purely function

Which scope mount do you prefer for pure function?

  • #1

    Votes: 25 33.3%

  • #2

    Votes: 50 66.7%
  • Total voters
    75
C

chuck nelson

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
68   0   0
Location
Alberta
These are not my rifles but belong to an acquaintance.

Which of the two scope mounts pictured would you prefer from a strictly functional standpoint?

#1
IMG_1520.jpg


#2
IMG_1773.jpg
 
Again I like the Leupolds. The Talley's are robust and very tough. But I like the idea of the windage adjustability and if you ever want to switch scope heights, you only need to twist in another ring instead of an expensive new set.

Of course I should add I'm weird and still prefer that ugly Weaver system to all others.
 
Last edited:
Unless its a Ruger with factory supplied rings, my rifles are set up with Weaver mounts and rings, light and they hold scopes like grim death.
 
I dont think there is a better scope ring setup than the Lightweight talleys, and they're easy to mount. I did about 150 pair last year.
 
todbartell said:
I dont think there is a better scope ring setup than the Lightweight talleys, and they're easy to mount. I did about 150 pair last year.
Click to expand...

I love the Talleys. The design is simple and very strong (duh). But they do need to be lapped. I haven't had a set yet that had more than 25% contact front and back.
But then again, so do the Leupolds.
 
It goes to show what the increased recoil of the really large cartridges can do. I've got a set of Q.R.'s on a rifle. First, that rifle was a 300 Wby and wore a 3.5-10X40 scope; the Q.R.'s stood up perfectly for over 600 rounds. (Paul, you have seen the rifle in that configuration) Since then I had it rebarreled to 358 Norma, and changed the scope to a 1.75-6X32. (Chuck, you've seen that). Well over 400 rounds later, and the Q.R.'s are fine. And they should be weaker than the D/D's.

Are you guys with mount failures running hubble-esque scopes on your rifles? I'm wondering if the added inertia of a heavier scope is making the differnece. Or is it the recoil velocity of the RUM's that the mounts can't take. ??
 
Ya i'm wondering the same thing! My 300 RUM sports a 6500 elite 50mm and i'm pretty sure its one of the heaviest on the market....no problems thus far.
 
RickF said:
It goes to show what the increased recoil of the really large cartridges can do. I've got a set of Q.R.'s on a rifle. First, that rifle was a 300 Wby and wore a 3.5-10X40 scope; the Q.R.'s stood up perfectly for over 600 rounds. (Paul, you have seen the rifle in that configuration) Since then I had it rebarreled to 358 Norma, and changed the scope to a 1.75-6X32. (Chuck, you've seen that). Well over 400 rounds later, and the Q.R.'s are fine. And they should be weaker than the D/D's.

Are you guys with mount failures running hubble-esque scopes on your rifles? I'm wondering if the added inertia of a heavier scope is making the differnece. Or is it the recoil velocity of the RUM's that the mounts can't take. ??
Click to expand...

IN the case of my buddy, it was an Elite 4200 2.5-10 IIRC
 
I think Talley's are uglier than a bulldog eating #### off a hot stove:D

But that's just my opinion.
I have Leupold on all my rifles, never a failure yet.
I just check and make sure everything's snugged down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom