Weaver vs. others

[horseman2]

I have virtually Weaver on all my guns.
Once the bases and bottom rings go on, I float rings for even contact, and rarely make any changes. Scopes can be changed and even contact is maintained.

With the huge selection of Rings, Mounts and accessories, what is wrong with doing it this way. I pose this question, with the thought of making changes on my next rifle, a Remington 700 Sendero in 300 Win Mag and mounting a Bushnell 4200 6-24 power MilDot.

 

[beretta boy]

Suit yourself ... Leupold for me !

 

[horseman2]

I am probably looking at Leopold. Two piece base? With a 40mm objective - low, med or high rings. Standard or Dual Dovetail. I doubt that quick release is required. Comments please from someone with a similar set-up, and what changes would you make if you are not happy with your arrangement, etc. Can steel rings be lapped as I am doing now with the Weavers?

 

[Why not?]

Weaver rings and bases are the original lightweight quick detachable system....and they return to zero every time.

I have actually shot groups, while removing and replacing the scope between shots, to prove it to guys at the range. They are always quite amazed at how small the group remains.

Ted

 

[dan belisle]

Ditto. And I've used Weavers on rifles up to a 340 Wby. They are simple, strong, repeatable, all in all a great design. Just not tacticool enough for today's crowd I guess. - dan

 

[guntech]

I have virtually Weaver on all my guns.
Once the bases and bottom rings go on, I float rings for even contact, and rarely make any changes.

What does "float" rings involve? That's a term I have never heard before. Is this lapping with a rod and compound?

 

[stocker]

Float rings? Sounds like a guy with experience with horses and other livestock where teeth are rasped to improve the bite so food is properly ground up. Might translate to lapping rings.

 

[stocker]

Oh yeh! I just went back and looked at his sign on name.

 

[horseman2]

Couldn't think of the right word . . . mind freeze and I can type faster than I think. After I sent it I checked Russ Hayden's web page. "Lapping" is right.
Very good reasoning "stocker" . . . too bad there was no prize to be awarded.

 

[MapleSugar]

I like Weaver bases.

It would be nice to have a hunting or target rifle, with them milled into the top of the receiver.

 

[Boomer]

When you want a very low ring, the Weaver is hard to beat. I've always liked them, but these days I'm more likely to choose a ring with a recoil shoulder like the Talley for rifles with heavier recoil, but I've never seen a properly mounted Weaver fail.

I recently bought a Trade EX Husky .30/06 for my nephew and it came with a steel K 2.5X in Weaver rings. I always complained that tightening Weaver rings on the scope tube rolled the scope, but when I removed the scope from the rings to clean it up this did not occur when I replaced it. Perhaps after 40 years I've finally figured out how to mount a scope.

 

[tiriaq]

The Weaver rolling can be an aggravation.
Some Weaver rings had the holes punched in the top straps in such a manner that the resulting burr was guaranteed to mark the scope. Got into the habbit of deburring them before first use.
But they are an established, useful mounting system.

 

[guntech]

I am probably looking at Leopold. Two piece base? With a 40mm objective - low, med or high rings. Standard or Dual Dovetail. I doubt that quick release is required. Comments please from someone with a similar set-up, and what changes would you make if you are not happy with your arrangement, etc. Can steel rings be lapped as I am doing now with the Weavers?

Just what you describe - 40mm objective, medium rings on a 700 required. Low rings on a 3 lug bolt.

​

My favourite system for hunting is a dual dovetail Leupold mount. I line the rings as best possible with the bore. Force one base to one side, the other base to the other side if required to line them up. I will also bed the bases if required for height. Then with the ring halves installed I lap them. Clean the abrasive out well, apply a little powdered rosin in the rings and install the scope. It makes a real sound system. You can also use Burris Signature rings which require no lapping due to their design with the self aligning insert. Using either of these systems you will not mark up scope tubes. I had an older scope used on several different rifles and the tube was as good as new when I sold it.

Any solid ring with a bottom half can be lapped... and should be.

I rarely use Weaver mounts but they are very common. I also see a lot of scope tubes marked because of the rings used or the way the rings were installed.

 

[H4831]

In the mid 60s I mounted a Weaver K4 on a board, beside a 4X Bushnell Scope Chief. I adjusted each one for my eyes, then went out on the street.
I looked at licence plates on parked cars on the street. Found out the Bushnell was the clearest. That is, I could read numbers on the plates with the Bushnell that I couldn't read with the Weaver.
However, The Weaver was a much stronger scope, with its steel barrel, compared to the aluminum barrel of the Bushnell.
I have seen a Bushnell with the barrel broken off at the threads, as an astonshed owner took it out of a normal, padded case.
Remember, this was mid 1960s, and I don't know about the newer ones.

 

[horseman2]

Another side note with the Weaver rings. You only have to have one empty shell flip back into the action after hitting the thumb screw to think there is a better way. The number of times I have been told the thumb screws are on the wrong side . . .
Thank you for all your help and suggestions.

 

[jethunter]

Weaver mounts are a good solid dependable system, too bad they're so dam ugly.