Ok, here is my question. which ring/base set up has the most strength? an all steel, weaver style base, with steel rings (warne maxima). Or a leupold dovetail set up? I have shot my 416 remington, and plan on adding a scope to it to hunt with. I have leupold dovetail style setup, and I also have a set of the warne maxima rings, but would need to buy a steel base. Would the standard, aluminum weaver bases be ok? should I just bite the bullet and order some steel bases for the warne rings? is there something better I haven't mentioned? The reason for the question is that I have heard of dovetail style rings breaking easier. In fact, I once broke a burris ring just turning it in, and since then I am hesitant to use them.
strongest rings???
- Thread starter FryeGuy
- Start date
If you are looking for all out strength, go with the Nightforce Steel Base and a set of their Ultralite Titanium Rings. It's pricey, but I don't think anything else out there is stronger.
BoydAllen
Gold $$ Contributor
I do not like vertical split rings, because they do not seem to me to be very handy for lapping and or bedding. I don't like rotary dovetail rings, because of the slim purchase that the rear base windage screws have on the rear ring, and because I have seen one where the dovetail galled on installation, leaving the ring loose, but me not knowing it until I took the scope off. That leaves rings that work with Weaver or Picatinny bases. ( I am ignoring the Davidson style bases and rings for this reply, since we are discussing high recoil hunting rifles.) For your situation, I would use a one piece, steel, Picatinny base setup, with the base or bases bedded to the action, and possibly even bonded, an a pair of Seekins rings. They are artfully made of steel and aircraft aluminum, and I can scarcely see how they could be better. You would probably have destroyed any scope, well before they would fail, and they are light as well. I have installed several pair, for a friend, lapping them. He once forgot that he had one of the rifles leaned against his bumper and ran over the rifle lengthwise, on a dirt road. I wish that he had taken a picture with the tire track down the rifle, which he hurridly removed, in his consternation and embarrassment . The scope was a Leupold Mk IV, the stock a Manners (carbon fiber), and the action a Remington titanium, with a custom fluted barrel. The only damage showed up when the zero was checked afterwards at the range, the windage knob, which had been set to zero, had been bumped one click. The whole rifle weighs less than eight pounds, and has taken many heads of game, both here, and in Africa. It is a 7mm WSM.
Go with a picatinny base and instead of two rings use three rings.
My 50 bmg shooting 250 grains of VV20N29 and a 800 grain borerider uses a picatinny rail and two Weaver steel rings.
The weak link is the little screws holding it all together not the base or the rings themselves.
In my opinion these rings with 7/8 inch crossbolts and 14 clamping bolts are all Hollywood vodoo magic.I am starting to believe shooters must be jacking up there pick-up trucks with there scopes nowadays.
Lynn
My 50 bmg shooting 250 grains of VV20N29 and a 800 grain borerider uses a picatinny rail and two Weaver steel rings.
The weak link is the little screws holding it all together not the base or the rings themselves.
In my opinion these rings with 7/8 inch crossbolts and 14 clamping bolts are all Hollywood vodoo magic.I am starting to believe shooters must be jacking up there pick-up trucks with there scopes nowadays.
Lynn
I'd suggest a picatinny rail with Seekins rings. I have all the major rings: NF, Badger, Seekins, TPS, Leupold and I"m very happy with all of them. But if maximum strength is your criteria, then Seekins gets the nod.
thanks for all of the responses so far. I have looked into several of the rings you guys have mentioned so far. I haven't thought of doing 3 rings on a rifle before. I see it done often on the T/C pistols. Guess it makes sense. I guess maybe I was trying to think too hard on this, since there are only 4 little screws holding the bases on.....
pikespeakgoat
Gold $$ Contributor
I think you make a good point about "the 4 little screws holding the base on". I suspect someone here who's a whole lot smarter than myself (many of you guys) could probably do the calcs on the shear force required to yield "the 4 little screws holding the base on" the receiver. I would also think that there would be no need to get rings that provide any greater clamping force to the base, or to the scope for that matter, than what is required for the base mounting screws to yield.
Would having the receiver base mounting holes opened to 8-40 threads provide a much greater increase in strength? I really haven't a clue but I would suspect that the force required to yield them would increase dramatically over the stock 6-48 screws. If that was the case, might it make sense using something like a Picatinny base and add some rings along this line? http://www.aadmount.com/TLRings/TLRings.html
He makes mention of some pretty hefty numbers related to clamping strength to the base.
Would having the receiver base mounting holes opened to 8-40 threads provide a much greater increase in strength? I really haven't a clue but I would suspect that the force required to yield them would increase dramatically over the stock 6-48 screws. If that was the case, might it make sense using something like a Picatinny base and add some rings along this line? http://www.aadmount.com/TLRings/TLRings.html
He makes mention of some pretty hefty numbers related to clamping strength to the base.
My Defiance picatinny rails are double-pinned and JB Welded.
forget the dovetail,they suck!
the best advice is slightly larger base screws with a rail from badger,seekins and a 3 ring set up would be super,but 2 rings should outlast the scope. I would like to toss in Burris XTR rings lapped as a ring $$$ saving feature.
I have NF titanium,badger,seekins and Burris XTR rings on badger,seekins,peredator and egw bases
i think the base screws are the weak link but i have had horses fall on my gun and them bounce, we"ll(forget that) and then there was....and just like the truck, don't worry about it they're tough!
here's what i just did. i bought a 375H&H Mag and got a 2 piece weaver steel base with burris XTR rings and still i think the base screws are the weak link but i have never had them fail, and the price was right
$20 for steel weaver bases and @ $60 for XTR rings and i really think it will be fine,as i didn't need a rail for this gun
have oversized screws tapped for the weaver steel bases and Burris XTR rings,lap them and you're set!
forget the warne too! i'm with Boyd on them
the best advice is slightly larger base screws with a rail from badger,seekins and a 3 ring set up would be super,but 2 rings should outlast the scope. I would like to toss in Burris XTR rings lapped as a ring $$$ saving feature.
I have NF titanium,badger,seekins and Burris XTR rings on badger,seekins,peredator and egw bases
i think the base screws are the weak link but i have had horses fall on my gun and them bounce, we"ll(forget that) and then there was....and just like the truck, don't worry about it they're tough!
here's what i just did. i bought a 375H&H Mag and got a 2 piece weaver steel base with burris XTR rings and still i think the base screws are the weak link but i have never had them fail, and the price was right
$20 for steel weaver bases and @ $60 for XTR rings and i really think it will be fine,as i didn't need a rail for this gun
have oversized screws tapped for the weaver steel bases and Burris XTR rings,lap them and you're set!
forget the warne too! i'm with Boyd on them
Fryeguy
If you want a strong base get a Stiller or Panda action with the integral base built in.You could drop it from the space Shuttle and it won't fall off.
As for the rings its all about force and surface area.The more surface area you have holding the scope the less likely it is to slip.If two rings don't work add a 3rd or 4th ring and the scope won't have anywhere to go.
Lynn
If you want a strong base get a Stiller or Panda action with the integral base built in.You could drop it from the space Shuttle and it won't fall off.
As for the rings its all about force and surface area.The more surface area you have holding the scope the less likely it is to slip.If two rings don't work add a 3rd or 4th ring and the scope won't have anywhere to go.
Lynn
pmarauder said:
+1 for the Near Alphamount for strength. In addition, the Near Picatinny base has a recoil lug built-in indexing on the back of the front action ring. I put my base on with 6 screws and bed it in epoxy. Here's a photo of the set up on a Custom savage in 338 Edge:
Forum Boss
Administrator
lynn said:
Lynn is absolutely right on this one. I have personally witnessed a front sight base attached with two small screws shear right off when the rifle was dropped, muzzle-down, from about 18" off the ground. You can have massive, expensive rings but if the short little screws fail, you've got a problem. The most secure system has the base for the rings milled into the top of the receiver, like on a Surgeon or the BAT shown by Lynn above.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.