Do I really need to spend huge $$ on rings/base??

Tim

Tim

Checked Out
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Vendor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
16,466
Location
A Glass Cage of Emotion
Rating - 100%
85   0   0
Why are rings and scope mounts so expensive? It's not exactly cutting edge tech, just simple CNC machining, albeit with close tolerances, right?

I need a 34mm ring/base with 20MOA elevation to go on my 6.5 bolt gun. Recommendations? The rifle came with an EGW pic rail.
 
What do you consider expensive? I would at least invest in a decent rail. Then you can always replace the rings down the road. I have a bad habit of switching scopes so now I have one rail and several scopes with rings attached. Real easy to switch and they are pretty close to being sighted in too. Some of the rings are "pricey" and some are cheap.
 
The rail that's on it is 0 MOA?
 
My brother is setting up a couple for long range duty. I thought I was pretty well versed in all things firearms but he threw a new one at me.

He's getting a lapping tool for the scope rings. I've heard of lapping a barrel before, but never the inner bearing surface of scope rings.

I thought I was the analytical, OCD type but this steps it up a notch or three.
 
Huge believer in a good base and rings. Preferably quick detach setups like American defense recon. Nothing worse than chasing GREMLINS from getting a crappy base and thinking a rifle can't group for squat.
 
I like one piece base and rings on anything that has solid recoil as well. Aero makes good ones for cheap, Leupold, DNZ et al. You're taking one more factor out of the equation and more surface area for grip
 
First rifle I ever spent money on, I bought a steel Ken Farrel 20MOA base and leupold quick detach 30mm rings. Very solid. And not overly expensive compared to some you see today. I think the base was right at $100 and the rings around $70.
 
EGW ain't bad, and it's economical. Burris XTR are likewise economical. Of course you can go up from there, but much below their pricepoints you get spotty performance. Do not skimp on base and rings (and no, you don't need a base bedded).
 
I've had excellent success with Warne Steel bases ($125) and Vortex/ Seekin's Precision rings ($125). I've run these on my competition and hunting rigs (.260Rem & 6.5 Creedmoor) for the past 4 years and after all the bumps and banging I've never had a POI shift with my zero. Worth ever penny in saved time and ammo chasing a shifting zero or Gremlins !
 
Bunsen said:
I've had excellent success with Warne Steel bases ($125) and Vortex/ Seekin's Precision rings ($125). I've run these on my competition and hunting rigs (.260Rem & 6.5 Creedmoor) for the past 4 years and after all the bumps and banging I've never had a POI shift with my zero. Worth ever penny in saved time and ammo chasing a shifting zero or Gremlins !
Click to expand...
On my 260 it's the seekins base and vortex rings - still rock solid!
 
For the budget conscious I suggest a the Weaver pic rail if aluminum is acceptable, was super affordable and flat as any, 700 model even has a "recoil lug". Otherwise EGW. If it's a factory action I'd probably bed it to the action.

Big fan of TPS rings in steel. Looks like their price is up a bit.



Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Another fan of the American Defense Recon QD, I have the 20 MOA and right now the rings are 30mm. But you can purchase replacement rings in different sizes and change them to 34 or 35mm. That way if I buy a new scope with larger tube I just need to by new rings and not the whole set up.

Mine will be going on my 6.5 Grendel AR when the barrel finally gets here!

IMG_8995 (1) by hd_rolling, on Flickr
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
Tim said:
Why are rings and scope mounts so expensive? It's not exactly cutting edge tech, just simple CNC machining, albeit with close tolerances, right?

I need a 34mm ring/base with 20MOA elevation to go on my 6.5 bolt gun. Recommendations? The rifle came with an EGW pic rail.
Click to expand...


CNC yes, but ALOT more goes in it to than putting a block of material and hitting the go button.

EGW is great. Spin the rest on rings. APA, Seekin, Nightforce, etc. Remember Alum rings to steel base..ok. Steel rings to alum base..not ok.


Charlie said:
Lapping the rings is an eye opener and well worth doing.
Click to expand...
There is zero (o) reason why to lap rings with today's high quailty rings selection. Sure back in the old days, where the scope actually moved for adjustments.
 
Last edited:
What are the criteria for evaluation?

Holds zero (ie base and rings do not shift)
Hold scope (ie scope doesn’t move)
Features (quick release and remount with proper zero)
Production quality and finish

Anything else?

Just curious because I don’t know how to interpret the “these are great” comments and want to learn something.
 
Djstorm100 said:
CNC yes, but ALOT more goes in it to than putting a block of material and hitting the go button.

EGW is great. Spin the rest on rings. APA, Seekin, Nightforce, etc. Remember Alum rings to steel base..ok. Steel rings to alum base..not ok.



There is zero (o) reason why to lap rings with today's high quailty rings selection. Sure back in the old days, where the scope actually moved for adjustments.
Click to expand...

I have mounted lots of my scopes with Leupold rings that are dovetailed into the base or are held onto the rear base by opposing screws. Getting those aligned properly can be a chore at times. The pointed alignment rods help a great deal, but a little work with the lapping tool and some compound can show you very nicely how well the rings are aligned and whether there are any high spots in the rings. The one piece bases with integral bottom portions of the rings are, indeed, much better. I have, however, been glad I checked the dozen or so I have used with a lapping rod because several were not as perfect as they could have been.
 
JimB said:
What are the criteria for evaluation?

Holds zero (ie base and rings do not shift)
Hold scope (ie scope doesn’t move)
Features (quick release and remount with proper zero)
Production quality and finish

Anything else?

Just curious because I don’t know how to interpret the “these are great” comments and want to learn something.
Click to expand...
Fit and finish is big for me. To keep marking up the scope to a minimum. Solid after mounted is another biggie. QR isn't a factor.

CHRIS
 
Charlie said:
I have mounted lots of my scopes with Leupold rings that are dovetailed into the base or are held onto the rear base by opposing screws. Getting those aligned properly can be a chore at times. The pointed alignment rods help a great deal, but a little work with the lapping tool and some compound can show you very nicely how well the rings are aligned and whether there are any high spots in the rings. The one piece bases with integral bottom portions of the rings are, indeed, much better. I have, however, been glad I checked the dozen or so I have used with a lapping rod because several were not as perfect as they could have been.
Click to expand...

Why would you buy a product that you have to work on, buy other tools, lap, check for high/low spots? Leupold has been behind the market for number of years. How much are the rings you buy that you have to perform work to? Seekins and Nightforce are $80-100
 
Djstorm100 said:
There is zero (o) reason why to lap rings with today's high quailty rings selection. Sure back in the old days, where the scope actually moved for adjustments.
Click to expand...

I'm totally with Charlie on this one. As Charlie claims his experience, I also have lived it.

As to Quality Parts? I suppose owners of new vehicles are disappointed or Shocked when recalls happen.

Storm, I'm not trying to change your mind on this issue.
However, anyone on the fence should at least check alignment if not lap the rings.
Simple as that.
 
YeeHaa said:
I'm totally with Charlie on this one. As Charlie claims his experience, I also have lived it.

As to Quality Parts? I suppose owners of new vehicles are disappointed or Shocked when recalls happen.

Storm, I'm not trying to change your mind on this issue.
However, anyone on the fence should at least check alignment if not lap the rings.
Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Car manufactures have recalls because of said parts has the ability to kill. This is the supplier who makes said parts (tires, airbags, etc). Sure the brand often times fails as well, like Jeep and how they machined the 3.6L head the first 1.5 years of production.

If you buy cheap rings..then sure. Buying a kit for what $50 bucks and set of rings for $50 bucks, you've now just spent $100 that could of been used on 10x better rings. Their (Seekin, Nightforce, etc) machining practices and machines run you'll see why they are that good of a product.

Call Mark as Accurate Ordnance or any other precision rifle builder that knows what they are doing.
 
Djstorm100 said:
If you buy cheap rings..then sure. Buying a kit for what $50 bucks and set of rings for $50 bucks, you've now just spent $100 that could of been used on 10x better rings. Their (Seekin, Nightforce, etc) machining practices and machines run you'll see why they are that good of a product.
Click to expand...
This is RICH!

Just because one decides to PAY what some "Recognized (?)" Name Brand whats for their scope rings does not guarantee said rings will be in Spec.

I recently ended up with a set of Vortex rings,, and,, they are in the damn spare parts / junk box.

Trust but verify.
 
Djstorm100 said:
If you buy cheap rings..then sure. Buying a kit for what $50 bucks and set of rings for $50 bucks, you've now just spent $100 that could of been used on 10x better rings. Their (Seekin, Nightforce, etc) machining practices and machines run you'll see why they are that good of a product.
Click to expand...

FWIW,
I've also been told ( by some Smiths at that ) that checking "Head Space" on a 556 rig is NOT Necessary and a waste of time, especially on a new setup.
Guess what? Yup , I check the head space.
 
I’m partial to Seekins (they make rings for Vortex also). They come in serial numbered match pairs and while I still have lightly lapped them the alignment bars are near perfect when I go to set their bases. I’ve had great results with Leupolds out of the package but they are not as close to centered without a little touch up as the Seekins. I look at spending an extra $50 on rings as I do buying a quality barrel and trigger ... once setup ... if thevrange results are not up to what I want it is likely the person behind the trigger and I have someone else (usually my kid) see what they can do with it.
 
YeeHaa said:
FWIW,
I've also been told ( by some Smiths at that ) that checking "Head Space" on a 556 rig is NOT Necessary and a waste of time, especially on a new setup.
Guess what? Yup , I check the head space.
Click to expand...

Then they aren't smiths easy and simple as that.


YeeHaa said:
This is RICH!

Just because one decides to PAY what some "Recognized (?)" Name Brand whats for their scope rings does not guarantee said rings will be in Spec.

I recently ended up with a set of Vortex rings,, and,, they are in the damn spare parts / junk box.

Trust but verify.
Click to expand...

What model rings of Vortex? Seekins only makes one set of rings for Vortex.
I can tell you don't know about machining manufacturing and thats fine.

There's American Precision Arms and American Rifle Company to.
As far as everyone. You are aware people who shoot in PRS, Fclass, and other long range disciplines use Seekins. Yup, we know nothing..nothing at all.
 
Last edited:
So the base goes on the rifle, then the rings go on the base and the scope goes in the rings. I think that’s two sets of interfaces before you get to the scope. Machining tolerances being what they are it seems unlikely that any rings will be as well aligned when mounted as they could be, and the problem might not even originate in the rings. Maybe the alignment is good enough in some cases, including for precision shooting, but it seems to me that the only way to know is to check or to lap them and know that it’s good.

Or I’m full of crap, I’m just learning about precision shooting.
 
Djstorm100 said:
What model rings of Vortex? Seekins only makes one set of rings for Vortex.
Click to expand...

Don't know, they came in a trade. BTW, I was never really SOLD on Vortex anyway and yes they have a Good reputation and I would say most of their reputation comes from their "Send it in and we'll send another scope."
Djstorm100 said:
I can tell you don't know about machining manufacturing and thats fine.
Click to expand...

Your claim is Comically Choice.
Djstorm100 said:
There's American Precision Arms and American Rifle Company to.
As far as everyone. You are aware people who shoot in PRS, Fclass, and other long range disciplines use Seekins. Yup, we know nothing..nothing at all.
Click to expand...

I never said competition shooters know nothing.

What I have said or implied is just because one has Excessive Disposable Income and in my opinion blindly pay Large Coin for rings and still not even checking for at least alignment are doing themselves a disfavor.

One issue overall is you are dumping on other fellow shooters that for what ever reason want to service their own rigs by railing on them for NOT paying $100 ~ $250 for a set of rings.

Those that do service their own rigs are by FAR more familiar with their firearms than those that buy parts to assemble their rifles.
 
Last edited:
YeeHaa said:
Don't know, they came in a trade. BTW, I was never really SOLD on Vortex anyway and yes they have a Good reputation and I would say most of their reputation comes from their "Send it in and we'll send another scope."

Your claim is Comically Choice.

I never said competition shooters know nothing.

What I have said or implied is just because one has Excessive Disposable Income and in my opinion blindly pay Large Coin for rings and still not even checking for at least alignment are doing themselves a disfavor.

One issue overall is you are dumping on other fellow shooters that for what ever reason want to service their own rigs by railing on them for NOT paying $100 ~ $250 for a set of rings.

Those that do service their own rigs are by FAR more familiar with their firearms than those that buy parts to assemble there rifles.
Click to expand...

Then you should understand why the rings their selves are concentric and coaxial. I'm not railing on anyone, you keep continuing to have this discussion. Assembling AR's is part of the enjoyment of "building" a rifle to one's specification. Spend 1k (or however much) on building a rifle, what is small amount of money to get a way BETTER quality part all around?

Scope ring lapping kit $59.99+ shipping+ cost of rings. Less than $40 dollars more to buy one of the top quality rings that only needs loc-tie on the on the screws.

I have never and will never spend more than $120 (APA for my one of my competition rifles) on rings this goes for my weekend rifles to my competitions rifles.

Lapping rings is something of the past, with modern machining equipment and practices. When they are adhere to. Gleen Skeeins got in to the business of making rings after his ring (don't know the brand) failed on a hunting trip in 2003 I believe.

We clearly aren't going to see eye to eye and that's cool.

This discussion makes me want to put my APA, Seekin/Vortex rings on a pic rail and do some data gathering on CMM in Sanford. Curious as to how better they are vs low cost options Midway offers.
 
Last edited:
Djstorm100 said:
Scope ring lapping kit $59.99+ shipping+ cost of rings. Less than $40 dollars more to buy one of the top quality rings that only needs loc-tie on the on the screws.
Click to expand...

This I agree on, but I would still check them for alignment and fit with a transfer fluid.

Some of us have several Bang Sticks and it is cost effective to obtain a lapping kit.

Djstorm100 said:
Lapping rings is something of the past, with modern machining equipment and practices.
Click to expand...
Disagree, Trust but verify

Djstorm100 said:
We clearly aren't going to see eye to eye and that's cool.
Click to expand...
That's fine.
I would only hope others that don't have the financial resources don't get discouraged with the scope and ring thing because ( IMHO) these two factors are a potential weak point for any rifle and it's accuracy.

Safe Shooting
 
Last edited:
Well, some folks do not want to put a scope on a rifle with a rail and a set of massive rings with all those sharp angles and unnecessary metal. The Seekins rings I have seen would look very out of place on quite a few of my hunting rifles, and mounting a rail on a pre-64 M70 or a sleek 98 Mauser should be justification for physical violence.

Does anyone here ever buy only firearms on which they have to do no tinkering to get them the way they want them to be. Building a rifle seems to be somewhat in the category of tinkering to get things right.

The brands you mentioned may work very well for your application on your rifles, but there are quite a few different types of rifles for quite a few different application. I have rifles for several different applications and use the rings and bases that are appropriate for those application. I use the one piece bases with integral bottom rings when I want to mount a scope on the rail of an AR type rifle. Most of these have required very little if any lapping. I suppose the OP could use these types of mounts on his bolt action rifle since he indicated it has a rail on it. I am partial to the
Leupold dual dovetail bases and rings when I want to put a scope on one of my bolt action hunting rifles. I have QD mounts on my 375 H&H so I can use the open sights if conditions call for them.

Most of the bases and rings offered by Seekin/Vortex seem to be used with rails. That is great if your rifle has a rail. Many rifles do not. I did see a one piece base with integral lower rings offered by Vortex for a M700, but one piece bases can be a real pain when you try to load bolt action rifles. They do not leave much room for fingers. Been there, done that, do not want to do that again.

I am a firm believer in getting the right equipment for each specific application and making sure everything is as right as I can make it.
 
Charlie said:
Well, some folks do not want to put a scope on a rifle with a rail and a set of massive rings with all those sharp angles and unnecessary metal. The Seekins rings I have seen would look very out of place on quite a few of my hunting rifles, and mounting a rail on a pre-64 M70 or a sleek 98 Mauser should be justification for physical violence.

Does anyone here ever buy only firearms on which they have to do no tinkering to get them the way they want them to be. Building a rifle seems to be somewhat in the category of tinkering to get things right.

The brands you mentioned may work very well for your application on your rifles, but there are quite a few different types of rifles for quite a few different application. I have rifles for several different applications and use the rings and bases that are appropriate for those application. I use the one piece bases with integral bottom rings when I want to mount a scope on the rail of an AR type rifle. Most of these have required very little if any lapping. I suppose the OP could use these types of mounts on his bolt action rifle since he indicated it has a rail on it. I am partial to the
Leupold dual dovetail bases and rings when I want to put a scope on one of my bolt action hunting rifles. I have QD mounts on my 375 H&H so I can use the open sights if conditions call for them.

Most of the bases and rings offered by Seekin/Vortex seem to be used with rails. That is great if your rifle has a rail. Many rifles do not. I did see a one piece base with integral lower rings offered by Vortex for a M700, but one piece bases can be a real pain when you try to load bolt action rifles. They do not leave much room for fingers. Been there, done that, do not want to do that again.

I am a firm believer in getting the right equipment for each specific application and making sure everything is as right as I can make it.
Click to expand...

Tinkering is what started me to start my own machining or have the resources to be able to do so.
I'm hard on gear. My M70 let me down (got it when I was 13) because of the guy at Davie or Davis guns set up wrong wouldn't hold zero, Dad wasn't a hunter and didn't have resources back then.. Years later after I got in to precision rifles and long range shooting finally got around to fixing it. I'm a function over form. Atheistic comes 2nd but I can agree some people will board line threaten you. Example some time ago a guy posted on CMP forums where he put his Garand in a Synthetic stock and it got way more than heated
 
Form does little good without good function. My hunting rifles have never let me down, and form often is a major factor in function. A nice sleek set of dual dovetails with everything you need and nothing you do not makes my hunting rifles simple and strong as well as pleasing to the eye.

I do wonder about the flat tops and extra metal on the Seekin rings shown on the internet. They may look cool, evil, and tactical, but do they serve a legitimate purpose? They just look to me like extra weight and extra places you can snag your hand.
 
Charlie said:
Form does little good without good function. My hunting rifles have never let me down, and form often is a major factor in function. A nice sleek set of dual dovetails with everything you need and nothing you do not makes my hunting rifles simple and strong as well as pleasing to the eye.

I do wonder about the flat tops and extra metal on the Seekin rings shown on the internet. They may look cool, evil, and tactical, but do they serve a legitimate purpose? They just look to me like extra weight and extra places you can snag your hand.
Click to expand...

All for strength and more area clamping down. Edges are chamfer I haven't had any issues
 
Something I ran across and ironically the alignment tool shown is the style I have moved or am moving to.
My alignment tool is not from the manufacture in the article.
Click to expand...

claims that misalignments as small as .002″ can be detected. John Werre explains: “The bars actually are a three-dimensional projection of each ring ‘hole’. You’re looking at a solid representation of the hole through the ring.
Put one bar in each ring and you can then compare the axial alignment of the ‘ring holes’ to each other. If the ends match and are flat together you have reconstructed the bars into one [cylinder] and the alignment is PERFECT.”

Below, in Figure 1, you can see rings that are out of alignment.

In Figure 2 you can see rings that are properly aligned.

Interestingly, the misalignment illustrated in Figure 1 did NOT show up with pointed ring alignment bars.
This amount of misalignment can create up to 3/16″ of scope tube bending (depending on ring spacing).

koko02.jpg



koko03.jpg




http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2009/12/kokopelli-ring-lapping-tool-and-scope-alignment-bars/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom