John- I noticed in your recent Sports Afield article, pictures of two rifles with Weaver-style rings...this may have been covered repeatedly (and may be a dumb question) but is there any reason for the "coin-slotted" screws to be orientated to the right vs left side of the receiver? I have a few rifles with Weaver rings and while mine usually ended up on the side away from the loading/ejection port, is there any reason, mechanical or otherwise, for this? It wouldn't seem to matter to me but just curious. Thanks

The coin-slot screws usually end up on the side with the ejection port, for no other reason than that's the easiest way to set them up in my small scope-mounting workshop, down in the basement.

The only problem I've heard of with mounting them that way occurred years ago, when a friend of mine owned a Browning BAR in .270 Winchester. Once in a while a empty case ended up jamming the action, and it turned out the reason was the coin-slot screws were on the ejection-port side: An empty on its way out would occasionally hit the screw. Turning the rings around solved the problem. But that was back in the day when the coin-slot heads were somewhat wider in diameter than they are now.

Thanks, John. That's about how I had it figured. For as long as I've used Weavers, I never really thought much about it. I will happily go on my way...usually I prefer the right but in this case, it looks like either side will do. Always enjoy you articles and posts here. Regards, Bruce

Some people put the coin slot heads on the side of the rifle that already has "protrusions", such as a bolt handle or semi auto (not AR) charging handle. This puts all the "busy" on one side and leaves the other side "clean." Some rifles don't have a busy side, e.g. pumps and levers. Then there is the occasional ejection issue JB already mentioned.

This is going to sound silly to some but that's why I don't like Ruger rifles. You can only put their rings on the left side of the action...no other option. I've always thought they look the best and look more correct on the bolt side of the action. powdr

I've always oriented my Weavers to the left. Less junk in the way of feeding and ejecting. So, the Ruger rings don't bother me in the least.

I orient those types opposite of the ejection port as well. My main objective is to have all the room there is for loading. A cleaner ejection pathway is nice also.

This has been an interesting thread, especially point about the thumb-screws blocking the ejection port, whether for ejection or loading the magazine.

I have a bunch of different kinds of rings on my rifles, but still have quite a few Weavers, for various reasons. So I went through my collection, looking at all the rifles that have Weaver rings. Turns out I have 10, all with the thumb-screws on the right-hand side. But they don't block any part of the ejection port on any of the rifles, because they're in front or behind the port, despite me not paying any particular attention to that possibility when mounting the scopes.

In fact the scope's windage turret has far more potential for "blocking" the ejection port in all of the rifles, especially the taller turrets on many of today's scopes. Yet have encountered very few instances where even that caused any ejection problem, and none has blocked easy loading of rounds into the magazine.

Personal Preference is all it is to me. I put the big head on the Left side..... the Right side of the rifle looks cleaner to me. MPO

Red / Blue
Ford / Chevy
Dodge SUX


Jerry

This came up for me recently when I acquired a Barrett FC. Initially, I had a rail on it so tried some Weaver rings I had on hand. I don't use tactical anything so I was going for as low as I could go and it seemed that this set up intruded on my ability to load the magazine. I didn't really notice anything hitting rail or rings but the thought of keeping the right side as "clean" as possible occurred to me. I have since gone with Talleys on the Barrett.

Once while working on my B.I.L.'s jamamatic Rem 7400 Sportsman I sliced my thumb pretty good. Don't remember exactly what the situation was but I remember thinking if those big nuts on the Weavers had been turned to the other side I wouldn't have done that. They got turned and any since then have went to the opposite side of the port.

They were the lowest, cheapest rings on the market when I used a couple of sets, but what drove me absolutely crazy was trying to get the crosshairs absolutely horizontal and vertical. Once you tightened down the clamping screws on the one side, the scope would cant in that direction unless you compensated for it trial and error. Never had an issue with the big slotted screws being on the right ejection side, but certainly not my preferred scope mount.

I like the Weaver rings. It took some getting used to HOW to install with scope level - square.

You can FARMER tighten and strip threads and even damage the finish on a scope BUT
in normal use I've never had a failure with Weaver rings.

Jerry

Yep, same here. I agree with you and gunzo... I just see it as unnecessary chit in the way and a good way to jam a finger, cut yourself or rip off a fingernail if it's on something like a semi auto. When I had weavers on my Winchester model 100, they were on the opposite side of the loading ejection port. The same goes for when I use them on my bolt actions...

I have several sets of these Weavers. With the screws on both sides of the saddle they're a lot easier to snug up.

I love the Talley rings and bases, they take me a little time to get scope mounted properly.

All of my weaver rings have the slotted screws on the left side so not to block the ejection ports. I wish I could do the same with the old sako rings. Their slotted screws are only on the right and sometime get in the way of ejection. The new scopes are hard to get far enough back without extension rings.

Had to check how many of my guns have Weavers..... That was easy because each gun has its own folder of several pictures right here on the computer. Turns out there's seven with Weavers and all but one have that screw oriented to the left....... All scopes were mounted by yours truly. I think they just looked better visually at the time. The one gun with those screws oriented to the right is a Mossberg 500A camo 12 ga. turkey gun. Bought it used and unscoped in 1999 and put on a 2.5x 20mm Leupold two years later. And now I can't recall why it's the only one that has the screws facing to the right. Doesn't affect the functionality of it in any way and I still don't know why it got mounted like that..... At this point as long as it works I don't care. Nowadays I lean toward those vertically split Warne rings or Leupold PRW's.

Problem is I believe those are only available in medium height. If you want low the top mounts are the only option.

The mediums are lower than a lot of others' lows.

Just remembered another reason I put the coin-screw on the bolt-handle side, despite the "clutter."

For quite a few years I was doing a lot of horseback hunting, often with rifles using Weaver rings. While there's always plenty of discussion about the correct way to place a rifle in a saddle scabbard, the consensus among the horse guys I hunted with was in front of the saddle, on the right-hand side, buttstock up. This didn't interfere with normal mounting of the horse from the left side, and allowed the hunter to keep an eye on the rifle when riding through timber, and pull it out easily with his right hand, for whatever reason.

A lot of those guys used Weaver rings, not just because they were common and "affordable" but because they were rugged, and the scope could be mounted very low on "traditional" bolt-action rifles. The coin -screw heads were also on the same side as the bolt-handle. AWAY from the horse's body, where they weren't subjected to as much jolting pressure (and hence possibility of being rubbed loose). That placement (with all the clutter on the right-hand side) also allowed the rifle to slide out of a scabbard more easily.

One other reason a lot of those hunters used Weavers was the ugly, cheap rings were among the most dependably repeatable detachable rings of the day. They still are, if you know how to tighten them. Some horseback hunters would bring along another Weaver in the same rings, already sighted-in, just in case the first scope went screwy, or they had a horse-wreck.

Here's one of the photos that started this discussion, of a pre-'64 Winchester Featherweight .308 Winchester with an old K4 Weaver in Weaver rings. Please note that the coin-screw knobs are not anywhere near the ejection port, and in fact (as in most scopes) even the windage-adjustment cap (much smaller in that old scope) sticks out farther than the ring-knobs, and in the front section of the ejection port so has more potential to interfere with case ejection.

As I noted earlier, modern scopes with much taller windage knobs are far more likely to interfere with ejection (or loading another round into the magazine) than the Weaver ring-knobs.

True .

I recently put a 2.5 -8 Leupy on a Savage 220 slug gun . Due to the length of the action to get the eye relief where it needed to be I had to use a rail . Looked at every low ring I could find . Top mount Weavers were the only option to get it where I wanted it height wise .

The horse/scabbard thing makes sense.
The Rifle just LOOKs better with knobs on the L side. And the newer knobs are bigger.
Personal Preference thing.
Jerry

Jerry,

Always good to hear from somebody who believes there's an aesthetic reason behind which way to turn Weaver rings, which have rarely been considered beautiful.

Personal Preference
Red / Blue
Ford /Chevy

That’s all.

Jerry

Good point. I'd like to see more "lower" rings offered. Many ring makers don't even offer them.

Really low rings used to be far more common because many hunters wanted to be able to also use iron sights, because scopes often fogged or were otherwise unreliable. Most rifle stocks were still designed (and some still are) primarily for iron-sight use, so for the best scope alignment, they needed to be mounted low. (This is why also why Weaver rings were designed to be easily detachable and replaceable.

Today most factory hunting rifles don't even come with iron sights, so tend to have higher-combed stocks, and aftermarket stocks tend to have even higher combs. Many stocks also have adjustable-height combs, so the shooter can tweak it, rather than trying to match scope height to comb height. Plus, many of today's scopes won't even work in really low rings, because their objective and eyepiece bells are so large.

As a result, there's not as much demand for really low rings. In fact one of my gunsmith friends, Charlie Sisk, has found that most of his customers are better off with medium-height rings.

Makes perfect sense .

I don't think that Remington started putting stocks on hunting rifles that were designed primarily for shooting with a scope until they introduced the 725 in 1958.

Even with scopes that have objective bells that are 40mm or smaller, some stocks have such high combs that the average guy who has a defined neck wouldn't be able to align their primary shooting eye with the scope with low rings.

Back in 1966 I bought a Model 70 push feed. I was all into things shiny back then. Anyway, the sporting goods store where I bought it mounted the scope, a Redfield 4X. They mounted it in Weaver mounts. About twenty years later I belonged to a local gun club that had a number of bench rest shooters as members. I was out at the range one day shooting it and I commented to one of the bench rest boys about maybe changing my mounting system because I thought they looked cheap and unattractive. He stopped me and picked up one of his bench guns and sure as hell there sat atop it a pair of Weaver rings and bases. He said they may not look like a cadillac but they work like a Rolls Royce. He said there was no stronger or more reliable mount. They were simple but dependable. I left them on that rifle. I've still got that rifle and it is my go to hunter to this day. And it still has Weaver rings and bases on it, although they are a more modern ring and the base is now a Weaver rail. I have three rifles with rail bases and Weaver style rings. They aren't the only thing going but they work well and better than most for less money.

I bet more big game animals have been killed with rifle using Weaver scope mounts and Remington Cor-Lok Bullets than any other brands

I think JB posted that pic just to show off the group.

OK, not really. But is a pretty nice group.

+1

GunDoc,

I posted that photo for more than one reason--but one was indeed the group!

It turned out to be the lead photo on an article I recently wrote about hunting rifle accuracy for SPORTS AFIELD. It illustrated what a pre-'64 Featherweight can do with better bedding, which in this instance was a couple of flat-plastic bread-bag clasps behind the recoil lug, enough to truly free-float the barrel.

I have put them both ways, kinda like em better like this

[quote=jwall][quote=Mule Deer




The horse/scabbard thing makes sense.
-----------------------------------------


** < For Clarity >**

For a horseback hunt I'd mount mine like that.....but THEN I'd swap them back to the L side.


Jerry

Jerry,

Please note that the coin-slot screw-tops on the Weavers do not block any part of the ejector/loading port. Which is the major reason I posted the photo. Also checked the other 9 of our rifles with Weaver rings, and they're all well clear too.

I understand and thanks.

To me, a personal thing, MAYBE being R handed, I look at the right side of the rifle more than the L and it just LOOKS cleaner.



I'm not telling anyone it's the only way to do it. I'm not saying there IS a wrong way to do it.
(not being smart here) - it's a Red /Blue.....Ford /Chevy type thing.

Jerry

With 1 exception, installing a 7/8" Lyman Alaskan on a previously bubba'd Winchester 54, I haven't used Weaver rings for years. I use Warnes on 1st tier rifles and either Warnes or B-Squares on lower tier rifles.

There is a tote in the storage unit with dozens of sets of low, medium, and high 1" Weaver rings, some that are probably 60 years old.

When I used them, I always put the thumb screws on the right side. I don't know why, just did.

260-you should sell some of those low Weavers to those of us who are still trying to figure out which side to mount the thumb screws!