Horizontal vs Vertical Split Rings

A

axemaster8

Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Location
the end of the road
Time has come to mount a scope and while searching through ring options I find myself gravitating towards a vertical split ring (Nikon). To me they have a clean streamline look, however this will mean nothing if they cant preform.
Are there any inherent differences, advantages, disadvantages between these two types of rings which puts one above the other in terms of installation, holding the scope in place and not causing damage to the scope?
Looking for info from people with first hand experience.
 
I use mostly Burris Signature rings with the inserts that are horizontal but tried a set of Warne vertical rings on my 25-06 and they worked fine although I did find them a little bit different to work with.
 
Here's a good read about vertical split rings and why you shouldn't use them (at least on a tactical style scope)

https:// forum.snipershide.com/forum/sniper%C2%92s-hide%C2%AE-armory-supply/sniper-s-hide-rifle-scopes/6539103-vertically-split-rings
 
I've always hated vertical-split rings, but my only experiences with them were rings that clamped both the scope and the base with the same set of screws on the bottom. Difficult to lap, a PITA to get the scope level, ugly...no upside to these things at all.

I recently tried a set of Talleys and it was a revelation. Terrific rings, very easy to mount and level the scope and apparently very secure. Talley apparently makes the non-removeable single-screw monstrosities which I detest so much, but the ones I now have utilize separate screws on the bottom for clamping the rings around the scope tube and for attaching to the mounting base. Problems solved! They can even be upgraded to QD functionality simply by changing the screws out for levers. They've remained tight and solid for several hundred rounds of .375H&H and they even look good.
 
jjohnwm said:
I've always hated vertical-split rings, but my only experiences with them were rings that clamped both the scope and the base with the same set of screws on the bottom. Difficult to lap, a PITA to get the scope level, ugly...no upside to these things at all.
Click to expand...

I absolutely hate vertical rings too.
Scope can become loose if you want to switch to another rifle.

As a reloader , i frequently use higher magnification scope for load developpement. Then i switch back to a more adapted ( hunting ) scope. Levelling a scope every time would be a time consuming task.
As a poor guy i have some multi purpose rifles and scopes that i switch occasionnally.
My preffered set-up is permanently attached rings to the scope and a rail on the gun. My .22 also have a 20moa rail.

When a wide loading window is required or on a lightweight set-up , DD mounting or Talleys are used .
 
axemaster8 said:
Time has come to mount a scope and while searching through ring options I find myself gravitating towards a vertical split ring (Nikon). To me they have a clean streamline look, however this will mean nothing if they cant preform.
Are there any inherent differences, advantages, disadvantages between these two types of rings which puts one above the other in terms of installation, holding the scope in place and not causing damage to the scope?
Looking for info from people with first hand experience.
Click to expand...

The Nikon rings are made by Warne. Biggest challenge is the muscle memory of being used to horizontals. Verticals you put the ring on the scope first then the mount, not the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom