Trying to learn something here. I often see discussions about the best rings and bases. One person here recently posted that a rifle that wasn't shooting right could easily be incorrect or maybe poorly chosen rings or bases. This is an area that I have never paid much attention to and really don't know a lot about. I do understand that junk stuff isn't going to work well.

I'm a Leopold fan and so have generally used their rings and mounts. But, I also have other scope brands like Burris and Weaver; maybe others. I Loctite all screws. I'm a hunter and not a precision shooter.

What is it that I need to learn more about? An internet search hasn't really gotten me much but marketing junk.

Thanks

First of all I'd never loctite ring screws, only base screws, with blue loctite not red.

I've mounted many many scopes and believe there are many good brands in a similar price bracket. Warne. DNZ, Talley, Burris, EGW, Weaver and Leupold are all good. Some forum members hate Leupold STD rings and bases. As a rule I don't use them but for various reasons have them on two rifles. Never had an issue with them nor on the many I've mounted for other people.

I prefer the looks of two piece bases but use one piece picatinny's now on any new bolt action rifle. They allow you much more latitude and can keep you out of trouble on a scope with a short tube.

I'm sure you will get numerous differing opinions, mine will be one of many.

Sounds like what you have done with loctite and quality rings is going to be more than adequate for your application which is hunting. If you are grouping well when you confirm your zero at the beginning of the season I wouldn't change anything.

If a change in base and rings would make hour hunting rifle shoot more precise would you make the change?

I like no surprises and reliability in my equipment. To get there all I use are one piece picatinny rails and high quality rings. My rifles are tools, and they get treated like tools, in that they unintentionally get banged up. In and our of the truck, carried into thick brush, fall over from a bipod, ect. I want to know that through all the my scope is very much attached to my rifle. To get there I use robust rings and base. I've made people cry cringe that have seen me pick my rifle off the ground by the scope. It won't hurt a thing, they are locked together.

EGW one piece picatinny rails, with low strength LockTite, and screws torqued to spec.

Badger Ordinance and Talley Tactical rings with low strength LockTite and screws torqued to spec are what I do. I pay close attention to make sure the ring cap is parallel to the ring base, and the gap is even on both side.

I have one scope that has lived in the same rings for 5 years. The scope and rings have literally been shot on seven different rifles. The scope has never moved inside of those rings.

Fireman JG

Do you bed those EGW bases? I have a Montana Rifle Co. X2 300wsm on order and have been thinking of this set-up over the traditional 2-piece.

Never have needed to bed them.

I almost only use DNZ.

Not an attack on FJG by any means because his stuff obviously works for him, but I've never had a need for tactical rings/bases/rails, etc on a hunting gun. Dual dovetails with Burris signature rings, Talley LW's, etc have always done the job for me for the past 45 years. I second the notion of blue loctite on scope bases and not rings, and I highly recommend all screws to be properly torqued as per manufacturer's specs. Farmer tight doesn't make sense.

I have no doubt what you've been doing works for you.

Two reasons I use what I use.
1. The system is strong and reliable.
2. $200-$250 spent on base and rings is cheaper. It's cheaper because I can take a scope off one rifle, move to to a second rifle, consult the notes from the last time I did it, dial corrections, shoot one shot to confirm zero, and I'm done. And it takes five minutes, if I'm taking my time. So it's cheaper, because I don't have to spend another $1000+ on another scope, each time I add a rifle to the collection.

Also, the dual dove tail mounts are often not perfectly centered and/or straight. I have installed these mounts, and not been able to zero the scope because the dove tails are not straight or level between the base and rings. They work and are a solid mounting system when used with a one piece base.

I have used some of the Talley rings, and they work well also. Kind of expensive, but they work.

I am of the same opinion on using a picatinny base and tactical rings. It provides the strongest set up for mounting a scope. I also switch scopes often on rifles and sometimes to customers' rifles. It's the easiest system to install and set up, and for solid mounting of the scope.

That's all fair enough, but let suffice to say that my experience with DD's differs from yours. I've not had an issue, ever. If I'm not using Burris Sig rings I will lap whatever rings I'm using, including Talley's.

Me three. Never used Talleys, but if I did I'd lap anyway as long as they were steel rings. I don't believe there's a ring and mount made that never needs to be lapped, and that's because you can't rely on receiver dimensions to be perfect. I also do not believe that a one-piece mount overcomes receiver dimensions that are off, either. The mount will conform to the receiver, or the receiver will conform to the mount.

Agreed RR. There's a reason that Hill Country Rifles laps every single set of rings they install on all of their guns including the full customs. At least that's what they told me when they built mine a couple of years ago.

FYI,

Badger Ordinance will void their warranty of someone laps their rings. They say they don't need lapping, they're perfect.

Don't shoot the messenger.

kind of like people who buy a $900. gun and put $100. scope on it

Well, maybe their rings are perfect...or as near as you can get to it. But still, you're counting on perfect bases mated to a perfect receiver in order to end up with perfect alignment. I suppose that if I was to set up a rifle that needed rings of that type, I'd either forego their product or maybe buy them and lap them anyway and screw the warranty. If they ever fell apart or failed and I was in a position that I needed the warranty, I would be cured of buying their stuff in the first place. But I kinda doubt they would ever fail.

For those of us that use 1-piece bases, quality rings shouldn't need lapping. If you're throwing them on a 2-piece on a remington, though, you may need to get out the angle grinder....

So you don't think a one-piece base will conform to the receiver? If you tighten those screws down like they should be, either the receiver is going to conform to the mount (NOT good!) or the mount will conform to the receiver. If the receiver is not perfect, then the mount will be distorted. Bye bye perfect ring alignment.

Absolutely. Today's machining allows for lots of "perfect" rings. Perfect receivers are rare. This is the main reason I prefer Burris Signature's or Opcilocks with the posi-lign inserts.

Makes complete sense.

Using one piece bases, and those rings, I've not yet had a scope that wouldn't zero in about the middle of the windage travel, and elevation right where it should be on a 20 MOA base. And they've held zero after much punishment.

I admit, I have been fortunate.

I think it's hard to say how much misalignment it takes to cause perceptible problems. If it's working for you, then it's working for you.

The thing about lapping is that as you proceed, you can see how the rings are misaligned (or not) and choose your stopping point. Sometimes I have had to lap a little more aggressively, sometimes not. I never lap until I reach the point that I would say "it's now perfect," because I don't think it's necessary to go that far. If I can easily get 100% scope tube/ring contact, that'd just fine but I'm not sure I've ever seen it. I usually stop at the point I would call about 80% perfect alignment and/or contact.

What you're doing is also working, and absolutely appropriate for the rings and bases your probably using.

More than one way to skin the cat.