Burris 1/2" Picatinny Risers - Do not recommend

[JungleBeats]

I bought 2 of these online for what I thought would be a $70 quick-fix to raise my low scope rings. Let me tell you, they are garbage. The torque specs are 20lbs, but they were completely loosey goosey. Any more torque and they will clearly strip.

Once I started to research the problem, I found these risers are well documented on sites like Brownells as garbage (other users experiencing exact same issue). Ended up paying for shipping to get some of my money back (because they are literally useless hunks of metal) and ordered proper high-rings like I should have in the beginning. Take your time, and do your research friends.

 

[savagelh]

Strange question but are you sure that the base you mounted them to was a picatinny and not weaver style? I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about scope mounting systems and only recently discovered that there is a difference.

 

[JungleBeats]

I tried to use the Burris risers on a CZ 600 Trail (223) picantinny. I'm not super knowledgeable about scope mounting systems, but after hours of research I thought these were the best value and no-brainer install option.

The risers have no "spring" or "give" to them, so 20lbs of torque isn't going to do anything to make them bite. On Brownells, someone said they reached out to a Burris rep and were told to do 100lbs or something ridiculous. Other folks in comments put the risers in a vice to "squeeze it" tighter, which to me is another ridiculous ask for something that should just work.

If I'm wrong with how I installed, I'll be the first to apologize.

 

[wasrupzuk]

One glance at the picture tells you it’s garbage.
The design uses a slot and relies on flex to tighten which would distort everything you want square.
First, I wouldn’t want to add additional components and fasteners or make a Jenga tower to mount a scope but if I did I’d look for a riser with a separate floating clamp so it could be tightened distortion free.
Good choice on just going with new rings.

 

[jjohnwm]

I agree, definitely junk.

The thing that puzzles me is that there is a lot of support for Burris as being a maker of good quality rings, even though their Signature rings use this same stupid system. The ring is a solid unit with no removable clamp to hold it to the base, and must have the cross-bolt removed completely to allow it to slide onto the base from the end. When the cross-bolt is replaced and tightened, it's simply squeezing that one piece of steel tightly shut. Each ring has a slot that allows it to flex shut as the bolt is tightened. It's about as precise as those cheap plastic boxes with a top that hinges on a thin area of plastic that needs to flex and bend as you open and close the box. Again....junk.

People swoon over these things. It's especially funny when you hear them praising the interchangeable plastic bushing-inserts that the rings come with. Those inserts prevent scratches and damage to the scope, and they even sell them with built-in offsets to compensate for scopes that end up pointing somewhere other than where the rifle points. You're expected to mix and match the inserts to get the scope back to where a good set of rings on a good base, properly installed, would have put it in the first place. Junk!