Scope Ring Recommendation

I like these and have them on several rifles

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1477135627/weaver-6-hole-weaver-style-rings-matte

I have Burris zee rings on everything from a 223 to a Knock your teeth loose 45-70. They are good solid rings. Warne also makes good stuff.

i rely like these, shop round u can maybe fined them cheaper. https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1362122288/leupold-prw-permanent-weaver-style-rings-matte

At the risk of being a Luddite, why in the heck do you feel constrained to the factory Weaver mounts? Take ‘em off, spend fifty bucks for a set of Leupold rings and bases like this:
https://www.cabelas.com/product/LEUPOLD-RING-AND-BASE-COMBO-PACK/1998198.uts
and never worry about your scope moving, or looking like a tinkertoy component again.

Make mine Warne, Talley, or DNZs now.
If I'm being cheap I'll use Weaver quadlocks, or Leupold rifleman.

Personally if Weaver or pic basses are already installed I'll use Warnes.
If I'm going from a bare receiver I'll use Talley lightweights or DNZ if they make units for the rifle I'm scoping.

Speaking of I need to order a set of Warne 30s for my 6.5 build.

I have never had a problem, even with heavy magnums.

Warne, Talley, DNZ, Burris, Leupold, Weaver. I have mounted many many scopes using all of the above. They all work and work well. Get what floats your boat. I use Warne rings and EGW bases cuz that's what floats MY boat, but wouldn’t feel in the least bit handicapped if I had to use any of the other brands mentioned.

All of my rifles/shotguns have Warne rings. I doubt that I would ever try another brand.

I like Weaver alum bases just fine.
Most of mine topped w Burris Signature Zee rings (plastic inserts don't scratch scope).
FWIW the Signature Zee mediums are a little higher than reg Zee mediums.

I was going to say DNZ rings,,,,but I think they cost more than your scope...……

DNZ s are usually 40-60 for the common mounts. I've bought a few off eBay for less than 30 (the savage mount on my Arisaka being one I got for 20 shipped)

Having previously expressed my preferences on non-Picatinny platforms, on flattops, as a”high end” mount, nothing beats Vortex for the money,

A little insight, maybe, and FWIW: don’t skimp on rings. That’s part one. Part two, on your particular rifle with (possibly) Burris Signature rings; you’ll of course need 30mm rings for your scope, which SWFA has on sale for 10% off right now or $45.

Now height-wise you’re probably looking at needing 30mm (1.181”) as measured from the centerline of the rings you choose. Burris lists MED as being .81” so your formula is 1.181-.81=.371” or too short.

BUT when measured you’ll find an extra .3” of extra height thanks to those Weaver bases which gives you: .371”-.3”=.071” or just a smidgen too short.

BUT if you run a straight edge from the top of your Savage receiver to the point where the scope’s objective bell will flare to its largest diameter you’ll see a gap, one that is greater than .071”

It may be too close for comfort or too little if used with covers but I think there’s room for everything there. If you have calipers, a straight edge, and the scope in hand (for more precise measurement, I guessed and gave it 60mm with covers) you would know for sure.

After digging, I found the actual diameter of the objective listed as 56.896mm. 56.896/2=28.448mm and we originally allotted 30mm. My best guess is you’ll want to allot 4mm for covers to cover their thickness and a sliver between them and your barrel so...(if you’re still following this)...

We are at a difference of ~1.5mm (.06” for easy math) right now of wiggle room but also short of our estimated height by .071”. Giving back what we overestimated means we are now .011” in the hole but must now find another 4mm.

After all that, if you can find about 4.5mm or say 3/16” heavy between that bottom red line and your barrel, I believe you can, and in my opinion should, save yourself much grief and order Burris Signature 30mm Medium rings. I cannot guarantee the fit but I really want to think it will work fine and keep you nice and low.

jono said:

Having previously expressed my preferences on non-Picatinny platforms, on flattops, as a”high end” mount, nothing beats Vortex for the money,

Click to expand...

At the risk of being rude, your first suggestion requires spending more money than a decent pair of rings right off the bat. Then, thanks to poor design, will require additional money for alignment bars to prevent that poor design from bending the scope tube. After all that, you’ll have a scope not quickly removed if one chooses to remount it on another rifle because it must have the rings removed rather than the bases simply loosened.

Second, Vortex rings have been on the market for what, two years? They are a virtual copy of Warne (who probably makes them for Vortex) and they sell for $60/pair. I gave away a pair of Vipers on Friday to a guy at work that Doug at Cameraland sent me. Were they ok? Sure, they worked fine, and for the $22 he charged me due to a foul up in my order, you could say they were a bargain.

Would I purposely spend $60 to choose them over Talley, Burris Signatures, or actual Warne rings? Not on your life. Those 3 brands have an actual track record with me that I trust and I own enough rifles to know that at $10-$20 less they beat the pants off Vortex “for the money”.

My apologies if I’ve ruffled any feathers, but spending up to double the money for inferior mounts and calling Weaver rails tinkertoys is the stuff of a right fielder’s machinations. Degrease any quality rings (threaded holes and screws) and torque to spec. Install properly at the front edge of the Weaver slot (closest to muzzle) and add a drop of blue Loctite. They won’t move.


You bet I actually buy and use them. This pair will host a Zeiss atop my Encore. Got them at 15% off earlier this month.

Skylerbone said:

At the risk of being rude, your first suggestion requires spending more money than a decent pair of rings right off the bat. Then, thanks to poor design, will require additional money for alignment bars to prevent that poor design from bending the scope tube. After all that, you’ll have a scope not quickly removed if one chooses to remount it on another rifle because it must have the rings removed rather than the bases simply loosened.

Second, Vortex rings have been on the market for what, two years? They are a virtual copy of Warne (who probably makes them for Vortex) and they sell for $60/pair. I gave away a pair of Vipers on Friday to a guy at work that Doug at Cameraland sent me. Were they ok? Sure, they worked fine, and for the $22 he charged me due to a foul up in my order, you could say they were a bargain.

Would I purposely spend $60 to choose them over Talley, Burris Signatures, or actual Warne rings? Not on your life. Those 3 brands have an actual track record with me that I trust and I own enough rifles to know that at $10-$20 less they beat the pants off Vortex “for the money”.

My apologies if I’ve ruffled any feathers, but spending up to double the money for inferior mounts and calling Weaver rails tinkertoys is the stuff of a right fielder’s machinations. Degrease any quality rings (threaded holes and screws) and torque to spec. Install properly at the front edge of the Weaver slot (closest to muzzle) and add a drop of blue Loctite. They won’t move.


You bet I actually buy and use them. This pair will host a Zeiss atop my Encore. Got them at 15% off earlier this month.
View attachment 816617



View attachment 816618

Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. Got your back on this one.

Not that I don’t always have it anyway.

I really like vertically split rings, even the cheap leupys I've got on my 6.5 didn't twist the scope a round when bringing them to torque.

BigBL87 said:

I saw the Leupold ones and REALLY liked the price, but it also made me hesitant. I felt like being Leupild brand and all they can't be crap, but the price just seems too good to be true.

Click to expand...

They are decent cheap rings. I still prefer the Warnes etc, but these will do the job well enough.

Skylerbone said:

At the risk of being rude, your first suggestion requires spending more money than a decent pair of rings right off the bat. Then, thanks to poor design, will require additional money for alignment bars to prevent that poor design from bending the scope tube. After all that, you’ll have a scope not quickly removed if one chooses to remount it on another rifle because it must have the rings removed rather than the bases simply loosened.

Second, Vortex rings have been on the market for what, two years? They are a virtual copy of Warne (who probably makes them for Vortex) and they sell for $60/pair. I gave away a pair of Vipers on Friday to a guy at work that Doug at Cameraland sent me. Were they ok? Sure, they worked fine, and for the $22 he charged me due to a foul up in my order, you could say they were a bargain.

Would I purposely spend $60 to choose them over Talley, Burris Signatures, or actual Warne rings? Not on your life. Those 3 brands have an actual track record with me that I trust and I own enough rifles to know that at $10-$20 less they beat the pants off Vortex “for the money”.

My apologies if I’ve ruffled any feathers, but spending up to double the money for inferior mounts and calling Weaver rails tinkertoys is the stuff of a right fielder’s machinations. Degrease any quality rings (threaded holes and screws) and torque to spec. Install properly at the front edge of the Weaver slot (closest to muzzle) and add a drop of blue Loctite. They won’t move.


You bet I actually buy and use them. This pair will host a Zeiss atop my Encore. Got them at 15% off earlier this month.
View attachment 816617



View attachment 816618

Click to expand...

1) I suspect that if you want to take a scope off of a 2 piece picatinny type mount and mount it directly on a different rifle, expecting the crossbars to line right up, you’re in for some angst.

2) Those of us who actually put turn-in type rings on rifles with any regularity tend to own the tools (or have the capability to make them)
If you’re too cheap to spring for an appropriate screwdriver or Allen/torx wrench, the Channellocks you use to tighten down your Warne rings probably won’t make for a pretty job either.
3) I am in no way impuning the integrity of the picatinny/weaver system, I’m just saying that the modular nature and extraneous material inherent in the universal design detracts from the aesthetics of a classic bolt action rifle, making it look clunky and like a “tinkertoy” rather than a purpose-built, unitized tool.

4) I was referring to Vortex cantilever 1 piece mounts for flat tops, not two piece ring sets.
I wasted a lot of money on Nightforce, Nikon, Warne, etc. before I found Vortex. I’m an optics snob, and if I’m gonna put a $2-3000 scope on a rifle I’m not going to balk at an extra $50 for the best mount. Vortex seems to be it for me (and yes, I agree that Warne very well might make Vortex mounts, but they charge more, and the fit and finish isn’t as good)

And yes, I felt like it was a bit rude, but I appreciate your passion, (and I’m wearing my big-girl panties today, so knock yourself out

Ah but now the backtracking begins. Actually reading the OP tells us much about what is being sought. Can you tell us how on earth Weaver bases detract from the classic aesthetics of the rifle pictured below? It is after all the model in question.

jono said:

and never worry about your scope moving, or looking like a tinkertoy component again.

Click to expand...

Now how is that “...in no way impugning the integrity of the picatinny/weaver system”? I don’t worry about slippage nor should anyone else who installs correctly.

Channel locks? Really??? I use a crescent wrench like all good monkies do. Ok, I have a plumb bob, levels, and torque wrenches. I save the Arkansas Crescent hammer fer poundin nails and such all.

I still haven’t changed my feelings about turn in rings and their poor design, despite any aesthetic advantage they may hold over a SPUHR mount (which is what a true optics snob would use) not to mention your link to High rings which ruins what I like to call the classic cheek weld. If I must have classy looks then Talley is where I turn.

Price-wise you’re once again dyslexic: Warne 1-piece mounts sell for less than the Vortex knock-offs. These too appear identical in appearance. I’ve yet to get my hands on a Vortex sample of these but I cannot imagine someone finding fault with the finish on anything Warne puts out as their process leads to extremely tight tolerances and a very uniform finish. Hint: it’s a sintering process.

I realize I am out of sequence here but I do indeed understand the ice cube’s chance of rings aligning on another rifle when removed from two-piece bases. However...because I sometimes use various scopes on the same rifle, I can quickly interchange optics without undue hassle and have in the past chosen to do so even when packing a back-up rifle. Now Burris Signatures aren’t my preferred rings for such occasions due to their unitized lugs but they’re still faster than turn-ins and only a tic or two off when remounted. For one and done though; fuhgeddaboudit, they rock!

Personally, and despite @LoonWulf ’s objections, I much prefer continuous 1913 rails for utility except where smallish ejection ports are concerned. Strike that, even then I prefer them.

@jono it isn’t that I care to besmirch your character or opinion, it is simply a matter of disagreement and I appreciate your humor and in all honesty good natured reply. Never let me come between you and posting your thoughts as my brain simply likes what it likes for reasons often veiled and cloaked in mystery, a misspent youth, and too much squirrel meat. My apologies again if I appear to make much of little.