I am looking for a set of rings for a new Tikka 6.5 Creedmoor build that will be holding a Vortex PST 6-24x50 and trying to determine if steel or aluminum provides any advantage for maintaining zero. I am looking at Seekins (aluminum 4 screw) and Badger Ordnance Max 50 (steel 6 screw). The rings will be mounted to an EGW 20 MOA base. Thoughts from the experienced crowd?

I've used both and see no appreciable difference when using quality components.

One, you don't need 6 screw on such a light recoiling round.

Two, might as well save the weight and run aluminum four screw. I used four screw Talley Tactical aluminum on my 7 Rem Mag running 180's. Hardest recoiling rifle I have and is running the lightest weight rings.

Thanks, that is the info I was looking for.

I have used Seekins for years now. They make a good quality snag free set of rings. I've also used Badgers (non max-50), talleys, and Leupold Mark4's. The seekins rings are not lacking in any way.


Take a look at ARC M10 rings too. Outside the box thinking, and just plain cool.

http://swfa.com/M10-C4264.aspx

Have not used badger but all my precision rings have been spot on spent more time getting the right height

I'm looking at the same scope on the same base, what height rings are y'all running.

I have a EGW 20moa base with same scope on my heavy barrel 6.5 Creed. I used Warne LOW steel rings with excellent results. See below for pics.

http://texashuntingforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/5591347/Rings_-_How_tall?#Post5591347

All of my rifles, from .22 rimfire up to .375 H&H, wear aluminum rings and bases. Almost all are Weaver/Picatinny or Weaver clones. A few wear Talley LWs, which are also aluminum.

Aluminum is great as long as you get high quality re; NightForce, Seekins, etc.