rail off once proper eye relief is achieved? If it's a forever setup, there would be no downside.

Another option for your consideration: https://www.kenfarrell.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=18_45&product_id=474

I have and use most of the better scope mounts on various rifles, but the Ken Farrell scope rings are for the "go-to" rifles I use for Hunting. Their bases are super also. Quality and fitment are the best. Suggested torque for ring cross bolt to the mount: 50-60 in/lbs.

Only if you use extended rails. They do make rails that end at the front of the receiver.

You know, if you choose the wrong dual dove tail base and ring height, the front ocular will hit the barrel, right?

They even make a rail that does not have the extension at the front.

Don't be lazy, do your research.

Now, if you just don't like a rail...say so. To each his own.

GB

There are guys who do just that. But it is not necessary. One can buy a rail without the extension. I am not a die hard fan of a rail. However, they are versatile, and worth working out the kinks.

Okay......
I dont like rails, or the way they look.

Hacksaw. That Mauser is an abomination. LOL

So use lower rings and cut off the front of the rail, or buy one that's short enough to start with. This isn't that hard; a rail mount can end up about the same height as a dual dovetail and low rings.

You came here asking for suggestions, and have been led to water. If you didn't want to hear suggestions, why not just stick with the DD setup you've got?

I use Leupold dual dovetails, Warne’s, DNZ’s on hunting rifles. My killing rifles get Seekins or Nightforce.

If you go with a Nightforce (as you stated in the op), what Nightforce are you looking at getting? Most of my Nightforce scopes have 56mm objective lenses and taller rings will be needed. The beauty in the rail system is it is rock solid and gives you more places to put those robust rings. When going Nightforce, you might as well buy some Nightforce rings, while you are at it,.

Just a 42mm model....

Care to explain the difference?

I dont like rails because I, (looking back), not knowing more, put a long rail on a rifle. Had to use taller rings for the front to not hit. Wrong cheek weld for my Mcmillan BDL pattern. Didn't know other rails were available, so I didn't like it, so I didn't search more.
Like what I use now.

If I’m putting a rail on a rifle it’s gonna have 20 moa built in which isn’t helping with height.

I do love their modularity as well as adjustability

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...catinny-rail-heights-listed#Post14214699

There's nothing wrong with dual dovetails, they're extremely strong. Most of the problems you're going to have out of mounting systems are with the screws anyway, manufacturers should have long ago gone to 8-40 screws as standard. Misaligned screw holes and receivers can cause trouble too, the QC of some major American manufacturers through the years has been horrid and getting the rings to line up was hard. That's not a fault of the base/rings. 99% of the time if you hear of someone having trouble with the dual dovetails themselves it's because they twisted the ring in and out of the base. Once you install the ring in the base it's done, don't ever twist them out, consider it to be one piece after that. Removing them loosens the dovetail.

I like rails on some of my rifles because they're easy, give you a 20 MOA option, and make swapping scopes quick and easy. My big game rifles don't wear them though, they make the scope sit too high and obstruct the loading port more than I like. I do have some burris 2 piece picatinny bases on one rifle. They're 2 piece bases with picatinny slots that allow you to use the same rings that you'd use on a rail. I use them and super low TPS rings to get a scope with a 42mm objective low enough on my M70 7mm rem mag.

Great info. Thanks!

I like the Burris XTP bases. Low height, open port, strong, flexible ring spacing....the low height being the biggest draw for me over other pic bases.

And Leupold and Nightforce make two piece Pic style bases, with 20 MOA available from Nightforce.

So, other than DDs, is there anything of interest?

I guess I am just ignorant on this. When we talk "forever" on a mount, that implies that some systems won't last forever. Is anything failing on ring and base set-ups? Rails obviously afford better fine tuning of position, but that doesn't speak to durability/foreverness. How would one rail be any more forever than another? There are no moving are wear components. If the threads and screws are robust enough to accept the torque of tightening, what else is there? I chuckle when I see rings with six screws. The two screws on my 45-70 rings held just fine through many full house loads. I mention that because I don't think I have ever subjected a rifle/scope set up to more hard use than that one, and it was a cheap fixed power tasco 2.5X and Leupold rings and bases. I set it and it never flinched from there.

Bet you have flinched a time or two...touching off those full house 45-70s

I loved that gun and that cheap shotgun scope. At 100 yards with my best load (IIRC 57g 3031 350g Hornady RN) would typically put two shots touching and one barely not touching. So 1/2 to 3/4 inch groups were the norm. People marveled at that rig. Heck, I did too. That load was manageable. I developed a few 405 grain bullet loads that pushed beyond my comfort threshold. They weren't as accurate as the 350's, so the choice to avoid those loads was easier.

A two plus pound scope on that 45-70 might have transformed your impression of six screw rings. A two plus pound scope on a modest weight rifle chambered in a big magnum with a fast recoil impulse definitely would.

I suppose I get that. You just described very few of the set-ups people use in day to day shooting and none of the set-ups in which I have seen people extolling the virtues of six screw rings. Seems like they are most popular with the AR and heavy tactical rifle crowd.

A 20 moa rail doesn't make that much difference in height, compared to a flat rail. But they are definitely a good idea.

I like a low mounted scope too - and use rail mounts when I can. Some of you guys have convinced yourselves that rail = high, which just ain't so.

20 moa makes a huge difference in reality.

Vortex low on a 20 moa rail (Bighorn Origin- same diameter as 700 front)= .610” bottom of scope to bottom of base.

Vortex low on flat pic Rem 700 front = .472”

DD med on Rem 700 front = .392”


My PREFERENCE remains DD’s on a carry gun.

🏁🏁🏁🏁

I don't understand why anyone would continuously change scopes on. Given rifle unless one goes tits up..


A 3-9 ish or straight 6 in DD mounts will work for 99 percent of whatever you come across in the field....unless your stick...he's used to coming across little boys faces

Wow!

.472" - .392" = 0.08"

If you can discern 8/100th inches...you should be shooting iron sights.

But, I get the PREFERENCE thing. I have a friend who has worn the same raggedy old cammo tee shirt for over 15 years because, as he says, "it makes a difference."

The rail has nothing to do with continuously changing scopes. And continuously changing scopes would not be in keeping with the topic title.

I think the difference mentioned comes from (?):

.610" - .472" = .138"

If you read through the entire thread you will that's exactly what one poster dated his use for a rail was.

So you've decided that your one brand of 20 moa rail is the same as everyone else's?

I've been using EGW 20 moa bases which are barely any taller than the flat bases. You have to look pretty closely to see the difference; the angle is very small and doesn't require much change in height. The fact that somebody makes a taller 20 moa base doesn't mean they are all that way.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Since when is EGW making a low 20 moa rail for a Bighorn Origin?

I don't know anything about a Bighorn Origin. Just saying that a 20 moa rail can still make for a low mounted scope. I don't like high mounts either and wouldn't use a rail mount if it meant a high scope, but it doesn't have to if you choose the rail and rings carefully.

I don't care if a guy prefers a dual dovetail mount or whatever; my point is simply that you can do a very low scope mount with a rail, if you want to.

I really like them. I was using Seekins' rails for 700's, and switched to these. I've also used Nightforce, Talley, crappy Weaver, USO, Precision Armament, EGW....and probably forgetting some. I really like the Leupold now.

I pair them with TPS Super Low 30mm rings. Same height as low Seekins.

Weaver Backcountry with TPS Super Lows....just as an example.



Here's Seekins/Seekins - same model 2.5-10x42:

Picatinny 1913 spec rail has a height specification. Other rails do not though they can have Picatinny spec slots.. We all know that right? Nothing wrong with two-piece slotted bases either.

Maybe. I'm just using the posters numbers.

I'm not interpreting the entire thread on what one poster dated

I dated twins once...but each one was not in two pieces...each one was one

Those super lows look tall to me. I guess super low, low, med, high, and extra high have no standardized meaning. Each manufacture sets its own dimensions within a given range?

.820". Same as Seekins Low, I believe. Not sure why they can't make them lower??

The APA 0.75s might get you a touch lower.

Yup you are right about that. Low means different things to different companies, sometimes even within the same company and just different ring models.

In 257's first pic above, a guy can put that front scope bell almost touching the barrel with the right set of rings and trimming the excess front of that rail (or using a rail section without the extension). As shown in the pic, that setup is about the highest I'm willing to tolerate, and much prefer it to be lower than that.

They aren't the best available, but extra low Weaver rings will put the scope low enough that I've had to mill away part of the rail to clear the erector housing. IIRC, the PRW Leupold rings are pretty low too. I normally just shop around for whatever height I need for a given setup and am not stuck on a particular brand.

Good points.

For me, the take away is that for whatever base/ring combination you want to use, one has to do their research...and expect a learning curve...if not open to the experience and advice of others.

Thanks for the discussion guys,

GB

SK Skulptured rings and bases. Tough stuff for done right the first time.

10, 20, or 30 MOA over the length of an 8" base is only 0.0022" per MOA with a 12" long scope centered on the base the rear of the scope would be 0.00166" higher, and the front 0.00166" lower... (again per MOA), wouldn't make a noticeable difference in the consideration of ring height. If you would normally us lows, use lows. If mediums, then use mediums. won't make a damn bit of difference.

Phil

Phucqkoff Phil!




From previous discussions.

Here's low.



And how another typical low could possibly be made lower. Sorta kinda.

SK Skulptured rings and bases. Extraordinary. Top notch customer service, strong clean lines, superb.