I did a search first figuring there would be some cross talk on these P'sOS. It's been a a while since I got taken. Must be getting older than I thought. One of the rags did a write up like these were the second coming of Christ, so I ordered. Disagreed with the Picatinny cuts and expected to have shim to Weaver from the get go. Don't have to worry about that. These things are junk on several levels. Totally unusable. Figures. If the idea woulda worked, Weaver would have cut a rail for them 50 years ago. Now I have a paperweight to remind me of my stupidity.

I have one on my 250F and it works just fine.

Did you shim the cuts? Or is it the .250 just doesn't have the recoil to move the rings? Or do you not mind the look of a tactical ring on a Classic rifle? "Terminator 6 screw" rings on a graceful 99 turns my stomach.

These second issue I had was; even with super low rings, I ran out of elevation adjustment because rail is so tall to allow room to load/eject . (Redfield Revolution)

I'll stay with 2 piece Weaver's or turn-ins with the chamber cuts thank you.

If it had Weaver cuts, no landing pad in the front so the rail was down on the receiver, an equal reduction to the rear, which I'ld estimate at about 300/1000's, and scallop the rail over the chamber area like William's did on their cast mounts, you might be onto something. Of course that's not the America we live in anymore.