Worst Style of Rings/Bases for a rifle!!!!!

I've been talking about these crappy rings/bases for several years now, and I finally got another rifle in that had some holding zero issues and would not shoot well. So, I am taking some pictures of the rings/bases to show the exact problems with this set up. I have seen this on multiple rifles, and I have to pass on this info. This style of rear windage screws that clamp onto the ring "ears" do not work! They will not hold zero! I have seen many rifles with these rings/bases that will not hold zero and will often times be off their zero, sometimes severely off, with no warning. Granted, most of the rifles I have seen these issues were on a magnum rifle. These rings/bases came off a light weight 300 Wby Mag with a BIG Leupold scope on it. So what's happening is there is a lot of recoil since the rifle is light weight. The scope is a big scope, so there's a lot of weight up top. During recoil, the scope wants to stay in place while the rifle recoils to the rear. There is a lot of force in this one area on the rear windage screw and ring "ears". The result is picture below.

The number one problem of bases/rings that I see is this style of rear windage screw base and ring "ear" set up. Every gun counter in America has a pair of them on the shelf and they are dirt cheap. I highly do NOT recommend this style of rings and bases.

Picture #1- A standard set of rear windage and front dove tail rings and bases.
Picture #2- You can see the rear windage screws of the base clamping onto the "ears" of the rings. If you look close, you can see some slight daylight or uneven area in the front of the ring.
Picture #3- you can see where the windage screw clamps onto the "ears" of the ring, and there's some shiny spots from the movement of the "ears".
Picture #4- This shows the movement of the "ears" and how they are bending in the rear windage screws. I have seen these "ears" sheer completely off in some cases.
Picture #5- Addition view of the bending of the "ears"

Picture #1


Picture #2


Picture #3


Picture #4


Picture #5

I agree wholeheartedly, these are a very poor choice. In truth and fairness, I have seen them work well in numerous instances...but in my opinion every one of these rigs, no matter how well each was working at the time, was just a failure waiting to happen.

An abomination! Like river rider, I have seen them work well, but I have also seen guys shoot up a lot of ammo trying to sight in a rifle before giving up, then either blame the scope or the rifle. they are particularly susceptible to the ham fisted guy who goes with gorilla tight.

Flat toothpicks are an abomination, too.

I am not redchevy. I think you owe him an apology.

Oops! Fixed it. My sincerest apologies to all. They are still an abomination. Must have been distracted. It just started to snow and that happens very seldom in my neck of the woods.

I've never had a problem with mine.

Man lots of bubbas and booger pickers are going to be upset you called their baby ugly

This was my dad even after the issues we had at last year's Hunting Rifle comp. Changed them out to just normal 2-piece Weaver base and Zeiss rings. Zero issues since.

I'm sure there are some of these rings on rifles that are working just fine, at the moment. But... If you know there is a known issue with a rifle holding zero, would you still use them? These rings are about $30. Hunters spend THOUSANDS of dollars on lease, trips, gas, food, ammo... only to leave them self wide open for rifle disappointment. I had (note, HAD) these rings on a rifle a long time ago. I battled a wondering POI, and didn't know why. Now I know why, and I'm passing along this info. Again, this is the only one I have documented with pictures and info on it. I've had MANY rifles come through the door with these rings having an issue. It's not an isolated incident.



LOL! My round one's wouldn't stay in place!

What bases for a Remy 700 sa would you recommend?

I laughed earlier when I read that.

Very true Princess. Very true. We call that unfortunately you picked the wrong chit.

EGW rail with Seekins rings

Dual Dovetails or Warne steel bases with Burris Zee rings would work fine too. And tjey don't cost much more than junky adjustable windage setups either.

That was the intent. I wasn't gittin on yer case, Smokey Bear! Just razzin ya.

I've had good luck with Talley lightweight 2 piece & DNZ one piece / game reaper on Rem 700's.

I have Leupold dual dove tail on my most accurate rifle, not what I like but what I had on hand when I mounted the scope.

I agree with Chad, poor quality rings & bases cause more accuracy & consistancy problems than just about anything else.

Of course I understand that some folks would consider what I use to be crapola.



You mad Bro?...

Had a rifle with the Leupold one piece base that wouldn't zero one time, took the scope off and one of the rings was loose and wobbled in the base. Haven't used Leupolds since.

I see my name has already been brought up here lol

Have 6 rifles using those the oldest around 30 years old the newest about 15. No problems what so ever with them.

Personally I will probably not buy any more because other styles are easier and apparently better according to many, but I'm not going to change any of them out either and highly doubt I will ever see a problem with them. I think there is a difference in acceptable for a hunting rifle with a light small 3x9 and a 2 pound monster with someone cranking on the turrets 24/7 also. I also don't use the scope as a carry handle and never will no matter what rings/bases are on it.

I have two hunting rifles (25-06 and 7 mag) that had those bases and I've replaced both with pic rails and good rings over the past couple of years. I didn't have a problem with either, but I wasn't taking any chances.

I have five or six rifles with this type of base and ring and have not had a problem. I suspect the screws can be over-torqued and damage the ears if one isn't careful. Also, using the screws to adjust windage seems like a giant no-no that can cause other problems.

Chad,

I mucho agree. Those bases and rings are a step above duct taping your scope to your receiver. I have sheered several of them off, and will never use them again.

I prefer my bases/rings to be like a 9" Ford rear end. They may not be the sexiest thing out there, but they aren't going to be the weakest link on my rig.

Curiosity, what guns/calibers? What scopes? What do you do to them? Who put them on?

Any base with windage screws is a problem waiting to happen. Cant believe they still make them.

I bet Chad swapped those out for some see-through's!

I have this set up on my old Marlin lever action 35 Remington. It's the only way I could line the scope up with the bore. Without it there isn't enough windage adjustment in the scope to zero the rifle.

I'm looking at 325 yards to that feeder in the background as I write this.

I'm more concerned about my Nikon than my mounts.

Had a set of those (Leupold brand) on a Remington 700 7Mag. They worked great for at least 10 years. I thought the windage screws had been bumped and come loose, only to find that a base screw had backed out a little, causing the scope to move a little. This windage screws did not fail but I went ahead and replaced the whole thing with something much better. So there are exceptions, but I agree that the windage screw design is a bad choice for almost all rifles. I've seen them fail on several other rifles.

Hate to disappoint the haters but not only did my Nikon get it done but so did my antique mounts. One shot from 25WSSM and she never even kicked. Y'all almost had me convinced I was gonna miss.

Congrats! A dead hog is a good hog.

Never seen anyone building negative conversation about Weaver rings and bases, or pic rails, and corresponding rings. Just sayin.

The right rear on my pickup has no tread at all on it, and in fact I can see steel belt poking through in a few places...but that tire did not blow on the way to work this morning, nor did it blow on the way home this afternoon. It holds air, so there's not a darned thing wrong with it.

I know they ain't the best option but sometimes they are the only option. That was the case with that WSSM.

Having used plenty of other rifles over the years with the same set up and zero failures, I tend to think the failures are few and far between.

Why did you have to go that route on your Model 70?

No doubt about the truthfulness of your statement.

You think Chad and I have dealt with these rings on a hundred rifles in the last 3 years? Maybe, and more often than not, these rings are the problem.

No different than today. He was at my range with a Rem 700 that had a hang when locking the bolt closed. Shocker! Remington sent out a front action screw too long. Turns out, that too was nothing new, given Remington's QC issues many of us have talked about. A thread die, and a file, and I got it corrected.

Finding anything to fit a WSSM at the time was next to impossible. They were brand new and not much aftermarket stuff to be had.

Old time 'smith told me that those adjustable rear base's were designed that way 'cause back in the olden days of 1st Gen scopes, lots of rifle mfg'ers didn't couldn't drill scope mount holes straight one behind the other. I still sold ton's of those Leo style bases' in the '70's...

Another 'smith said those bases were why Locktite was invented ... NEED is the mother of all inventions ...
Ron

...on my BLR 308 Win. Seems to work fine though it's very different than what Chad posted about.

This makes complete sense, as well as scope mount holes that are not perfectly aligned with the axis of the barrel.

The windage adj rear bases just flat out suck. Dual dovetails and Burris Signature rings are a viable, workable option that always perform.

I believe there is a disease that causes folks to flap their gums just for the sake of conversation and I don't believe gunsmiths are immune to whatever causes this malady.

I've bookmarked this webpage about the origins of Loctite for future reference. I haven't read it carefully yet, but I will. It looks very interesting.




I agree with this as long as we're talking about typical hunting sporter-weight rifles. When truly heavy recoil or scopes that weigh 38 ounces come into the picture, other options ought to be considered.

The windage screw system does work for it's purpose. But... It is a very weak system and very prone to loosening. And a system that can easily come loose. I chased a zero issue on my 270 Win for years and didn't know why. Lok tite screws, tightening it, and rechecking it often. If I bumped the scope (which you do on a hunting rifle) I knew that the scope would now be off. I later switched to a pic rail and pic rings. Now, I have no worry to carry my rifle by the scope, which I often do. If a rifle can not be handled by the scope, then that mount is the problem. I pick up my rifles by the scope all the time, I bump them in the truck and in the field, and I have even fallen out of a boat directly onto my rifle on dry ground (shooting competition where boat is elevated on chains). Guess what, it holds zero!

Meh, Ive got several of those. Seem to be rock solid. I will continue to purchase them in the future as well.

You also shot steel with a rifle at 15 yards. So there's that...

Literally every gun in my immediate and most of my extended family uses these rings/bases. I have never heard of a problem with them until this site. Yes most of my family is what y'all would consider bubba's we don't shoot 800 yards and none of them have 6.5 creedmores lol, but they have all been hunting all their lives with no problems. All the ones I own were put on by the same gunsmith as well as the ones my brother and father have... maybe he knows something about them that some others don't?

Lots of bubbas figure their rifle is sighted in if they can hit a gallon paint can or milk jug at 100. I'd bet folks have problems with adjustable-windage bases and don't even realuze it. They can and WILL come loose. Add to that the fact that adjusting the windage using the rear mount stresses the scope tube. Who needs those weaknesses?

If a mechanic told me about a part on my truck he has seen fail multiple times, and also provided me with a more reliable alternative, I would replace that part. Even though mine has not failed yet, I would trust the mechanic's broader experience, and that he has had to replace that part on multiple trucks before.

Yes but I also have a handy bit of information, that while mechanics probably know more than your average bear, some are very biased.

I posted this up to inform shooters of the issues with some types of rings and bases. If you were planning for a new rifle and scope, would you put these rings/bases on your new rig? That answer should be no. They are not a good design and can easily come loose. If you have these rings and bases and they are working for you, that's great. I hope they stay working for you.

That's true.

In the case of these rings, there are lots of guys around that handle, and assist other people with their rifles, and those of us that do that, are telling everyone that these rings are often a problem. I don't understand why there is resistance to free information.

edit: And in the case of bias, I get zero dollars from scope base, rings, optics, or rifle companies.

All I'm saying is many more people than you and chad have been using those bases and rings for eons on multiple guns without issue. You/y'all have an opinion on them as do other people.

Sure some people have issues with them, but that doesn't make them chit and they probably didn't hang the moon and stars either. Just like the hundreds of people who throw away their "tupoware" factory stocks to spend $500 on a new one without even shooting the original, I think the results would be surprising if they would shoot them.

^^Already been written. No need for me to re-write it.

Well I guess we can quote what other people or we have said ourselves all day long.

My dad has them on his 280, made a 100 yard plus neck shot with it this weekend, I load for it and it shoots great. They have been on there for over 30 years but I guess they still aint worth a damn.

Some people had Chevrolet Corvairs that never gave them any trouble, either.

Or change their oil only every 20,000 miles cuz' that's works for their buddies truck and he has never had any problems.

You can lead a horse to water.......

My thoughts exactly ! I HATE THOSE RINGS/BASES.

I have two rifles with Stith mounts/rings. What do the local experts who shoot thousands of rifles yearly think of Stith? Come on, don't hold back, be honest.

I actually didn't Jason, so there's that.

I'll be honest, I had to Google that one. That is a wild looking setup.

I agree they are a poor choice. The problem is they are the number selling rings and bases in the country. By a huge margin.
Most dealers seem to prefer to install them claiming they are easier to install.
I find them a harder to mount.
I have sold other types such as warne, and Tally and it always frustrates me that my dealers refuse to make them their go to mounts.

Chad, ya shamed me so bad I went and took the Leopold base and rings off my .223 and replaced them with a EWG rail and good rings.

So at least one man will listen to reason/ experience, instead of digging in his heels.

Hallelujah!

Great-grandad used them, grandad used them, dad used them. "It's the way we've always done it, so it has to be right".

Glad to see many others can trust their own experiences and those of others who have been using them longer than some of us have been alive without issue and know that some folks are gear snobs. Its like Gear shaming lol. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them crap.

Must be a Texas thing, I hardly ever see those type rings/bases around here in VA. Everything I see is Weaver style or Picitany rails.

The one rifle I have that had those type of rings was an old Remington 722 in .300 Savage. Never gave me any problem, but I changed them out when I upgraded the scope.

The only rings/mounts I've had give me problems was an unmarked set of Weaver style that were on a rifle I traded for, the aluminum of the bases was so soft it deformed under recoil of a .30-06. Based on the BSA scope I'd say the previous owner was not a connoisseur of fine optics and mounts.

I've used them in the past, on magnums and they have worked well...BUT....knowing what I know now, learned a bit ago, I would not use these and in fact and changed them out on a couple of rifles, now.

Talk about extraordinaryly poor design!

I think Chad and Fireman will agree, but one of the absolute most critical parts of having a CONSISTENTLY accurate (one that just doesn't give good groups, but one that maintains zero" is the mounting system between the rifle and the optics. The less moving parts there, the better. I want something that just isn't "good enough". I want something that can take a few normal "whacks" and maintain zero. The weak point in the adjustable windage screw is that the bearing surface is that of a hollowed out screw head. The more bearing surface that one has from an engineering standpoint, the less prone to slippage that will occur.

No one is telling anyone that they just absolutely have to go out and change your mounts. People with a lot of experience are simply stating that there are better options out there. You could drive to your lease in a Yugo, pull out your Remington 783 with its package scope and adjustable windage mounts, pull out your box of mil-surp ammo, and probably kill a deer. Having a better solution doesn't make one a "gear snob". I want my surgeon that is operating on me to be the best, same as I want my gear to be the best.

Good rings and bases can be had for under a $100. What is spent on other aspects of hunting? Cheap insurance in my opinion.

^^Exactly.

And all those years great-grandad, grandad, and dad used them, there's thousands of stories of rifles loosing zero, and of missed or wounded animals. $100 is cheap to at least remove that particular factor.

^^ Perfectly stated!! This is how intended this to be interpreted. I'm not bashing hunters who use these rings and bases. I'm simply informing hunters and shooters of the negatives and draw backs of certain gear. Does that make me a gear snob, no. I like gear that works, as does everyone else. These rings/bases are a system that can easily cause a hunter head aches that is easily prevented with "better" rings/bases.

Yup. If you have the old windage-adjustable setup and it's been working, that's one thing...but when choosing new equipment, why go with the weakest and most trouble-prone design on rhe market?

I'm ok with that and it is what I have been doing. My last two rifle purchases are wearing pic rails... one with buris signature Z rings because my savage mounting holes were not aligned. The post tile is worst base and rings with 5 exclamation points, I think the intent was more than there are better options lol.

I never experienced the Leo Windage screw problems most of my cohorts were complaining or concerned about when I started out in the early '70's buying my own rifles...but the tang safety Ruger 77's I was buying, with their free steel ring mounts were a $$ consideration to my faithful many years long string of purchases, even if they were a little restrictive on the scope's I could use. The SAKO my grandpop gave me came with SAKO rings that were farmer tight and super strong...and being a 243 was not gonna shoot loose if I didn't fiddle with them.

After I went to work selling gun 'n fishing stuff in '76 I learned the WHY of all the nasty words were all about ...but sold the snot out of them anyway 'cause that's MY dealer customers wanted, and Leo DD's were not well accepted initially...too spendy and funny looking. Gunsmith's made beaucoup bux working on Leo Windgage Ring Issues, about like they did when they included a free can of WD 40 with every long gun purchase
Ron

100% agree with Chad.....

I had those exact Leupold rings and base with the rear windage screws on my .300wby and after awhile I could see the shiny metal exposed from where the screws were pulling through the recesses where they mounted; I replaced the bases and rings before it became an issue.

Couple of months later I went hunting with a buddy who was using the same style that I had REMOVED from my rifle on his .300wby; I mentioned to him why I switched and he said "I ain't worried about it!"....... We get to the ranch and fire a few rounds to check our zero and his rifle started off shooting cloverleaf groups and all of a sudden started shooting all over the place.

Looked at the bases and the rear ring had pulled out of the windage screws and was so damaged that it was completely useless at that point!

Here's a thought: who would want to mount a scope using that windage-adjustable scheme on both front and rear rings?

Exactly what Brother-In-Law said. Chad called your baby ugly, and you got mad about it.

How did this topic go 6 pages?

Cuz Chad called my gun ugly.

You have a Remington quarter bore with a Nikkon scope and bad rings. You are doing it all wrong.

LMAO!! I'm dying here!

I have a Savage .17 HMR with miss-aligned scope base holes. Had to use a set of Millet Angleloc rings to get it sighted in.

https://www.brownells.com/optics-mountin...s-prod9129.aspx

A lot more bearing surface, but still windage adjustable front and rear.

I'm not mad in the slightest and my rifle still shoots fine too

Cool. Reference this thread when it don't. It will happen eventually.

I've seen those. I think they're better than the conventional adjustable-windage system when you're in a pickle like that. I think they do need lapping when used in a situation like that. I have a rifle that has misaligned mounting holes and I used Burris Signature Zee rings om it. Much easier because no lapping is required with offset inserts.