Leupold Scope mounts quality?

The ones pictured as others have stated are the windage adjustable rear bases. They are a very popular ring and base set. My opinion is that those adjustment screws are just two more screws that can come loose or move. I have thrown two sets in the garbage for that very reason. Leupolds "Dual Dovetail" rings and bases are very solid and I have many sets without issue. My suggestion would be to change them out and give them to someone who likes those adjustable bases.
 
Last edited:
kamlooky said:
I'm with Dogleg on his way of thinking.
That front mount looks like it don't belong.
While it is preferred to have your rings on the scope tubes
as wide as possible, this example restricts the scope from
being moved to the rear by what appears to be around an inch.
Whether this is an issue for you is for you to decide.
Click to expand...

Ahh, that scope's already too far rearward, but if it has to retreat a bit more to ensure blood flow, reversing the front base should accomplish that.
 
I think I'll probably skid them in favour of something else, I've got a rail/ring/scope combo sitting here for a build so I'll throw those on until the other gun needs them, that'll give me time to find a nice rail and rings in the EE. That scope isn't coming with the gun so I'll be able to find something I like more too.
 
I have them and don't mind them at all. They serve their intended purpose well in regards to zeroing your windage as others have said. A little lock tight on the windage screws and you'll have no issue.
 
I have used these windage adjustable bases in the past without any issue. I use mostly rails or dual dovetails now, but depending on your shooting environment, it really can be overkill. Leupold sells tons of these mounts, if they didn't work, people wouldn't buy them. You may want to take into consideration rifle recoil and the conditions you'll be hunting in. If your mounting the scope on a .300 ultra mag that might end up tumbling down a mountain then there's probably better options out there for mounts. For general hunting or shooting from a bench, I don't see anything wrong with those mounts. If your worried about the windage screws, as others have said use a little blue or green loctite.
 
I have found that the twist in front ring does not always stop perpendicular to the bore. Some are so tight that guys think they are there and leave it. Then you start jacking it left or right with the windage screws and add torque to your scope...

For the guys that don't have to have a canted rail or a tactical setup, I'd recommend talley lightweights to everyone.
 
Ever notice that the wheels on your truck only have lug-nuts on the outside, and something solid as hell to torque against on the other? Why didn't they put nuts on both sides of the wheel so the guys with bent rims could adjust for it?
 
JSSK said:
These are the rings in question.

IMG_5533_zpsfc37kori.png
[/URL][/IMG]
Click to expand...

That style was sort of the 'gold standard' since they came out 50 years ago or more. Nothing wrong with them if they are correctly installed and the recoil is not excessive. I have seen rear ring failure a few times over 50 years.
 
For sure they work, although they require a lot more attention to detail when mounting than some other options, like the PRW/QRW rings/bases...but I sure as hell wouldn't recommend them to anyone who is green enough to need to ask the question. And if your first experience in mounting a scope is with these things, you're stacking the odds against yourself.
 
Boomer said:
.... An advantage this style of mount has is that small windage adjustments can be made, using the windage screws, allowing the windage turret to keep it's mechanical center. ...

... A disadvantage of this mount is the temptation to treat it as a QD, and twist off the front dovetail ring using the scope as a handle, risking damage to the scope tube. ....
Click to expand...

This always struck me as problematic - if not good to use the scope tube as handle to turn out the front ring, I buy into that. However, how can one adjust rear windage without also putting the same dreaded torque onto said scope body? I have this type, weaver originals, also double dovetail on various rifles - all have been successfully sighted in, and I have never had a scope loosen or fall off.
 
The mounts shown were popular for years when you didn't have many choices. Do they work? Sure but I don't understand why they are still popular with so many better/stronger/cleaner options available for the same money or less.
 
JSSK said:
These are the rings in question.

IMG_5533_zpsfc37kori.png
[/URL][/IMG]
Click to expand...

Although this setup may function perfectly, I find it jarring to the eye. Why is there any need to cantilever anything? Front base should sit nicely on front receiver ring, same with rear ring. Why make bases that extend into the loading port? Recently worked with a Model 70 in 7x57 and a Leupold Compact 3-9 scope. So far as I could find, only Talley made base / rings that would fit - aligned so that neither front nor rear over loading port. John Barsness had similar comments in an article a few years ago,suggesting that scope manufacturers take a look at older Weaver K4 and Leupold M8 and design / market stuff to fit properly. I guess so long as folks know no differently, or have no higher expectations, they will keep buying poorly designed bases / rings / scopes. Unbelievable to try to work with Leupold cantilevered "extension" rings that flex with finger pressure on the scope. Yet, still being made because we do not insist on better stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom