Warne 1 Inch Rimfire Rings Medium with Leupold 1 Inch Scope - Snap and Scratch

[thegazelle]

I was pretty excited when I was notified my Warne 1" scope rings came in today so I went to Bass Pro/Cabelas to pick it up. No instructions came with it but I have installed scopes before with rings so should be easy right? I planned to mate these rings with my new Leupold VX Freedom 3-9x40 scope (1 inch). All this is going on my CZ 457.

So I get the bottom of rings mounted. Put on the scope and start adjusting it for eye relief. I got the proper eye relief set so it was time to put the top half of each on and then slowly adjust it with my bubble level to make it level, etc.

To my surprise, the top half of the rings did not just fit on. It seemed like it did not fit at all. I looked at the package - 1". I looked at my scope. 1". Not sure what the problem was. I decided to apply some force and snap it down. It snapped all right, not before putting some gouges on my new scope. Worse, it didn't snap exactly as aligned so I had to move it, but the top half was so tight, it barely moved. By then everything was wiggling and I lost my pre-set eye relief. So I tried again. This time after setting my eye relief, I aligned the top half exactly on top of the bottom half, and pressed down hard to snap in place (not before seeing the big gouge/scratch that was left last time). This time it aligned perfectly. I then turned the scope to get it level and it was a Herculean effort as it was so tight already (the screws weren't even in yet).

If I ever have to revisit the eye relief, I'd have to take the whole thing apart, as with the top and bottom half snapped together, even without the screws, the scope doesn't move back and forth at all. It does move very slow side to side.

Once I screwed it the screws, I checked the level on the rifle as well as the scope and it is perfect.

Are these Warne rings normally this tight fitting and have to be snapped on with some force, rather than just lie on top of the bottom half with easy adjustment? I am kind of miffed my scope got scratched up and I think I did everything right - the end result was good and the rings and scope work perfectly, despite the installation challenge.

 

[Potashminer]

As it happens, I recently went through a rash of Warne brand rings for various rifles here - I like their lever detachable rings. So looking at empty packages, I installed 215LM, 721LM and 200LM - there is still a 30mm 214LM to go on something here. Not a sniff of the tightness issue that you describe. I did install an SWFA 10X and two Leupold scopes so far - do not remember what the plan is for that last set... On other rings, that are tighter or are greater than 50% of the scope body's circumference, I learned some time ago to lay a thin cardboard - like business card thickness, around the scope body - "snap on" that top cap - then slide it off the cardboard - I am pretty sure that I was showed that for those steel top straps on the old-school Weaver rings.

 

[new210/22]

As much as I want to tell you you did everything right you didn’t. You should not have to force anything into place with delicate, higher tolerance parts like scopes and rings. Nothing should introduce bend or flex into a scope. With any luck you have it set and dialed in with no more issues. A painful lesson, but nothing near the worse thing that will happen if you keep tinkering with your own guns. Just ask any 1911 owner.

 

[thegazelle]

As much as I want to tell you you did everything right you didn’t. You should not have to force anything into place with delicate, higher tolerance parts like scopes and rings. Nothing should introduce bend or flex into a scope. With any luck you have it set and dialed in with no more issues. A painful lesson, but nothing near the worse thing that will happen if you keep tinkering with your own guns. Just ask any 1911 owner.

I agree with you. However, I don't know what I would have done differently. The rings are Warne Maxima Fixed Scope Rings, model 721M for Rimfire with 11mm).

What is weird is once it snapped on with force , the spacing was perfect and both halves mated perfectly. So it wasn't like these rings were too small or too big. It just did not go on the scope right at first and the top half is the problem.

I bought an second set and just tried it on my spare Vortex Crossfire, also 1". Just to see if it was the first set of rings that were the problem. I didn't even have to mount this one. The bottom half fits fine but no matter what angle, the top half does not go over the tube of the scope nicely unless pressed down and snapped in (knowing how I scratched up my new Leupold I didn't want a repeat performance with the Vortex (though I wish I tried it on the Vortex first. It's almost as if the top half is under pressure and once it snaps in, it clamps in place tightly to the tube with no back and forth movement possible.

 

[new210/22]

I agree with you. However, I don't know what I would have done differently. The rings are Warne Maxima Fixed Scope Rings, model 721M for Rimfire with 11mm).

What is weird is once it snapped on with force , the spacing was perfect and both halves mated perfectly. So it wasn't like these rings were too small or too big. It just did not go on the scope right at first.

I bought an second set and just tried it on my spare Vortex Crossfire, also 1". Just to see if it was the first set of rings that were the problem. I didn't even have to mount this one. The bottom half fines fine but no matter what angle, the top half does not go over the tube of the scope unless pressed down and snapped in (knowing how I scratched up my new Leupold I didn't want a repeat performance with the Vortex (though I wish I tried it on the Vortex first. It's almost as if the top half is under pressure and once it snaps in, it clamps in place tightly to the tube with no back and forth movement possible.

Maybe it is a quirk of those particular rings but I haven’t experienced that with any other brand.

I can’t imagine how they would sell it as a feature.

 

[thegazelle]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here's what I did...

First photo here is the end result with snapping the top part onto the scope with force - it then mated with the bottom half and I screwed it in using the recommended inch-pounds tolerance and bubble leveled everything. You can see the scratches on my poor new shiny Leupold...



Second photo is trying my second pair of these rings on the Vortex. Again both rings and the scope are 1". You can see the bottom fits fine but this is how the top fits before I apply the force to snap it in place on the tube. The screw you see in the top half is not protruding underneath, so that's not what is causing the friction.



I have installed other various scopes and rings before and I too have never had this problem...so a bit stumped.

 

[new210/22]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here's what I did...

First photo here is the end result with snapping the top part onto the scope with force - it then mated with the bottom half and I screwed it in using the recommended inch-pounds tolerance and bubble leveled everything. You can see the scratches on my poor new shiny Leupold...

View attachment 512016

Second photo is trying my second pair of these rings on the Vortex. Again both rings and the scope are 1". You can see the bottom fits fine but this is how the top fits before I apply the force to snap it in place on the tube. The screw you see in the top half is not protruding underneath, so that's not what is causing the friction.

View attachment 512017

I have installed other various scopes and rings before and I too have never had this problem...so a bit stumped.

Any chance of flexing the tabs outward to get them over the scope? The previous comment about snapping them over thin cardboard makes a little more sense now, or maybe a soda can shim that slides out afterwards.

 

[thegazelle]

It is pretty rock solid, not really pliable.

I just thought I'd check out Youtube to see if there is something on this. Lo and behold there is. And as I discovered, they do indeed have to be pressed on and snapped in. Now, that being said, either this guy is really strong or he heated up his rings in the oven beforehand, as his effort to push the top half down was nowhere close to what I had to ensure. And he also is wrong that it doesn't scratch the scope. You can see in my photo that's not the case.

[youtube]ZKmn5IMokaw[/youtube]

Good ideas about using the business card thing.

The Vortex scope I was going to install on my Savage Mark II (had the rifle for over 15 years, never had a scope on it). Of course, just my luck - the medium rings are too low now as the bell of the scope hits the fixed built in sights. And of course, the high rings for this are out of stock at Cabelas

Thank you very much for the feedback and quick response.

 

[Potashminer]

Next issue to watch out for - get rings low enough to suit you for clearance for that front bell, and then have the bolt hitting the big eyepiece - kinda have to watch for clearance at both ends - ended up having to go up one height of rings to be able to use a replacement scope with bigger and fatter eyepiece than the older one it replaced, even though the front bells were the same diameter. I suppose that I could have heated up and re-bent the bolt handle, but do not have, and no gumption to make, heat sink for that kind of bolt. And then, the higher rings only work if you are happy with the cheek weld, or you are now fussing about getting that rifle stock comb a bit higher, to boot...

 

[thegazelle]

Next issue to watch out for - get rings low enough to suit you for clearance for that front bell, and then have the bolt hitting the big eyepiece - kinda have to watch for clearance at both ends - ended up having to go up one height of rings to be able to use a replacement scope with bigger and fatter eyepiece than the older one it replaced, even though the front bells were the same diameter. I suppose that I could have heated up and re-bent the bolt handle, but do not have, and no gumption to make, heat sink for that kind of bolt. And then, the higher rings only work if you are happy with the cheek weld, or you are now fussing about getting that rifle stock comb a bit higher, to boot...

Very true. I am thankful that the 457 bolt only turns to 60 degrees maximum; otherwise, I would have encountered that problem.

It is true about the cheek weld. It does not appear offhand that I can remove those fixed built in sights on the Savage. You are right though - I may get higher rings to clear the bell only to find that my cheek weld is going to be awkward. I could always wrap a long scarf about the buttstock if things get to that point...haha...

 

[thegazelle]

Update - I did find out how to take off the rear sight on my Savage Mark II (the sight is just sitting on a dovetail, so a flat head screwdriver on a tea towel, a hammer, and a couple of whacks got it out). So now I can use the same Warne rings as I put on my CZ 457.

This time the installation was a breeze. As you can see in one of the above photos (the second one), the top ring (75%) doesn't just fall in place (and now we know this is by design) - but with the Vortex, I thought I'd just apply only bit of force and it was very little and bang, the pieces came together. Significantly easier than the Leupold. And no scratches. AND the scope can move side to side AND front to back before I put in the screws (you may recall with the Leupold the scope didn't move back and forth whatsoever, once the rings clamped together (with no screws). This tells me that either the Leupold is slightly thicker than the Vortex, even though both of them say 1" OR the first pair of rings was a dud.

No scratches on the Vortex. Adjustment was simple and whammo, ten minutes later, I got the scope on, everything tightened to the proper inch/pound as stated, everything is level. Easy peasy.

It pains me that the Leupold got scratched and not the Vortex, but oh well...

 

[Potashminer]

... So now I can use the same Warne rings as I put on my CZ 457.

...

Good on you for getting it figured!!!

Just a comment, from my experience - I went with the 721LM Warne rings because they can work with either the 3/8" North American dovetail or the 11 mm European dovetail. My CZ 452 Scout has the 11 mm dovetails - widths are different and so is the side angle of the dovetails. Those Warne rings that I used needed the little clamp thing rotated 180 degrees as received in package - I forget if mark was to be up or down - instructions said which way - for 11 mm dovetail - opposite for 3/8" dovetail. And plenty of posts that the CZ 452 were made with either an 11 mm or a 3/8" dovetail - they were not all the same. The 11 mm dovetail measures 11 mm across the TOP - the 3/8" dovetail measure 3/8" across the BOTTOM - so pretty close to .5" across the top. I have no idea what width comes on the Mark II or the CZ 457. But something to be aware about Warne rings - they will fit either width, correctly, or, of course, that means they would also be fit wrong, if that side piece is upside down...

And for a little more funky, I discovered that the Warne rings for the CZ 527 - 1B1LM (Medium) and 2B1LM (High) - have the 16mm dovetails needed on the BRNO #1, which is apparently the predecessor to the CZ series. Those rings for the CZ 527 rifle have a socket head set screw underneath as a recoil lug - remove that and discard and they fit to the 16mm dovetails on the rimfire rifle about perfectly. Could get "wild and crazy" and mill a corresponding notch into that dovetail for a recoil stud function, like on a CZ 527, but I have not found a need to do that yet...

 

[thegazelle]

Good on you for getting it figured!!!

Just a comment, from my experience - I went with the 721LM Warne rings because they can work with either the 3/8" North American dovetail or the 11 mm European dovetail. My CZ 452 Scout has the 11 mm dovetails - widths are different and so is the side angle of the dovetails. Those Warne rings that I used needed the little clamp things rotated 180 degrees as received in package - I forget if mark was to be up or down - instructions said which way - for 11 mm dovetail - opposite for 3/8" dovetail. And plenty of posts that the CZ 452 were made with either an 11 mm or a 3/8" dovetail - they were not all the same. The 11 mm dovetail measures 11 mm across the TOP - the 3/8" dovetail measure 3/8" across the BOTTOM - so pretty close to .5" across the top. I have no idea what width comes on the Mark II or the CZ 457. But something to be aware about Warne rings - they will fit either width, correctly, or, of course, that means they would also be fit wrong, if that side piece is upside down...

And for a little more funky, I discovered that the Warne rings for the CZ 527 rifle have the 16mm dovetails needed on the BRNO #1, which is apparently the predecessor to the CZ series. Those rings for the CZ 527 have a socket head set screw underneath as a recoil lug - remove that and discard and they fit to the 16mm dovetails on the rimfire rifle about perfectly.

Great point, Potashminer. It is funny (and not in a good way) - I didn't know that about the 3/8" or 11mm till I was troubleshooting it watching videos - but I left it by default and it seemed to secure fine onto the 11mm dovetail - once I found the video, I made the modifications. It comes 3/8" where the dimple is top left. To make it 11mm, you have to turn the piece so the dimple is bottom right. Now, it seemed to fit either way (at least I thought so - who knows when I take it to the range this Saturday in that condition whether the scope would have fallen off - I fixed it regardless).

That being said, I made an assumption the Savage is 11mm as well. If it is not, the rings still secured. I better go check it out.

I am pleased at these rings despite what was seemingly an unorthodox way to mount them. I got them at Cabela's / Bass Pro for $45.00 plus tax. Given CZ rings were well over $100 and other third party rings were $80 or so, I am very pleased I got these, given multiple people had recommended Warne. I actually bought 3 sets this time (I love a good price), so I still have one left for a possibly future additional rimfire, though I am going to need another safe at this rate (and my child headed for post secondary education will not be impressed when I tell him I am broke but somehow I keep bringing in plain brown long rectangular boxes, which the kids have pretty much figured out is not part of their Christmas gifts...

 

[Potashminer]

Well, you say that you love a good price - so a chuckle or two for you. In Feb, 2021 it cost me $365.48 to get those two sets of rings nominally for a CZ 527, that I could use on this BRNO #1. That was one purchase online from a store in Ontario, and another purchase for the other height from a store in England. Could not find them listed for sale anywhere's else. So, I am sitting here thinking your $45 plus tax at a relatively local-to-you store was indeed something very nice!!! My purchase of those 721LM rimfire rings - was July 2020 from Amazon.ca and was $78.33 to my Post Office box. I will have to start contacting you to do shopping for me!!!! But, I like looking out across the lake here, so will put up with some inconveniences to be here!!!

By the way - that red coloured cardboard label in the package - opens up like a booklet or greeting card - I certainly did not notice that until about the third time handling it - has the stuff about the "dimple" in there... Either way, you will get the cross bolt tight enough - just, there is only one way that that clamp thing is grabbing the dovetail the way it should. I think it has to do with slopes, angles, shape, etc.

 

[thegazelle]

Well, you say that you love a good price - so a chuckle or two for you. In Feb, 2021 it cost me $365.48 to get those two sets of rings nominally for a CZ 527, that I could use on this BRNO #1. That was one purchase online from a store in Ontario, and another purchase for the other height from a store in England. Could not find them listed for sale anywhere's else. So, I am sitting here thinking your $45 plus tax at a relatively local-to-you store was indeed something very nice!!! My purchase of those 721LM rimfire rings - was July 2020 from Amazon.ca and was $78.33 to my Post Office box. I will have to start contacting you to do shopping for me!!!!

Holy cow, I feel so much better now...

Well, I can't take any credit for the sale - a fellow CGNer sent me the link when he saw that I wasn't getting anywhere finding quality rings. I actually had settled on an Amazon order of like $15 rings which I didn't even know worked - the timing was great because the day the Amazon order shipped, the CGNer told me about the Warne rings at Cabela's, and I was able to successfully cancel the Amazon order. It took two weeks to get here, but happy I got them. Would have been nice yesterday as I was working only about 20 minutes away from Bass Pro.

So I am fiddling through my Savage Mark II manual here, and no where, and I mean nowhere does it mention whether that rail is 3/8 or 11mm. The online version is the same. The only reference to rings is a list of third party vendors that sells rings for the Savage Mark 1 and 2.

That is insane about that amount for rings. Hopefully in the England shipment was a jar of Horlicks mix or something to soothe the pain...

 

[Potashminer]

On your Savage, to determine what size is dovetail - just measure across top of flat of dovetail. If it measures exactly 11 mm (.43"), then that is what it is - 11 mm - pretty common size for European made rimfire, I have read. I would be more thinking it would be the 3/8" size - gotta be an engineer, I guess, for this to make sense, but the 3/8" dovetail is named for the distance the cutter tips would be apart when dovetail is cut - so BOTTOM of the dovetail is 3/8" - top flat is very close to 12.7 mm (.50") So if pretty much exact 1/2" than it is a 3/8" dovetail - if visibly less than half inch, it is 11 mm dovetail - one or the other, I think?

 

[thegazelle]

On your Savage, to determine what size is dovetail - just measure across top of flat of dovetail. If it measures exactly 11 mm (.43"), then that is what it is - 11 mm - pretty common size for European made rimfire, I have read. I would be more thinking it would be the 3/8" size - gotta be an engineer, I guess, for this to make sense, but the 3/8" dovetail is named for the distance the cutter tips would be apart when dovetail is cut - so BOTTOM of the dovetail is 3/8" - top flat is very close to 12.7 mm (.50") So if pretty much exact 1/2" than it is a 3/8" dovetail - if visibly less than half inch, it is 11 mm dovetail - one or the other, I think?

My friend...I was about to turn in for the night, but your post intrigued me and got me up and opening up the safe and grabbing the Wheeler FAT wrench (this is such an awesome tool), measuring tape, and sat in my hallway with the gun (kids are at their mom's this weekend so great to be able to work on the rifles in the open in an empty house (curtains all drawn of course) - well, I measured it a few times and that middle piece of the base (between the two slats) measures exactly 11mm.

Thanks for all your input.

****Morning 8/2 EDIT - well, I was wrong here - when I woke up this morning I was thinking it makes no sense for an American company to use any metric type of measurement. So with slightly better awake eyes (rather than last night's midnight eyes), I checked again. Surely, it is NOT 11mm as I reported, but a little over 12mm...so the Savage uses 3/8"

 

[P of PDent]

I scanned through this thread and didn't notice the installation tip that will usually work with this style of ring. Older Leupold PRW rings were quite similar in design and spec where the scope would sit on the lower ring without issue however the top ring would seem out of spec as it would have to be forced over the scope body. After different solutions I found the simplest way was to place two torx screwdrivers (one on each side) across the top ring and pull them together thus using the force to spread the ring enough to slip over the scope body without much effort and without scratching the scope. Eventually Leupold changed the dimension of the ring and that allowed the new ring top to drop on to the scope without problem. If you find older Leupold rings and obviously these Warne rings, this tip should assist those faced with similar problems. Good luck. Phil.

 

[thegazelle]

I scanned through this thread and didn't notice the installation tip that will usually work with this style of ring. Older Leupold PRW rings were quite similar in design and spec where the scope would sit on the lower ring without issue however the top ring would seem out of spec as it would have to be forced over the scope body. After different solutions I found the simplest way was to place two torx screwdrivers (one on each side) across the top ring and pull them together thus using the force to spread the ring enough to slip over the scope body without much effort and without scratching the scope. Eventually Leupold changed the dimension of the ring and that allowed the new ring top to drop on to the scope without problem. If you find older Leupold rings and obviously these Warne rings, this tip should assist those faced with similar problems. Good luck. Phil.

Thanks Phil. This is a fantastic idea. Thanks for the great tip.

 

[Potashminer]

I am glad your eyes got a "better reading" on your measuring tool this morning - kind of important to be correct on that, I think. FYI, below should be two pictures - where those instructions are "hidden" in the packaging:

So that cardboard label, inside the plastic bubble container, comes out - I thought it was a piece of cardboard:



Turns out it opens like a greeting card and instructions for setting 3/8" width versus 11 mm width found there - does not mention how to determine which size dovetail that you have. As you mentioned, the "default" from the factory is apparently set for 3/8" dovetail.