I know they’re cheap, and I believe the idea that you generally get what you pay for, but I’m interested in old school style weaver rings like you can find here. I know some people actually think pretty highly of them, while others aren’t as impressed.

I’ve been reading about the potential problems caused by vertically split rings, and I think the idea is that because you’re tightening the rings on only one side (the top), you’re pinching the scope tube. With this Weaver design, where the screws are just on one side, could you potentially have similar issues?

Ive used them with no problems. I dont particularly care for them though.

Same here no problems. Their lows are pretty low.

I'll prolly be trashed for saying it here...but intuitively, if you look at the design closely, I would say that Weavers impart less stress to the scope tube than almost anything out there. Because if you really think scope bases are dead true, I invite you to apply a machinist's level on attached bases. The results of your examination explain a lot of the ring marks you see on used scopes.
If I am installing a scope on badly mis-aligned bases, I will slit the upper clamp ring half (actually about 190 deg) radially..so in effect I have something like the quad lock rings...very forgiving.

I like 'em and use them a lot. Never had any problems with them on rifles up to 375magnum.. It's the most copied scope mount system out there, so it can't be all wrong.

Check out these Weavers with the screws on both sides of the base. Works better than the original.

They've been around for approx.. 50 years. Thinking if they had a potential problem it would have shown up by now.

They are not my favorites, but have had excellent service from them, long term.

Easier to adjust, for sure.

Once adjusted, the originals are pretty tough.

And the low at .9" is about the lowest around.

I like the larger detach screws on the older ones.

DF

I've used them for a long time. They aren't always the best, but I have a drawer full of Weaver rings for the next play rifle.

I haven't found anything that puts a scope lower than Weaver rings. I use them on all my lever action rifles.

They're also perhaps the lowest-price detachable scope mount, and replace very accurately if you know what you're doing. I have them on my .375 H&H, which also has good iron sights, for that very reason. If I recall correctly Phil Shoemaker has them on his .458 Winchester Magnum, Old Ugly.

You don't get any lower than Weaver low rings in Warne bases. They are a bit of pain when mounting a scope as they rotate the scope to the side with the screws as you tighten, but stay put once tight. I have never had one fail.

Just good enough and as cheap as possible. Like most consumer goods for the USA market. I won't degrade by rifles by using them. If you're putting a cheap scope on a Savage Axis, a perfect match.

Well, we can't all have Trudeau as our 'leader'

Agree on lever guns without high combs. Hard to get lower than Weaver low's..

DF

That's gear snobbery.


.

Looking back thru time, you'll see Weavers on some really fine rifles.

So, back then they weren't considered all that 'uncool"...

DF

As already stated, they sit low, are solid, and inexpensive. I still like them, especially on guns old enough to predate newer designs. 700s with aluminum butt plates for instance.

My only gripes are getting the scopes dead level through trial and error, and sometimes leaving light scuffs on brand new scopes. Otherwise, nothin’ wrong with Weavers in my world.

I have had a set on a M700 Mtn rifle clamping a Vari-X III 2.5-8 since 1993--it was the lightest, lowest set of rings/mount system I could find at the time. I have never removed the scope, and that rifle is the most accurate big game factory rifle I own. It has been on numerous backpack trips and a couple horse pack trips carried in a scabbard.

They're ugly, but I would have no problem using them again if needed.

It’s a pretty simple thing to keep Weavers from scuffing and dinging scopes... use a Dremel with grinder to remove the “dimples” inside the top ring strap... the dimples are found at the bend in the strap opposite where the two screws fit. Also, lightly bevel the edges of the lower (aluminum) ring. Mount your scope in rubber cement, and you’ll never have an issue with Weavers marring a scope tube.

Weavers are the lightest, lowest, most bombproof QD rings available. KISS. Perhaps not new-school cool, but they work... even on a Creedmoor.

Everything works on a Creedmoor. It's that good.

Here is my degraded Savage 16 Weather Warrior 22-250.

Great outfit. I can't come close with my degraded Savage 16 Weather Warrior with Weaver rings.

No issues on a couple of my lever guns.

I'm a big fan.

Thanks Brad. I haven’t installed any new sets in quite a while, but I remember eventually coming to that conclusion on my own. Not before a few used scopes looked a little more used.

Any secrets for guessing the pre-lean of the crosshairs?

Nothin’ wrong at all with that setup. Looks perfect for improving coyotes, and the whole rig probably set you back less than a McMillan.

Best mounts going for a light hunting rig

Redbacks!

I’m a big fan of Rossi’s, but bought a pair of Redbacks last year.

👍

I looked everywhere for ring options as low as weavers lows . Wound up with weaver lows . They are a pain while leveling the scope but when your done they are solid .

I buy the old-school Weaver rings with the big knobs. They work great as QD mounts and go back to zero if you know what you're doing. Push them forward hard as you tighten them.

WTF does Canada make that's as inexpensive and tough?

All I can think of is range cattle.

I've used them for years, and never had an issue. And you won't find a lower(or lighter) ring.
And if you like Weaver Pivot Mounts like I do, so you don't have to do a quick detach, just swing it over instead, it's the only type ring that works with pivot bases. Works for me.

Any tricks to keeping the cross bolts from turning while tightening, or doesn't it matter?

They work great but I can’t stand mounting a scope with them because of the afore mentioned difficulty of getting the scope level.

I'm never happy with my first guess at pre-lean. If the reticle is going to rotate clockwise when tightened, I try to start with the horizontal line at about 42 min and 13 minutes.

I use a couple pieces of electrical tape for temporary witness marks. One on the ring and one on the scope tube. Then gradually tighten the screws a quarter turn at a time. I also alternate tightening the screws on the front and back rings. First one screw on the front gets a quarter turn then one on the back, then the other on the front, and the other on the back. When I hit the torque setting I want, I check the reticle alignment. It usually takes 3 or 4 repetitions before I'm satisfied.

.

My uncle used that mount on an Ithaca Deerslayer for decades, with an old K4 w/dot clamped in. Nasty little cannon. Bloodied a lot of foreheads and noses over the years.

I hate the crappy slotted screws with shallow slots they used to use. Other than those, and the leveling thing, only trouble they ever gave me was oil creeping under the rings over time with a steel-tubed K2.5. I like the rubber cement idea, and also the friction tape Tasco uses on their el-cheapos, which have given good service on my old 581 for a long, long time.

I tighten one screw on one ring and usually get it level within two tries, then I tighten the rest, one on the other ring next, then I tighten the other two. It makes Weaver rings much easier to get level quicker.

A real pain in the ass to get perfectly mounted, but once in place I've NEVER had anything move. Index their position, pop them off the rail or blocks, put the scope back on, and one is still on zero. I have Leupolds, Talleys, Redfields, Rugers, and Weavers. For dependability it's the Weavers.

Have those Weaver's on three rifle's. They work just fine. Solid, light and low. What's not to like?

Light and tough, I use them a lot. Never had a problem.

Using them on some rimfires. Be aware it’s fairly easy to tear up the flat screw heads when tightening. 😎

I have a few sets on rifles I have had for years and years....they have been rock solid

That's right Men, that said, I have them on two pre-64 feather weights, a 243 and a 270, they hold little gloss 2-7 Leupolds rock steady year after year, looks notwithstanding, I cant think of anything else more period correct for those two rifles.

Amen. I use them on nearly every thing now. The only time I don't is when I need "purdy," then it's Leupold DD.

Ha! I’ve got a tough looking old ADL ‘06 wearing a glossy Leupold 4X ridding in Leupold DDs. I’m feeling that I really should go through the hassle of mounting a set of Weavers now! The DDs look fancy but out of place............sorta like new alloy rims on an ‘71 International.

Any opinion on the Quad locks. I've used a few sets. The only issue I've had is the screw heads stripping...they seem a little soft so your driver head needs to fit just right or they can strip out. Otherwise they seem solid. Never had an issue once mounted and easier than the original to mount level.

I have a bunch of hunting rifles and have weaver rings and bases on all of them except three. The three which don't have Weavers are a Ruger 77 with Ruger rings, a Ruger No.1 custom with Talleys, and a Sako 579. Recently, I've used a few Weaver quad-locks. I don't like them as well as the old originals but they're a decent ring. GD

Quad locks are good rings but only available in medium height. Had them on a Savage 220 slug gun with no problems . Replaced them with low top mount rings which make for a better stock weld .