Burris "Signature" rings- opinions?

I use the Burris Siganture rings on a few rifles I have; they hold zero very well, you can put off-centered inserts in them if the mounts are not 100% aligned with the bore, and they eliminate marring to the scope tube from the rings.
 
I just bought them for my last rifle and i must say i'm impressed. Hold zero very well and at a decent price. I have the inserts in them as well so i'm sure there won't be a mark left on the scope.
 
Ok guys, have a set on my Cooper and twice have had to remount the scope because the rear ring cants after 50 or so shots. This last time I torqued the sh/t out of everything and loctited as well. If it doesn't stay put now these rings are going in the garbage and a set of Leupolds are going on.

IMG_2242.jpg


The back ring has moved on me and when the windage screws are tightened the ring is not sitting on the base properly, so this time I hammered the ring down after tightnening, so something is screwed up with the screws or the way the grooves are machined on the ring. Must have been made on a Friday??
 
C4X4, I don't use this base style for the problems you are addressing. Plus your making the scope body handle some of the mounting loads.

But if this base is used, the Burris rings are ideal as they will eliminate so much of the slop and misalignment inherent in this system.

I only use the Weaver style (happens to fit on pic rails too). No muss, no fuss, locks up rock solid and doesn't shoot loose.

You might want to look at a change for the better.

Jerry
 
Thinking your right Jerry, last couple of rifles have been the PRW rings and bases. Had the standard leupolds on a 300wm for 25 yrs with no problem and the Cooper came with the bases so I used them so if I can find a good solid steel base for the cooper I will swap them and put some PRWs on it. Its a model 22 if you can help with that.
 
Doesn't look like Cooper is working with many base manf. Only Leupold lists bases and these are the turn in kind.

Other way is to see if bases from Rem, Sav, Win, Ruger, etc will line up. That way I can use another base to suit.

Joys of low volume semi custom manf.

Jerry
 
savagefan said:
Am considereing them, does the softish material change with temperature?
Click to expand...

IIRC, plastics have a lower coefficient of thermal expansion then steel does, generally. Meaning they'll expand and contract less per *C up or down. So if the steel rings contract more then the plastic the inserts will just deform a little bit more (as they're supposed to) to compensate for the improper alignment of the rings and you'll still have a very nicely aligned scope.

I have a set of Signature Z-rings on my Savage 12FVSS and I think they're excellent. After reading about the experiences members have had with them I took the plunge. At first I was a little put off by how "sloppy" my mounting job looked. By that I mean I couldn't get where the two halves of the inserts meet to meet up at the same angle of roll. the steel halves of the rings didn't come completely together either. But I've been shooting it for a year this way, without loc-tite or excessive torquing and it has held zero very nicely.
 
These rings are great for the already stated reasons of not marring the scope, inserts allow centering windage and dialing down elevation at 100m so you can crank up elevation for farther distances, and they haven't ever come loose on me.

They work well with standard Weaver brand 2 piece aluminum or steel (grand slam) bases. I've also tried them with leupold 2 piece steel QRW bases, and they work well, but you have to stretch the rings out a little to fit them onto the bases. I did this by partially unscrewing the ring base screw and using a visegrip on it. Of course a third base option is one of many 1 piece steel bases available, often with a built in 20 MOA tilt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom