see the thing is, on the 658 is already made for rings i mean i dont need to put a base on it, but i can only put tikka/sako rings and i cant seem to find see thew rings for it. i know they arent too strong but some times i just feel like using open sights!
thanks
Phil
its not so much that they are weak (although they generally are pretty flimsy), its that they raise your scope
far too high and then you will end up with poor cheek weld and accuracy.
*if* i bought a rifle like that, and wanted iron sights, i would look for a different solution. rather than install crappy rifle sights id get a quality front blade sight installed, or even a clamp-on high quality front sight, and mount a picatinny rail on the rear of the gun. that way i could use it with
any scope, red dots/reflex sights. if i wanted to use iron sights id just remove the scope (quick release mounts), and pop a rear sight on the picatinny rail. there is a massive selection of picatinny mount rear sights from ghost rings to target sghts. the only real difficulty is finding a front sight blade high enough to match your rear sight.
IMO this would give the best versatility with no compromise in mount strength or sight quality, and what id do if it were my rifle.
common Weaver brand see-through mounts are absolute
crap... i cringe whenever i see them on a rifle.
those ones that Lorne linked look pretty decent, but it depends on whether or not you can see your sights through the mount properly... im not sure how well those mounts return to zero when removed/reinstalled, but on a Ruger you could remove the scope when you wanted to use iron sights and reinstall when you wanted the scope (tighten the mounts slowly alternating front-back), and it would return within an inch of zero.
It defeats the purpose that a solid direct mount like that offers, look at the Ruger they don't slap a base between the ring and the reciever!
