Direct mount rings or rail?

Flash

Flash

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Location
Deprivation Boulevard
Iron sight guy knows nothing about optics.

Rem 700 Tactical came drilled and tapped.

1. I've read that mounting rings directly decreases the likelihood of scope movement over mounting a rail. Is that true?

Also been told to spend as much as possible on rings.

2. What rings and mount do you recommend?

Thanx
 
Sinasta said:
What?

You will need to install a rail as your base to mount your rings.
Click to expand...

DNZ mounts are one piece that mount direct to the action, the other ring sets I listed require bases yes. I would definitely recommend a quality 1 piece base if you go that route.
Quality base and rings shouldn't go anywhere but I like 1 piece ring sets as it pretty well eliminates any variability between the rings. 2 piece ring sets can cause issues with a factory action if the holes weren't drilled and tapped totally in line. A 1 piece base or Integral base/rings can eliminate that issue.
Just don't go with a 2 piece base and get quality rings, torque as recommend and you'll be good to go.

I've used DNZ mounts on Savage rifles I take hunting for miles and they have been great, but on most any other rifle I have Integral Picatinny rails and 1 piece ring sets.
 
Last edited:
Some folks have claimed with Remington integrated scope rings no rail is required.

(http://www.reloaderaddict.com/best-scope-mount-for-remington-700-rings-base-review/)
One of the more interesting options for the Remington 700 is an integral mount. This does away with the need for picatinny scope rails of any kind. The benefit here is the backward motion created by recoil is less likely to ever make the scope slide. Because the rails are installed directly into the receiver the force holding it down is vertical, not horizontal. This option limits you to a standard objective lens size and smaller.

Regardless of claims, i'm curious what people here are using.
 
I would go with a direct mount on a hunting or precision rifle, and there are many quality rings that don't break the bank. Talley rings are good and relatively easy to find for your specific rifle. I have a set of Talley rings direct mounted on my Weatherby Vanguard, the scope has a 50mm lens and I only needed medium height rings.
 
Flash said:
Thanx for your replies. At the moment I'm thinking Seekins Picatinny rail and Vortex Pro rings, with a Vortex Strike Eagle 3-18 x 44.
Click to expand...

I've heard bad things about vertically split rings. Something about the scope tube is designed to have the pressure from the rings applied to the top and bottom of the tube but the sides. One guy was claiming a bunch of scopes failed at a course he was at and almost all of them had vertically split rings.

Whats other people's opinion on this?
 
Did you look at Nightforce direct mount?
I love how it's low profile. Has less parts and possible failures than other design. Only downside is less modularity, can't switch to different diameter, height or position without switching mounts.
Sku A219 or A220 depending on your action lenght/caliber.
Low will be high enough if you don't have anything over your barrel.
direct-mount
 
Maybe I will be the "stick in the mud" on this discussion. 10's of thousands of people seem to get along fine with 2 piece weaver, redfield, millet, leupold bases, using the same brands of rings to do their shooting. 99% of these bases are attached to the receiver with 3 or 4 6-48 screws. It seems to me that the first "tactical" improvement would be to have those screw holes re-done to 8-40, and, in the process, have the holes drilled "perfectly" in line with the centreline of the bore. Most factories apparently can't accomplish this with the holes they drill.
Then, examine the fit of the base (or rail, as some seem to prefer to call it) to the receiver. There is considerable variation in the contour of finished rifles - even Remington 700's. You want to end up with the base firmly attached to the receiver contour, at the same time the other end is also firmly settled into place. That may require lapping or shimming. The result is then verified by lapping the ring bottoms to ensure that the scope body sits solidly, and straightly, in the rings. You can force the scope to fit - evidenced every time you see "scope ring marks" on a scope body - the ring bores were not perfectly in line; therefore the scope body was being "arched" or bent by tightening the ring tops.
If you want "perfect", I don't think you can rely on anything "massed produced". Almost all manufacturers work within tolerances - to achieve "good enough", not necessarily "perfect". It is then up to you how much you want to pay for "perfect" - for example, Holland and Holland appears to generally work very close to "perfect" - others, like perhaps Vortex and other very profitable manufacturers, maybe not so much.
 
Last edited:
That's a good idea to have the holes correctly aligned and drilled larger. Yes I admit the machining, drilling and tapping on this Remington isn't nearly as fine as a Tikka. I didn't pay for this brand new rifle however, so I cannot complain.

Finding someone capable is an issue. Can't just waltz into any gun shop and ask, because they'll all say they can.

Reading reviews, it seems Seekins makes rings for Vortex, and a common comment is they don't require lapping. Knowing as much about lapping as Natalie Provost knows about firearms, I can't comment.

The NF and DNZ one-piece mounts are interesting. Found the Rem 700 SA lo-height Game Keeper for $58. That seems to be the way.

ATRS makes nice stuff. If I ever build a only-the-best-no-price-limit AR-10 of my dreams, that's what'll go on it.

Some mounts may be subject to ITAR export rules, making them extra expensive to get here. Component parts under $100 don't seem to be subject to the export permit rule. (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...a&node=22:1.0.1.13.60&rgn=div5#se22.1.123_116)
 
Last edited:
On a 700 I would recommend a rail and rings from ATRS. Support Canadians and they make a top notch product. I also recommend bedding your rail as there is a good chance Remington doesn't make a perfect problem.

Cheers
 
Suther said:
I've heard bad things about vertically split rings. Something about the scope tube is designed to have the pressure from the rings applied to the top and bottom of the tube but the sides. One guy was claiming a bunch of scopes failed at a course he was at and almost all of them had vertically split rings.

Whats other people's opinion on this?
Click to expand...

Lots sold and used
might be stuff for a new thread
 
Flash said:
Iron sight guy knows nothing about optics.

Rem 700 Tactical came drilled and tapped.

1. I've read that mounting rings directly decreases the likelihood of scope movement over mounting a rail. Is that true?

Also been told to spend as much as possible on rings.

2. What rings and mount do you recommend?

Thanx
Click to expand...

1. single connection vs two, but if torqued properly should be no different

A 'tactical' rail offers more scope position options than typical dovetail bases where you have a single position
 
General consensus is solidity of scope and rifle is most important. At this moment -- and it has changed faster than weather -- I'm leaning towards the Game Reaper one-piece ring and mount.

I'm grateful to all posters however, because of what you're teaching me. Thank you.
 
Your best option is a Near Alphahunter. It's a direct mount made out of hardened steel, machined and finished to very tight tolerances. It weighs 3-4oz depending on size/height.

I have/had many mounts including leupold DD, weaver, Tikka 'one piece', DNZ, Near Alphahunter (thanks Kman), seekins, Warne... Off the top of my head.

Near is, in my opinion, the best. The best comes with a price also, however.

Personally I prefer the utility of a Picatinny rail whenever something goes wrong. It's nice to be able to swap a known working scope over to a rifle if something goes funny. It also affords the opportunity of zeroing a second scope, and then packing it along as a backup or alternate.

A rail also makes it easy to verify torque on the fasteners holding the base to the action. With a direct mount, one has to take the scope out of the rings for this. Some get around this by epoxying the base to their receiver and/or using a thread locking compound.

The DNZ Gamereaper works. The examples I have had are certainly in a different class than Near and seekins. No recoil lug, inferior materials.

I've noticed a significant difference between materials. Not all aluminum is equal. Comparing 6061 to 7075 rails, over time, the 7075 stands up a lot better, just as the materials data suggests. (7075 has almost twice the tensile strength).

I think top quality mounts are a worthwhile investment, but are by no means required. They can take some frustrations and guesswork out of the equation and make for easier maintenance. Hard to beat Seekins for heavy duty, light weight, precision mounts.

My .02 anyway....
 
Last edited:
Suther said:
I ask because he said he was looking at vortex pro rings, which are vertical split rings. I brought it up because if they were a problem then the OP might not want to get them...?
Click to expand...
no prob, just figured there would be lots of input to the issue if there is one
Not trying to dis you.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom