Related pages:
It should be simple. You buy the mounts, screw them on, and bolt on the scope. If everything is made right, you should be close enough to just tweak the crosshairs, and it's zeroed!
But, any experienced engineer will tell you what Murphy's law of mechanical assembly is: Tolerances accumulate unidirectionally towards maximum difficulty of assembly (or in this case, maximum divergence from bore center.)
There's lots of reasons for this. Barrels do not screw into actions at the exact same angle every time. Tooling and jigs for scope-hole drilling&tapping; ages and wanders. Stamping machines for aluminum rings age and warp. Manufacturers change their method for making receivers, and the mounting surfaces are shaped a little differently. And of course, not all mounts and rings are created equal.
There are consequences, as well. Warped and bent scope tubes that will lock-up and not adjust, scopes cranked out to their maximum adjustment (and far outside their ideal optical center), or total inability to zero.
Even if you don't have a bore sight, you can follow this advice to properly align and lap the rings. You may have to disassemble the mount later to shim it, but if properly done, the rings will fall into place more easily. Get used to the idea that you will assemble and disassemble several times, no one can get it aligned perfecty the first time.
The predominate type of scope mount is the Weaver style. It is simple, often has provision for more than one ring mount position, and strong. The actual Weaver brand mount is lightweight aluminum and sells for $3-$5, so your total mount cost is under $10. Weaver has a mind-numbing number of applications, and you can often find something to fit a rifle that is not listed. Weaver also makes one-piece mounts for a more limited number of applications. Besides the actual ATK/Blount/Weaver brand, there are innumerable Weaver clones made by many companies.
The Weaver mount is so ubiquitous it has been chosen by the military, but not the actual brand. Instead a rigid military spec for Weaver-type mounts was created, in MIL-STD-1913, updated by Update 1. This replaced NATO's STANAG 2324 (at least, in the USA). STANAG 2324 had its limitations, namely lack of flexibility in mounting position.
As for the rings, the least flexible is two piece Weaver brand aluminum bottom/steel cap rings. There is no provision for adjustment, vertical or horizontal. How they screw on, is what you get. If all the holes line up and your receiver is parallel with the bore, then they will work fine. This is always the case with fine custom rifles, and Weaver style (not Weaver brand) mounts are common in Bench Rest. If you don't shoot bench rest, and have a factory-made rifle, then... If you bend them after installation with a long 1" wooden dowel, well, aluminum just doesn't take to bending without stress cracking. And you really can't hold the two mounts lined up together and somehow still tighten the one mount with the ring installed. Until they put a big hole in the ring to stick an Allen key through, it's hit and miss.
If you need windage adjustment with a Weaver mount, Millett makes nice steel rings that adjust from both sides, called Angle Loc Rings. These require some skill to make sure you don't really kink the scope, though, since it is possible to force the scope into rings adjusted to opposite sides of the mount. They also make the cheap Weaver aluminum base look even cheaper. If you go for the nice Millett rings, get their steel Weaver-style base as well. Millett also makes a cheaper aluminum Weaver-style that is not adjustable, called Angle-Loc Detachable. Despite the name, they are not quick-detachable rings.
Burris makes Zee rings, which and solid steel and Weaver compatible. Burris Signature Zee rings accept the synthetic Pos-Align Offset Inserts, which can correct for mount misalignment or allow for extra elevation.
Warne makes an all-steel Weaver type system called Maxima. They also make their own proprietary mounting system, which looks similar enough to Weaver to get them confused. Both types are steel, and very strong. While all Weaver-type mounts look pretty much the same, Warne rings have a distinctive look with their top-screw design.
Similar to the Warne detachable rings are the Leupold QRW, or Quick Release Weaver. These are expensive, do not have windage adjustability, but have good return-to-zero properties and a rubbery coating inside the ring to compensate for small alignment errors. Equally pricey are the nearly nameless Rings for cross-slot bases, a standard, high polish, steel Weaver-type ring. A less pricey alternative is the cheaper PRW rings, for non-quick-detach applications. Leupold also makes one piece QI or Quick Install mounts, a no-gunsmithing mount with Weaver-style rails for handguns, shotguns and a few rifles. In 2003 Leupold introduced the Rifleman aluminum Weaver-style mounts and rings, for a limited number of very popular rifles.
Right before capitulation the old Colorado-based Redfield made Weaver-type rings under the name American. These were closed-out after the Weaver/Blount takeover. They are now listed as Weaver-Style Steel Rings. This places Weaver in the strange position of making a clone of its own system!
The second most common mount type, with many clones, is the Redfield type.
After WWI and general disatisfaction with the optics and mounts used, the US Army asked the Redfield Gun Site Company to address the problem. The result is the Redfield Rotary Dovetail Mount that is still with us today. (The original Redfield company went out of business in 1998 when fined 5 million dollars by the EPA for groundwater contamination; it had made the mistake of occupying the same sight for too many decades and serving its country and consumers too well and too long. It should have learned from GE and other companies, who successfully left SuperFund sites behind without liability.)
Redfield mounts are still made today under the Redfield name by the same company that makes Weaver. The one-piece bases are called JR and the two-piece SR. Burris makes them and calls them Universal Dovetail, Leupold calls them STD and Millett calls them Turn-In Rings and Mounts.
The Redfield mount and ring setup has several advantages over the Weaver and a few negatives. The first advantage is windage adjustment. While Millet Angle-Loc (Weaver-type) rings do allow for windage adjustment, most Weaver and Weaver-type rings and mounts do not. The Redfield system is still superior because it is much more difficult to kink and ruin a scope. Only the rear ring is adjusted for windage, and the front ring pivots to accomodate the new position. They are also very strong, made of solid steel.
The negatives are weight, and the possibility that the front ring dovetail mount can wear out from excessive turning. This is a good system if mounted and left alone. If you are always removing the rings, the front dovetail slot in the mount will wear out and introduce play. This is not an academic concern; it happened to me. The root of the problem was constant upgrades and gunsmithing on the rifle that caused so many disassemblies to occur.
The weight disadvantage can be moderated a bit by using the two-piece SR version of the mounts.
A variation used on high-recoil handguns and big game guns are Dual and Multiple Rotary Dovetail mounts. These use only the front, turn-in ring for all positions, and give up windage adjustment for the sake of strength. These should be carefully checked for alignment and lapped before use.
Conetrol makes a very nice, very lightweight system. The rings are three-piece, and when assembled around the scope appear to be a solid band of thin steel. Lips at the bottom of the ring are inserted into the mount and clamped in place by a small pair of pointed screws. They also offer a one-piece Solid ring. This very strong ring can only be used on scopes with a straight, one-diameter objective, or scopes where the ocular or objective can be removed to slip into the ring.
This setup is called projectionless because there are no screws or lugs sticking out of the ring, as is common on all Weaver and Redfield type systems. It is very popular on high-end and custom rifles.
All three of the Conetrol systems are compatible with each other, differing in weight and the quality of finish. When ordering Conetrol rings, remember to order two. They only sell them one at a time. (Mr. Miller of Conetrol says they are packaged this way to allow the matching of a solid ring with a three-piece ring, or two of either type.) If you are building an ultralight sporter, and are shaving grams off everywhere possible, this is the way to go. I have the Conetrol Custum mounts, and it is a very neat setup indeed. The price might seem high, but is in-line with other premium ring products like Leupold Mark IV and Kelby's. Each of these three makers serve different markets (high-end hunters, tactical and benchrest, respectively).
S&K; makes a very similar setup. According to Conetrol, they originated this system, so I guess S & K is the copy. (From what I can tell, there is no love lost between these two.) I don't have any S&K;'s, so I can't compare them. S&K; also makes a wide variety of no-gunsmithing mounts for military rifles called "Insta-Mounts".
Mass production rimfires usually come with a small dovetail in the receiver, or screw-on mount approximating one (like the Ruger 10/22). These are for so-called Tip-off rings. They are intended for small, light straight-tube rimfire scopes. One-inch tip-off rings are available from Weaver and Burris. Heavy steel rings are not necessarily a good idea on a Ruger 10/22, which has a tendency to rip out the mount screws from the thin aluminum receiver top.
One-piece see-through ring/mounts are popular among casual hunters, but you rarely see them recommended. The primary problem is their height. By holding the scope so high above the bore axis, you are unlikely to get a good cheek weld and be able to see through the scope. If you can, the stock is so high that it is unlikely you'll ever see through the iron sights.
Another problem is leverage. The higher the scope is mounted off the bore axis (middle of the barrel) of the gun, the more twisting moment it is subjected to in recoil, and the more leverage is subjected to the mount screws when the scope is bumped.
A third problem is quality. Most see-through sets are of terrible quality aluminum alloy or pot metal, and require a lot of lapping to hold a scope without wanting to crimp or twist it (or are so loose as to not barely a scope at all). IronSighter claims to have a quality see-through system; I haven't seen a set to try them out.
Besides Tip Off systems built into 22 rimfires, some centerfire rifles include a rib or position for direct mounting of rings, eliminating the need for mounts or bases.
Ruger's higher-end rifles come with a receiver or sighting rib made for a specific Ruger-type ring. Burris makes the clamp-on rings for Ruger, and you get a set with the rifles that need them. If the rings are too high or low for your scope, you can get replacements from Burris (the OEM), Warne, or Redfield. If you buy one of those rifles new, and the rings are missing, ask why. As an alternative, Leupold now makes their Ringmount rings for Ruger integral mounts.
Sako has a similar setup for some of their rifles. Leupold makes replacement Ringmount rings for Sako, as does Warne.
BRNO, CZ, and Tikka use a similar dovetail mount systems. In the US you can get replacement rings from Warne.
Warne makes a slot and clamp mounting system called Premier that could easily be confused for Weaver. They also make a Weaver-type mount/ring system. Make sure the Warne base and rings you get are all of the same type. Either are steel and very strong.
Leupold makes an older Quick-Release base and ring system simply called QR. This should not be confused with their QRW (Quick Release Weaver).
There are European (German) mounts called Claw Mounts; I don't know anything about them. Noske made mounts in the 1920's through 1940's, including some tilt-away types.
Williams made a quick detachable mount, as did Griffin & Howe, the New York custom rifle builders. Stith made mounts for their own scopes.
Before the world standardized on 30mm tubes and the US on 1" tubes, there were several competing standards. A lot of old European and a few old American scopes used 22mm or 7/8 inch. US rimfires used to mount 1/2 inch scopes, and later 3/4 inch. Redfield used an odd 26mm size until about 1962, as did their OEM branders Stith and Kollmorgen. Yearning for the proprietary past, Redfield introduced a new 27mm size in the late 1990's, right before they went bankrupt. Not being too stupid, they included 27mm rings with each scope. If you end up with one of these oddballs, make sure you get the rings with them!
Mounting Solutions Plus carries 26mm rings, along with other products.
Another problem with two piece mounts is shimming. Let's say the receiver top slope and barrel axis doesn't match and the front mount/ring needs to be shimmed up. Go ahead, but it is now mounted on a different plane then the rear. Shim it with a wedge shaped shim, that's better, the front ring angles back to point towards the rear, but the rear ring is still pointing level and will crimp the scope. Sure, you can lap it, but you'll be removing large amounts of ring! What you need is a much thinner, wedge shaped shim for the rear mount, too. Now both your mounts are sitting on shims, and you have to work extra hard shaping the shims to get them all pointing in the same direction.
With a one piece mount, you just shim under the front or back, and you're done. A wedge-shaped shim increases the contact area. I had one correspondant point out that the mount is still stressed, and not flat. True, but the flex is small indeed, on the order that lapping will more than take care of it. Compare that situation to the different planes of mounting that shimmed two piece mounts have.
Of course, you may be fortunate and not need any shims and have both front and rear mounts and rings parked perfectly in line with both each other and the bore as well. I have never been this fortunate, and I have the instruments to prove it. I have had lots of correspondents who feel that they are that fortunate, but not all have the instruments to prove it. It has never happened to me, but it stands to reason that by the law of averages, someday somewhere somebody bolted 4 pieces of metal to two sets of holes in a receiver and all of it actually lined-up the first time with the barrel that was screwed into that receiver perfectly square... and they didn't have to have the mount machined or shimmed.
The Sinclair Int'l catalog mentions that some people feel that one-piece mounts increase the strength of the action; I've never heard this anywhere before! Anyway, it's a straw-man argument, it still doesn't address any of the considerations given above. Besides, most people ordering from Sinclair are shooting with expensive custom actions and properly mounted barrels, and have never had to deal with a 20 degree divergence of receiver and bore! If your bore and receiver line up, more power to you, use any base and ring combination you like, they'll all work fine, in this case!
A one piece Weaver base eliminates most of the external ring-to-ring alignment problem. It still leaves the overall alignment question, and variances in the rings themselves. Even if you have these mounts, go through the whole lapping procedure described- you'll still need it. You might even be fortunate to have them line up fairly well with the bore, but that doesn't mean that they line up with each other. Going with a quality brand helps. Just because they are all called Weaver style, doesn't mean that the Weaver brand is any good. There's a reason Weaver-style mounts and rings by other companies sell for much more.
Redfield (and its copiers Burris and Leupold) make one piece bases of solid machined tool steel. These Redfield-style bases have a windage adjustment built-in. Like Weaver bases, they should be shimmed underneath to compensate for large differences in height, when dealing with sloping receivers or misalinged barrels. I have found that a cartridge casing, sawn off 1/3 of the way up from the base, cut, flattened and deburred, makes an excellent, thick wedged-shaped shim. Flattening the thick end with a hammer can reduce the angle of the wedge. Test fit it, score the excess with a sharp point, and mark the hole with a punch. Drill it against a piece of wood and then trim it, and it's ready to go. Soda cans make great thin shims.
Moving on to the rings, there are cast aluminum, aluminum with stamped steel caps, and forged steel. (And then there are Conetrols...) When aluminum ring manufacturers compare themselves favourably to steel, it's the stamped sheet-metal steel caps they are talking about, not the forged type. Many of the steel cap type rings screw-tighten diagonally, which produces maddening diagonal shifts in zero when boresighting. I find the pound-for-pound argument of aluminum alloys vs. steel amusing. It may be twice as strong pound-for-pound, but since they use one-fifth the total weight, where does that leave you?
If you have a pampered, bench fired rifle, and have a weight limit of some sort to meet, go ahead, get one of the quality aluminum mounts.
Mountless see-through rings have their own flaws. They hold the scope too high for a comfortable shooting position. Scopes, like iron sights, should be held as closely to the bore center as possible. (One exception is 1000 yard cross-the-course guns). See-throughs screw on with self-centering conical screws, which allow for no adjustment. Being cheaply made, they are usually well out of round. And being tall, they subject the mounting screws to substantial leverage when bumped.
I used to wonder why no one made quality steel see-through rings... since they are a poor compromise at best, I think I now understand why. Still, I think an unexploited market exists here.
Your mission is to get both rings at the same height, vertical and horizontal alignment, and that alignment pointing parallel to the bore. But first, you have to deal with the individual irregularity of the rings.
When you are done shimming the base and have the rings in place, set the scope in the rings and check for air gaps. You will have a very difficult time centering the scope until these gaps go away.
Cheap rings in particular, just aren't very round. Even if they are, and they line up perfectly, they may be a little undersized, or the scope tube oversized. This is why lapping is necessary. First align the rings on the mount as well as possible. Wrap your 1 inch dowel in 400 grit wet/dry sandpaper, and staple it tightly down, or coat it in coarse lapping compound.
(Bench rest and precision shooters may blanch at my choice of tool. Please understand that these instructions are for hunting rifles and standard sub-$100 mounts, which rarely see this kind of necessary attention. If you know about the more expensive ring lapping tools, well, you don't need to read this page. This is, after all, the Cheap Scope Page!)
Watching the staples, lap each of the bottom rings until the high spots and edges are worn down. Stop, wipe, and try the scope often. As it gets close, switch to 600 grit or fine lapping compound. When the scope settles fully in place in each one, try the scope in them together. Turn or adjust the rings as necessary (if adjustable). Finally, lap them both simultaneously with the dowel. When the scope settles into place without force, you're done. If the caps are near 180 degrees around, they may need some lapping too. For final lapping, fine lapping compound on the bare wood dowel will finish the job.
When you are done, removing the caps and remounting the scope results in practically no shift in zero. If this is not the case, try to figure out what's out of alignment, and adjust, shim, bend or lap it into submission. Don't apply a lot of torque with a long dowel to aluminum rings, mounts and/or receivers- they just can't take it. You'll rip or strip the screw holes. Steel setups can take some bending, but don't get carried away. They are still mounted by fairly small receiver screws.
There's a trick to remember when dealing with Redfield type rings (windage screws and twist-in front). If you adjust the windage more than a turn, you'll notice the scope climbing out of the rear ring (assuming that ring tops are not yet installed.) You must turn the front ring to correspond to get the scope to settle down again. DON'T adjust the windage screws more than one turn with the scope tightened down in the rings.
Never place a shim inside the ring. This is the mark of an amateur (*ahem*, I've been there). There are several reasons. It reduces the scope-to-ring contact surface, allowing slippage. Tightening to compensate will crimp the scope in the other ring, because it enters that ring at an imperfect angle. Finally, it is ugly. Always shim the mount, between the mount and the receiver. Use the shim material nature provides you- brass cartridge case for steel receivers, and aluminum soda cans for aluminum receivers.
When you are finished, you will have a solid, firm mount. It won't shift or work loose. It will allow removal of the scope and replacement with little or no rezeroing, because the scope is not stressed, bent or twisted. Finally, it puts the scope very close to the correct zero. Then, after you read and finish How to Zero Cheap scopes, take it all apart and put a very small amount of blue Lock-Tite on the mount screws (but not the ring screws), put it together for good.
And remember to get those crosshairs straight up and down.
Zip up to the top.
If you're putting, say, Weaver brand aluminum mounts on a Ruger 10/22 and need a shim, well, everything's aluminum. A soda can will do the trick. (That's a Pop can for you Westerners.) (Be observant. Until a few years ago, Crown Bottling on the East Coast was using steel cans so thin, people thought they were aluminum). If you need it wedge shaped, fold it over along one edge and beat it flat. Make sure the edge is folded and beaten thoroughly, you don't want any slack.
Thicker shims are properly made out of brass flat stock. If you don't have any available, cartridge brass can be used. Remington tends to be thick and soft, PMC springy, etc., so keep that in mind when choosing stock. If you cut it off near the base with a Dremel cut-off wheel or hacksaw, you'll see that it's already tapered, making it easy to beat into a flat, wedge-shaped shim. If you want a very shallow taper, cut a long cartridge case as far away from the base as possible. Whatever you make it out of, you'll need to beat it with a hammer and file the edges.
Finally, don't put that shim in the scope ring! Put it between the base and the gun. If necessary (like a built-in base), put it between the base and the ring.
Most shooters are familiar with Glass Bedding rifle stocks to actions, but it can be done with scope mounts as well.
Many steel rifle actions are finish-shaped with surface grinders, which is a somewhat imprecise process. All are heat tempered, which causes some amount of warpage. Aluminum receivers like the 10/22 are cast in molds that wear, and slowly change shape until replaced. The end result is that scope mounts designed to match your receiver can rock, tilt, or have gaps.
A perfectly ideal mount would perfectly match the curvature of the action it is on, and have 100% contact with the receiver. A good compromise is what some machinist/gunsmiths do, run a slight u-shaped channel along the bottom of the mount, so that its curvature is slightly tighter then the receiver. That way, the mount tends to line-up with the long axis of the receiver. It also flexes a bit with the screw tightening, and the tension holds it in place well.
Not all of us have milling machines to make such a channel, but fortunately there is a way to get that 100% ideal surface contact. If you have created brass shims for elevation correction, leave them in there as part of this process. Epoxy works best in thin layers gluing things together, not for building up or casting thick chunks of it.
First of all, you should have completed mounting your scope, sighted it in, and be satisfied with the results. At this point most people don't want to mess with anything, but the hardy few might tear it apart and put lock-tite on the mount screws. Before doing that, get out a floor or auto paste wax, or Brownell's Release Agent (that comes with their glass bedding kits), and some paper tape. Remove the mounts. Get a good coat of the release agent or 2 coats of wax on the receiver all around and under where the mounts go, and on the mount screws heads. Put the mounts back on for a moment and put tape closely around the mounts, and then remove them. Put some motor oil on the threads and get it in the screw hole threads as well, but make sure their is absolutely no oil on the receiver or mount surfaces.
Mix the epoxy, and lightly coat the bottom of the mount(s) with it. Put the screws in and then start the screws while holding the mount(s) above the receiver. This helps keep epoxy out of the screw holes, a good thing. Tighten it down to finger tight and then let it cure. Use a sharpened popscicle stick or flat toothpicks to remove excess epoxy.
While the epoxy is soft you have some time to fine-tune the mount position. If you have a bore sighter/collimator, use that and just tap the mounts until back in the same position it was before tear-down. The idea is to have the scope in the middle of its adjustment range.
Once the epoxy has cured, remove the screws, clean them up and lock-tite them back in. You now have a rock-solid mount with 100% contact area. When it comes time to disassemble (avoid if unnecessary), a sharp blow to the side of the mount will pop it off. Chances are, hot/cold contraction and recoil will already have done this job for you. If you need to reuse the mounts on another rifle, the epoxy can be sanded or ground off with a Dremel or Foredom tool.
This technique can also be used for correcting situations where one mount aligns perfectly but the other is tilted. In this case, the scope can be used tight in the ring on the good mount to position the mount held by the second ring. Putting a shim in any large receiver-mount gap helps strengthen the epoxy bridge. The larger the gap, the more important the shim is. Also using a bore sighter/collimator is important to get the elevation right and avoid mount tilt. In some cases you may need to file or grind some material off the bottom of the offending mount.
You might be wondering by now, what brand and system do I use?
The answer is, most of them. Often I would use whatever I could get, or whatever came on a used rifle. In some cases I've gone out of the way to put together something really appropriate, for example, Conetrol on a lightweight rifle, or stainless mounts and rings on a stainless gun, etc.
I must confess, most every system has worked out well on some gun, but not every system works well on every gun. Weaver-style mounts don't work out when you need windage adjustment (unless you get Millett Angle-Loc adjustable rings as well.) Redfield-style works well for strength and windage adjustments, but is vulnerable to wear from repeated disassembly. Conetrol is lightweight, but expensive and has some very small parts.
The cheapest rings I have, Tasco and Kwik-Site, had the most problems with being out of round. Both required extensive lapping before they would accept a scope width-wise without binding. At that point the Tasco was too large (in the verticle) to hold a scope from slipping, though the Kwik-Site remained useful (if ugly). You might find a cheap ring works out OK for you, but I can't recommend either brand.
I don't like Weaver brand rings. They have an aluminum lower and a spring steel upper cap, mounted at an angle. This makes getting (and keeping) the crosshairs square very difficult. When you get them right, tightening the rings always pulls them towards the low side of the ring. The Weaver system is fine, just get someone else's rings.
I've noticed a direct inverse relationship between the price I pay and the amount of ring lapping I have to do. By all means, shop for the lowest price for a given mount/ring system, but buy the best system you can afford.
The best rings I have are Warne, Leupold QRW, Leupold STD, Conetrol, Redfield JR, Burris, and Millett, in no particular order. Millets have windage adjustment on their steel rings, which can be a life saver. You just have to be more careful about not kinking the scope. The QRW's are pricey and very nice, and the soft material in the bottom discourages lapping. They can be used anywhere that the mounts are one-piece or tend to line up well, and repeatable removability is worth the extra cost. Warnes are at the same level as the Leupolds. Nothing is lighter then a Conetrol.
The best Weaver-style mounts I have are Warne, Leupold QRW and Millett. All these are steel and very sturdy. Weaver brand mounts also work fine and are lightweight and cheap. They get chewed-up very easily, though.
I have both Redfield JR and Leupold STD rotary dovetail rings and mounts. Both work fine. The finish level of the Leupolds is slightly better. All the one-piece bases could use a little creative lightening with a milling machine.
When serious shimming must be done, nothing beats a steel Redfield-style (turn-in) base.
I don't use any clamp-on, no-gunsmithing mounts, and I would advise you not to either. (No-gunsmithing mounts that use existing tapped holes might be OK). If you don't believe me, it's your money.
Zip up to the top.I've noticed a strong tendency to over-scope rifles lately. I've seen a 24x variable varmint scope on an AK, 56mm monsters on mountain rifles, and 3x-9x32mm rifle scopes on shotguns. All of these setups are invitations to problems.
First of all, lighter a rifle is, the more recoil stress the scope goes through. Next, the heavier a scope is, the more recoil stress it will go through. This is contrary to our thinking, as we know that heavier rifle systems recoil less. Well, they recoil less against our shoulder. The scope sits on a set of levers (the mount/ring system). When the rifle recoils back, inertia makes the scope want to stay put, and the mounts and rings take the force. The lighter the rifle, the more stress they get put through.
Large objective scopes must be mounted high on high rings. The higher the levers (mounts/rings) are, the more leverage the weight of the scope places on the mounts. Scopes with large objectives also tend to be heavy. They are often mounted on high recoilling, long-distance rifles. All these things not only add up, they multiply.
The point of all this is, save cheap rings and mounts for low-recoil and heavy rifles. A heavy .223Rem bolt action with a big varmint scope doesn't need massive mounts, just good ones. Once you get to deer rifle calibers, the more scope you mount, the more you should be looking at premium mounting systems like Badger Ordnance, Leupold Mk IV, Warne, etc.
Zip up to the top.Now that everything is mounted, It's time to Sight-in your Scope.
Back to Home
Back to Cheap Scope Page
Back to Shooting Sports