Leupold STD scope mounts and rings: change to Weaver?.

P

philthygeezer

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
200   0   0
Location
Canada
Took a closer look at my lightweight .308 today. I had a 25-round session a few months ago. Argh:

  1. The 4x scope wound up against the rear locking ring after sliding forward in the rings.
  2. The 'ears' of the rear ring that mate to the screw tighteners are 1/3 to 1/2 shorn off as the rings moved forward.
Evidently this all wasn't tight enough or had worked loose during shooting. :mad:

I think it's time to change to a Weaver cross-slot base and rings. Will wider rings and recoil lugs help matters?
 
Looks like I'm not the only one:
I have seen Remingtons showing signs of flexations in the action. Using a Burris or Leupold type front dovetail, the ears on the rear ring that is held by windage screws to the rear base get sheared off. No movement in the scope at the front or rear rings, but the flex tears the rear ring off the base. This usually happens with .300 RUM rifles. We've also seen it on Accumarks in .30-378WBY mags. Those guns, I like solid one piece bases.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3070281&postcount=5
Click to expand...

My father-in-law talked me into some Burris quick-detach rings. the little nubs that mate with the grooves on the base sheared clean off.
http://www.handgunhunt.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/56528/page/1
Click to expand...

The "Standard" style base/ring system is just not solid enough to hold a heavy scope on a hard recoiling rifle. I have seen the windage adjustment screws back out and have even seen the dovetail sheared off the front ring under recoil. If you don't like the Weaver style, at least get the Dual Dovetail setup.
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/burris-rings-leupold-mount-2105/
Click to expand...
Nope, just looked at the original base/rings. They are Leupold and they are junk, believe it or not. I read a review of it on Midway and looked at my rear ring, and found out they are not machined right and they can shear off the pieces on the rear ring that mount it to the base. Sure enough, I can see mine did not fit properly, and metal has been shorn off. They are junk.

The 2 piece base I had was windage adjustable but it nearly sheared off the attachment points on the rear ring. Same complaint from users at MidwayUSA.com.
http://www.snipercentral.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=286745&sid=6acc23e5af46dc5b61199b90b89b6e97
Click to expand...
I mounted this base and rings for my Savage 110 chambered in .30-06. When I went to zero in my rifle the rear ring broke from the base. The area where the windage adjustment screws on the base would mount to the rear ring literally sheared off and made that ring scrape metal.
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=529983
Click to expand...

That is the truth. Look at these piece of crap Leupold rings that sheared off of the bases after a couple shots at the range when shooting a 270 WSM. I will never use Leupold rings ever again. IMO Talley rings are the absolute best.
Leupoldring2.jpg

Leupoldring.jpg


http://forums.basspro.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002520
Click to expand...

Orf. WTF? Not snug enough? My scope was mounted by a gunsmith, granted a number of years ago...
 
I you are mounting a scope on a modern (last couple of years) Rem 700 then you may have dimensional problems with any bases you install. We are finding about half the new 700's have this problem which is the rear of the receiver is not quite high enough compared to the original design. This becomes an issue with two piece bases when you don't use a shim between the rear base and the receiver as the tops of the front and rear base will not be on the same plane. Using any kind of base ring combo will reslut in not enough elevation in the scope and the rings being offset (front to back) that may allow the rings to pull out of the base or the scope to move in the rings (or even put pressure on the body of the scope causing damage). The easiest way to determine if you have this problem is use a one piece base to test by screwing the front down only and look for a potential gap between the bottom of the rear of the base and the top of the receiver (try pushing down on the rear and if it flexes...you need at least one shim). Due to the design of the Leupold Standard mount system (and others that copy this design)if you do not correct this problem then under pressure of improper mounting and recoil during shooting the eyebrows of the rear ring can pull away from the windage screws on the base. This is the only time I have ever found this ring/base system to fail wwhen properly mounted as we use this system more often than any other style in our scope mounting on most caliber rifles (3-4 hundred mounts a year). Phil.
 
In addition to the dimensional variation of the action - there "can be" a dimensional variation in the front dovetail -- I found this in Redfield rings/bases where simply reversing the front ring in the dovetail caused a change in the relationship between the rear ring and base. I imagine some Leupolds may have the same variation ... adding up to a tolerance stack that can contribute to the rear base "ears" or screws "letting go" ... in any event only the front ring on this design contains the scope against the recoil forces.
Furthermore I believe that overtime recoil does cause wear to the dovetail that compounds with use and cannot be offset by adjustment - overall I think this style of ring/base has little to recommend itself other than aesthetics compared to the common "weaver" style.

Incidentally the best execution of this style of dovetail is/are "EAW" rings and bases. They have adjustments for height, windage and wear and can be set up so that there is no stress on the scope and they remove and replace with very little change to POI. They also use a wide front ring to get a good grip on the scope tube and (in my experience) seldom slip. The downside is that they are expensive
 
Mine were a decade old. Talked about it with someone today and he figured the scope pushed the rear mount forward, shearing the ears of the rear ring. I wonder if the windage adjustment screws didn't work loose while shooting and exacerbate the problem.
 
The standard Leupold rings and bases worked just fine on my 300RUMS,7mmstws,and on my 338X8mmremmag.However,most people do not tighten the windage screw tight enough and have problems as a result.
 
I note by your photo that your rings were not lapped. Without lapping, your rings are only holding about 30 percent or less of the scope. Properly lapped rings hold the scope
a lot more and far more solidly. Lapping also ensures that the rings are pointed at each other, are on the same plane and are pointed straight down the barrel.

Scott
 
I've got several rifles that still have Leupold mounts. I won't buy any more of them, but won't necessarily change them if they aren't giving trouble. Some have come loose despite being tightened with a wrench and red loctite. I've also had several that accuracy improved by tightening the supreme sh*t out the windage screws. You shouldn't need a snipe to mount a scope, but it was at the point where I was hoping they would break so I would have to try something else.
By the logic of some, my rifles that Redfield pattern mounts worked on should be proof that they work all the time? Besides, it's nice to be able to dismount a scope without using the tube for an expensive lever or taking the whole assembly apart to avoid it.
 
Lapping also ensures that the rings are pointed at each other, are on the same plane and are pointed straight down the barrel.
Click to expand...
well that's true UNLESS you have used the rear opposing screws on "Redfield" style bases to offset the scope to correct for windage ... in which case the tighter the rear windage screws are the more the rear ring twists/distorts the scope tube. Lapping the rings together under those circumstances will just make the rings oval .

I won't buy any more of them, but won't necessarily change them if they aren't giving trouble.
Click to expand...
I agree with that sentiment. For some they work fine - but they can be improved on for others. PS - have seen the rear screw heads twisted right off using a quarter as a screwdriver
 
stubblejumper said:
The standard Leupold rings and bases worked just fine on my 300RUMS,7mmstws,and on my 338X8mmremmag.However,most people do not tighten the windage screw tight enough and have problems as a result.
Click to expand...

This is common. Those are big screws for a reason; lots of torque. I always use these to roughly adjust for windage, and apply loctite to the threads on install to prevent them from working loose.
 
I've used various quality weaver type rings and bases on several 375s and never had a problem.

My current 375 has a set of steel weaver bases and Warne QD rings. Nice setup and works like a charm.


.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom