Leupold STD Base and Rings any good?

Bartledan said:
I've got weaver bases on my 9.3x62. I chose them for their weight. My biggest comment is "stop using slotted screws, you dicks! It's 2016!" I've tried the weaver rings 3 or so times, and between the giant gouges they leave in the scope finish, and the massive pain they are to set the scope level, I'm done with them.

I went with Vortex Viper rings... Only because they're aluminum. The Viper rings took a lot of hand work and needed to be lapped (I hate lapping rings, and Talley lightweights and Leupold Standard rings have never needed it!) to make them acceptable. Not one edge was deburred prior to anno. The machining was very nice aside from that, and I'll never buy them again. $100? Somebody's smoking crack!

If somebody made Warne rings out of aluminum, I'd hump their leg.
Click to expand...

You lapped aluminum rings?


My last set of Talley's were defective I think. The elevation was out even when max dialed (new VX3 on a new rifle). I swapped the scope onto another rifle hoping it wasn't the scope and it aligned fine. Tried reinstalling the Talley's same deal. I mostly use Sako and Leupold QR's which are great and seem to hold zero just fine. Thinking about trying Leupold STD rings? Turn in front, with rear screw. Looks strange, but do they work well?
Click to expand...
Ive had these for awhile now:
leu1.jpg

P&D mounted it maybe 5 years ago. I forget the name of the guy who did it. The guy who said he used to be US airborne. He did a good job lapping from what I can tell. The torque seems to have been set properly. Seen a few hundred rounds and the screws seem to have maintained their position and I haven't lost zero ever.

If I had to do it again, I would have done a 1913 rail so I could switch out my scope to other rifles more easily.
 
Bile said:
You lapped aluminum rings?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I did. So what? Not an uncommon practise at all.

They were horribly finished, and would have scratched seven hells out of my scope. I broke all the edges with 600 grit sandpaper, then lapped to make everything smooth.

Ive had these for awhile now:
leu1.jpg

P&D mounted it maybe 5 years ago. I forget the name of the guy who did it. The guy who said he used to be US airborne. He did a good job lapping from what I can tell. The torque seems to have been set properly. Seen a few hundred rounds and the screws seem to have maintained their position and I haven't lost zero ever.

If I had to do it again, I would have done a 1913 rail so I could switch out my scope to other rifles more easily.
Click to expand...

I've mounted, Jesus, hundreds of scopes. None has ever been a problem. You get P&D to mount yours. Whoever told you not to lap aluminum rings was wrong.

I only lap rings if there is a darn good reason, like they were made by Ruger (####ty finish, poor tolerances, lousy concentricity, etc.), or Vortex (####ty finish). Lapping rings is usually an unnecessary pain in the ass.

Talleys and Warnes never get lapped.
 
Bile said:
You lapped aluminum rings?



Ive had these for awhile now:
leu1.jpg

P&D mounted it maybe 5 years ago. I forget the name of the guy who did it. The guy who said he used to be US airborne. He did a good job lapping from what I can tell. The torque seems to have been set properly. Seen a few hundred rounds and the screws seem to have maintained their position and I haven't lost zero ever.

If I had to do it again, I would have done a 1913 rail so I could switch out my scope to other rifles more easily.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you lap aluminum rings?
 
Bartledan said:
Yeah, I did. So what? Not an uncommon practise at all.

They were horribly finished, and would have scratched seven hells out of my scope. I broke all the edges with 600 grit sandpaper, then lapped to make everything smooth.



I've mounted, Jesus, hundreds of scopes. None has ever been a problem. You get P&D to mount yours. Whoever told you not to lap aluminum rings was wrong.

I only lap rings if there is a darn good reason, like they were made by Ruger (####ty finish, poor tolerances, lousy concentricity, etc.), or Vortex (####ty finish). Lapping rings is usually an unnecessary pain in the ass.

Talleys and Warnes never get lapped.
Click to expand...
We seldom lap aluminum rings unless we are trying to solve a significant problem. We gave up lapping Ruger rings and purchased ring reamers and then finish off with lapping. Phil.
 
vancouverbc said:
Weatherby Mark V Ultra Lightweight 6 lug (with correct Talley's)

Thanks for suggestions all.
Click to expand...

The Weatherby Nark V receivers are known to vary dimension wise, dependent on the model, chambering, and where/when the receiver was manufactured, which causes issues with scope mounting. I have had the same issue with a Mark V using Leupold bases. I would torque down the Talley rings, and put a straight edge across the two ring surfaces. This will allow you to see the difference in height from the front ring to the rear ring. Then you can call Talley, tell them your findings, and they may be able to recommend a set of rings that will better fit your receiver, If Talley can't help, then I would explore other options.
 
I've grown to hate the Leupold (Redfield) system. I've had way too many loosen off, some even with red Loctite. When they loosen, which way? With just about any non retarded system (lets say something more or less based on a weaver) you can snuck them up and be awfully close. These could be just about anywhere. Budget for a box of shells by the time you first rough sight with the adjustments then fine tune with the scope.

Now suppose you need to take the scope off for one reason or another. Best case scenario you've Loctited the left side so all you have to do is use your 1-2000 thousand dollar scope as a pry bar to turn a $10 ring in and out. Or maybe you want to use the mechanical advantage of screws to bend/flex your scope tube to "adjust" your windage. Does that sound like something you want to do?

Next, someone mentioned lapping. Yeah that's great, twist the front ring in with a broomstick, ring wrench, crescent wrench (a real enthusiast might want to use his ####) to some position that might be kinda sorta within minute of ballpark of straight. You aren't going to know whether its right until you mount a scope and sight it in, by which time you've already lapped what may have been straight rings mounted crooked into mounted crooked and lapped-straight rings. Try not to think about too much, because if you did it would probably occur to you that if you ever took it all apart again NASA couldn't get them back in the same place if Jesus was running the place. If you never take the rings off again, remember that you will sooner or later be using your scope as a snipe.

The back ring is held on by being pinched between the top side of 2 screws. In a perfect world the ends of the two screws would touch each other at the exact instant that perfect compression on the ring base was achieved but that's a pretty optimistic thought. Its more likely that the screws either touch first and leave movement between the ring and the screws, or that the screwheads touch first. Too tight and the heads flex, too loose and they come loose. Loctite is your friend. If the planets align and everything works as designed the best you can get is 1 1/2 rings when you could have had two.

Those are the cons. The one and only "pro" is that the set-up is windage adjustable. Chances are you didn't need windage adjustment in the first place. That's a lot of con for a solution you probably don't need. Lots of downside, no upside.
 
Dogleg said:
Next, someone mentioned lapping. Yeah that's great, twist the front ring in with a broomstick, ring wrench, crescent wrench (a real enthusiast might want to use his ####) to some position that might be kinda sorta within minute of ballpark of straight.
Click to expand...

I hope that's not how you got your username. ;)
 
Leupold Std rings I will not use. Those two big screws tighten into grooves when all is going correctly, I had one set that wouldn't line up correctly. There adjustable for windage, well I have never needed a set of scope mounts with that feature in 46yrs. not likely I am going to need it now. To me those two big adjustable screws are just something else to come loose. I use Leupold rings with Duel Dove Tail bases. A little heavy, but very solid, with a minimum of parts to come loose. I used to use Weaver bases and rings. Cheap and unbelievably solid, you could take the scope with rings off the bases put it all back on and they always returned to the original POI. Downside to Weaver rings are they like to mark up scope tubes and they are very difficult to tighten and have the scope remain level.

Anyways I now use the Leupold Duel Dove Tails and have been most pleased with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom