Or just wrap a piece of pop can around the scope tube, force the ring over the pop can aluminum (.004" thick) and pull the sheet fo aluminum out.
Am I a dinosaur ?
- Thread starter triggerman42
- Start date
Or just wrap a piece of pop can around the scope tube, force the ring over the pop can aluminum (.004" thick) and pull the sheet fo aluminum out.
I keep using them on a few rifle (rimfires) as well. They work just fine in that limited application. The screw heads all line up...with one screw almost loose and the other over torqued. Since I already scratched the scope putting the ring on, I might as well keep them on, and save scratching the scope a second time taking them off. However, I'll never use them again on a new scope.
I may be a dinasaur but...I'm EVOLVING!
I may be a dinasaur but...I'm EVOLVING!
- Location
- Saskatoon Saskatchewan
all my rifles used to have weaver rings. I think I only have one set left and they're on my 22-250. Just haven't found a nice stainless set to replace them yet. But ya, I will never buy another set. Even my 22's deserve better.
I just put a set on my BLR takedown in 308.
They are very low... I guess that's something.
They kind of quick release, if your fingers are both warm and dry.
I bought them because that damned browning scout mount is an out-of-spec piece of crap. The recoil grooves are round bottomed (bastards!) and the rail is narrow, so warne rings don't even tighten on! Even after I remove the goofy warne recoil lug, the fully tightened ring still slides freely on the rail.
Also, are those warne rings made of plutonium? So heavy! At least the weavers are light. And fugly. They are also fugly.
Maybe now the darn thing will stop shooting around corners.
They are very low... I guess that's something.
They kind of quick release, if your fingers are both warm and dry.
I bought them because that damned browning scout mount is an out-of-spec piece of crap. The recoil grooves are round bottomed (bastards!) and the rail is narrow, so warne rings don't even tighten on! Even after I remove the goofy warne recoil lug, the fully tightened ring still slides freely on the rail.
Also, are those warne rings made of plutonium? So heavy! At least the weavers are light. And fugly. They are also fugly.
Maybe now the darn thing will stop shooting around corners.
Funny that all the haters fail to remember that the Weaver system is the most copied, used, and successful system out there.
I don't mind the old Weaver rings, but the newer style Weaver brand rings have screws on both sides of the base and work just fine.
I don't mind the old Weaver rings, but the newer style Weaver brand rings have screws on both sides of the base and work just fine.
Exactly, as you tighten the screws, the scope gets twisted in the ring bases, that is reason enough for me to never use them.
Ar180shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ottawa, ON
I've had newer style rings fail too... but they were cheap Chinese junk rings. I've never had a decent set of rings fail. Even Weaver makes more modern designs that are far better and around the same price.
The old weaver's suck because whats said above , As you tighten it up the scope will often turn, their are tricks to fix that issue but it takes alot of work.
The new ones are similar to lupold clamp , they have 2 styles now , Single band like lupold where its a allen bolt on each side and you just tighten it down evenly.
They also have dual band rings now where you tighten down 2 allens per side , imho its a a style thing mostly. but having used both in recent years the new weaver rings and bases are actually very nice now a days.
They no longer use the swing and clamp method of the past that sucked so people should stop spreading that hate unless they are up to date on the current mounts and rings sold.
The new ones are similar to lupold clamp , they have 2 styles now , Single band like lupold where its a allen bolt on each side and you just tighten it down evenly.
They also have dual band rings now where you tighten down 2 allens per side , imho its a a style thing mostly. but having used both in recent years the new weaver rings and bases are actually very nice now a days.
They no longer use the swing and clamp method of the past that sucked so people should stop spreading that hate unless they are up to date on the current mounts and rings sold.
Once you've done a couple with the old Weaver rings, it's not hard to figure out how much cant you need so it ends up straight when you tighten the rings down. I didn't mind them, and still have a couple of sets squirrelled away somewhere. If you have a '50's vintage Husky or Model 70, Weaver rings just look "right".
My only complaint is the slotted screw heads, they need to line up the same... Because OCD, lol.
Just mewv them 'round till they lyme up...........
And I just can't get my head around the scope bases that encroach the bolt opening.
My first, and favorite rifle, a 300 Weatherby Mk5, had the aluminum Weaver 2 piece bases and their simple little cheap rings holding a Leupold.
They stayed true forever. After tons of game and many long shots and rough hunts, and a couple and a half decades of time, I changed the bbl, put on a 20 moa base with a half dozen 8-40 cap screws and changed the rings to Burris Signatures to make it all work. It is not any better than it was. Not bad in any way, just not head and shoulders above the old set up.
They stayed true forever. After tons of game and many long shots and rough hunts, and a couple and a half decades of time, I changed the bbl, put on a 20 moa base with a half dozen 8-40 cap screws and changed the rings to Burris Signatures to make it all work. It is not any better than it was. Not bad in any way, just not head and shoulders above the old set up.
