Rifle Scopes Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

[Hitnbombs28]

Before I start I would like only <span style="font-weight: bold">UNBIASED</span> replies. So if your a gear queer/snob or a Fanboy(that outta fire some up) and can't give an unbiased answer then please don't reply.

Is there really any advantage to using the high end rings over any of the mid range rings? Keep in mind I am no longer an operator and will only be at the range and hunting in the woods with it.

One of the reasons I ask is cause I had a set of Warne rings($35) holding my MK4 on a browning A-bolt 300wsm and never had any issues. I've been up and down mountains with it. Sometimes going down in an unintended fashion. I once stepped into a hole while traversing a rocky ridge and fell in a hole with my left leg completely up to my hip with my rifle slung on my shoulder. It hit so hard that I split the stock to the palm/pistol grip portion of the stock(don't know what its called) and severely bruised my tail bone. In short I have put it through the kind of rough shock as anything I have experienced in the box, and have never had any issues, ever.

I'm going to be mounting an IOR 4x14x50 to a GAP rifle. So why should I(or anyone that's not an operator) pay $150-200 for rings.

I'm sure this has been asked before but the search option on this site needs improvement(or I need to learn how to return only the posting title and not all the replies).

 

[RobG]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

So you spend a grand on glass and what, two grand or more, on a rifle but want to cheap out on rings?

 

[Rob01]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

No reason. If you are happy with the $35 Warnes then get another set and continue to be happy. Your rifle/scope and money.

As to the search function
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1805648

 

[gszeto99]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

To me it just gives me that peace of mind that the rifle and scope will stay zeroed to each other while taking the abuse. Mid range priced scope rings are made for people who want as much quality as practical without costing an arm and a leg (making it more affordable to the majority of people). Sometimes when you start buying high end rings, you are also paying for the name (just like buying nike shoes).

By the way I have personally used low end, mid range, and high end rings and mounts. Also if you are going to spend $3000+ on a scope then spend the extra $50 on a set of high end rings. It is all about what is affordable and what is practical.

Hope this helps,

Gene

 

[Hitnbombs28]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

The money is not the point. I have the money to buy just about what ever I would like as far as firearms go. But one of the reasons I can do so is cause I try to be smart with my money.

Example

If product A does everything product B does and costs half as much but doesn't have the top of the line name brand on it...well I'm gonna buy brand A and use the money I saved on ammo.

 

[Hitnbombs28]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

SO gszeto99,

Would you say from your experience that there is no advantage to having BADGER rings over say Burris XTR(or whatever their tac rings are called)? If I was using my rig as an operator I would get only the best, no doubt about it

 

[RobG]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

I have not used Badger but, I have used the XTR's and Seekins. I can tell you the quality is not the same. The Seekins fit together smoothly, align correctly, have tighter fitting screw holes, and do not need lapping. The XTR's were the opposite. Not that they are bad but, they are not in the same category as a top-o-the-line ring. Seekins are a great ring and are only 50-60 bucks more than the XTR retail. One does not need to be an "operator" to buy and use quality equipment.

 

[KeithR41]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

I NEVER worry about my Badgers coming loose, slipping, breaking, "dinging" my scope tube, etc..............

Can't say the same about the cheap stuff!

I'm not biased, I've used cheap also but since I've switched to quality, I'll never go back. Period.

41

 

[Daps!]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

I respect your frugalness however, I have a hypothetical question to ask you. If you go with the cheaper rings and you do have this misfortune to bump/drop your rifle hard enough to move them and it causes you to miss, will you regret not spending the extra 50 bucks on some better rings? If you can live with that then I say stay with what you got. Me? I'll pay the 50$ extra for the confidence that my scope hasn't moved. I'm not a professional competition shooter or anything but I am a hunter and the thought of missing or worse wounding and not recovering that prize elk or deer is definitely worth more than 50$. just my 2 cents.

 

[Guest]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

For years an years I used a Redfield Jr. base an rings on a 7mm Rem Mag that I shimed an bedded to about IIRC 27moa. Never had a issue no matter where or the task. I don't believe the Tacticool stuff is needed unless you are slotted LE or Military. Even then, Leupold's scopes don't seem to out last their rings, anyway.

I have Burris Sig rings an inserts on a few heavy kickers, and have never had issue with them either. Wish I had found them earlier.

 

[Glen Seekins]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

The way i think about gear is..
Do you travel to go hunting or a competition? It would suck to spend money on and product that you are not confident in and then spend 1500$ or more to use it and have something break. I missed a big whitetail because the rings i had used for years failed. Thats what led me to build my own.

Choices are a good thing, not everyone can or wants to spend the money on X product, so you have a few to choose from. In the end your the one that needs to be happy and confident with your purchase. If the Warren rings work for you and fit your needs then thats what you should buy.

Cost has allot more to do with quality and quantity than it does a name brand. It takes me longer to make our rings and i dont have near the market share other companies do, so the price is higher. The quality and way the part is manufactured also plays a huge roll in price. Some forge or cast their parts first drastically cutting manufacturing costs (and in some ways quality) and others build theirs to exact tolerances out of a chunk of material.

 

[Rob01]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Do you travel to go hunting or a competition? It would suck to spend money on and product that you are not confident in and then spend 1500$ or more to use it and have something break.</div></div>

That's the way I feel and why I buy the best equipment I can including my rings. Don't have to worry about Seekins, Badger, etc and that's why I use them. I am not going to spend all the money on a rifle and scope and travel to matches and have to worry about cheap rings.

But like I said if the Warnes make you happy and you trust them then use them.

 

[42769vette]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

i do buy expensive uso rings. im not any form of operater. i do it for peice of mind and it makes the process of elemnation easier. my hunting rig is a aj brown custom, uso rings, nf scope. if i miss i dont sit around saying it could be rings, scope, rifle. i know it is my shooting that needs tuning up or my loading. no matter what it was my fault not my equipment

 

[sniperaviator]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

Best piece of advice I can give you is to stop worrying about what everyone else thinks and start thinking for yourself. After all, YOU are the one that is going to have to do it.

 

[jrob300]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

I have used Burris XTR's and Seekins. The Burris needed some loving attention to get in the same plane, square, parallel and round and use hardware of questionable (PRC) heritage.

The Seekins lined right up out of the box. And they use very good hardware.

My scope weighs 39 oz. and my rifle generates decent recoil, not to mention what happens when (not if) it gets dropped.

For peace of mind the Seekins are WELL worth the one time 2x cost.

John

 

[SmokeRolls]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The way i think about gear is..
Do you travel to go hunting or a competition? It would suck to spend money on and product that you are not confident in and then spend 1500$ or more to use it and have something break. I missed a big whitetail because the rings i had used for years failed. Thats what led me to build my own.

Choices are a good thing, not everyone can or wants to spend the money on X product, so you have a few to choose from. In the end your the one that needs to be happy and confident with your purchase. If the Warren rings work for you and fit your needs then thats what you should buy.

Cost has allot more to do with quality and quantity than it does a name brand. It takes me longer to make our rings and i dont have near the market share other companies do, so the price is higher. The quality and way the part is manufactured also plays a huge roll in price. Some forge or cast their parts first drastically cutting manufacturing costs (and in some ways quality) and others build theirs to exact tolerances out of a chunk of material. </div></div>
And if I may add to this, I am tired of buying crap that fails.
I will purposely not go to the big grey and blue store and expect to buy anything of quality.
This disposable society has gotten on my last nerve.
I now make a point to buy something that is made with great attention to detail or at least a quality item.
I am tired of things failing.
There are big chain stores that pay engineers to go to individual companies and find out how they can make their items cheaper so they can sell it for less than everyone else.
How do you know that the next item you buy from the big retail stores wont be the next "new improved" cheap item.
In the end the choice is yours but I now avoid the cheap items for this simple reason.
I have some cheaper rifles with cheaper scopes and I even use a few cheap rings but mostly on 22's and a 17 HMR and even one Handy rifle in 223 for my daughters.
But on the rigs I use for hunting, or precision shooting and or packing up and down steep grades (and falling). I use top quality stuff made by good companies.
Seekins, Badger,USO,NF and a few others are ones you can trust.
...SmokeRolls

 

[Downzero]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

I like my Burris rings.

I think people need to defend an expensive purchase a lot of the time, and thus they will suggest that a cheaper product is inferior, whether it is or not.

The Burris XTR rings are overkill for what over 90% of the people on this website use a rifle for on a daily basis.

As with all shooting sports, amateurs talk about how cool their equipment is and professionals go to the range and shoot.

My targets don't seem to ask me what kind of rings I'm using. My $600 scope hasn't lost zero in almost two years.

In other words, it's your rifle and your money. if you want to spend more than you have to spend to get the performance you demand, go ahead. That doesn't mean that Badger, USO, Seekins, etc., aren't good products. They're just far more expensive than some of the competitive products, and they do exactly the same thing.

It ain't rocket science. Rings are a pretty simple product. They don't need to be machined to tolerances better suited to a connecting rod than a set of scope rings.

 

[Guest]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think people need to defend an expensive purchase a lot of the time, and thus they will suggest that a cheaper product is inferior, whether it is or not.</div></div>

I believe many get caught up in the belief that spending lots of money will over come, their lack of Field Craft, or shooting ability.

 

[264win]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

your putting an ior scope on a gap rifle ... since your not leo/mil, would a 800.00 factory rifle get the job done ? how bout a 200.00 bushnell 10x scope ? odds are they would do the job just fine .
i buy the best quality firearms / optics/ accessories i can . because i enjoy and appreciate well made tools ,
i like things not to break when i abuse them ,
i dont like the cheap throw away mentality

 

[billyburl2]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

Burris has some quality rings, The signature Zee's come to mind. I tried the xtr's and they moved with the first shot. Never did figure how to solve that. Bought some Badger's off the Sample List over at SWFA, and never looked back. Btw, the scope was a S.S. 10x mounted on a Savage model 11 chambered in .300 wsm.

 

[RobG]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like my Burris rings.

I think people need to defend an expensive purchase a lot of the time, and thus they will suggest that a cheaper product is inferior, whether it is or not.

The Burris XTR rings are overkill for what over 90% of the people on this website use a rifle for on a daily basis.

As with all shooting sports, amateurs talk about how cool their equipment is and professionals go to the range and shoot.

My targets don't seem to ask me what kind of rings I'm using. My $600 scope hasn't lost zero in almost two years.

In other words, it's your rifle and your money. if you want to spend more than you have to spend to get the performance you demand, go ahead. That doesn't mean that Badger, USO, Seekins, etc., aren't good products. They're just far more expensive than some of the competitive products, and they do exactly the same thing.

It ain't rocket science. Rings are a pretty simple product. <span style="font-weight: bold"> They don't need to be machined to tolerances better suited to a connecting rod than a set of scope rings</span>. </div></div>

I would disagree. Who wants a ring that has to be lapped and/or pinches the tube due to misalignment of the caps to the base (XTR's I had). I have no high end anything either. The OP's scope likely cost more than my entire rig. But, I won't skimp on small stuff in order to save 50 or 60 bucks. And I certainly wouldn't balk at 120 bucks for rings if I had a GAP built rifle. In the end, its the OP's money and he can buy what he feels will work for him. I would say although that if he was 100% comfortable with an inexpensive ring, he wouldn't be here asking about them.

 

[Downzero]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RobG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like my Burris rings.

I think people need to defend an expensive purchase a lot of the time, and thus they will suggest that a cheaper product is inferior, whether it is or not.

The Burris XTR rings are overkill for what over 90% of the people on this website use a rifle for on a daily basis.

As with all shooting sports, amateurs talk about how cool their equipment is and professionals go to the range and shoot.

My targets don't seem to ask me what kind of rings I'm using. My $600 scope hasn't lost zero in almost two years.

In other words, it's your rifle and your money. if you want to spend more than you have to spend to get the performance you demand, go ahead. That doesn't mean that Badger, USO, Seekins, etc., aren't good products. They're just far more expensive than some of the competitive products, and they do exactly the same thing.

It ain't rocket science. Rings are a pretty simple product. <span style="font-weight: bold"> They don't need to be machined to tolerances better suited to a connecting rod than a set of scope rings</span>. </div></div>

I would disagree. Who wants a ring that has to be lapped and/or pinches the tube due to misalignment of the caps to the base (XTR's I had). I have no high end anything either. The OP's scope likely cost more than my entire rig. But, I won't skimp on small stuff in order to save 50 or 60 bucks. And I certainly wouldn't balk at 120 bucks for rings if I had a GAP built rifle. In the end, its the OP's money and he can buy what he feels will work for him. I would say although that if he was 100% comfortable with an inexpensive ring, he wouldn't be here asking about them. </div></div>

We are talking about a product that is designed to create an interference fit. Whining that it scratched your scope tube is ridiculous. If you're taking your rings apart and inspecting the tube for scratches, you're not shooting.

If I had a GAP built rifle, I'd probably enjoy shooting it and spent the 50 or 60 bucks on some good brass or bullets.

I sure as hell wouldn't spend it on a shooting forum talking about how awesome some product was that was a near-perfect substitute for a less expensive product.

Like I said, it isn't rocket science. If it holds your scope and your scope doesn't slip or move, run it.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

Glen Seekins makes a good point (and I like and recommend his rings-I ran them on my Premier but don't have them any anymore, I would love to outfit both my 35mm rigs with his rings) about the costs other than the purchase price.

Mounting a reliable optic to an accurate rifle is the link that makes or breaks the combination. It doesn't matter if its a SPS and a Super Sniper or an AI AW and a Hensoldt. There is no reason to use inferior products just because the rifle isn't expensive or if its a rimfire.

I have had rings slip at costly times and it sucks. I have had bad luck with Burris. I have had good luck with Seekins, TPS, VTac, USO. If you notice those can be had for prices that are all over the map.

 

[SmokeRolls]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

*I have had IOR rings that were not machined correctly and one ring would not even tighten down onto the scope.
*I have had a 30mm Armalite unimount break at the top because I overtightened them (my fault but I still think they are too weak of a design on the top cap thickness).
*I have had threads pull out and strip on cheaper made rings.
When I say these things I am not putting down you or a particular brand, I just don't want junk...
I'm just not got going to use crap that will fail under normal use during hunting or routine shooting and I will try different brands and see what works and what works well and then sing a song of relief when it works like I want it too.
I am not bashing anyone over using Burris or whatever make someone is using.
If anyone feals like they are being picked on because they don't want to pay or can't pay $180 for a set of rings,... man up! Have some sack and be fine with what you have and quit telling others that their Seekins and their Badgers wont make them better shooters and the real professionals don't need that crap they are just wasting their money......
Hell...Last time I checked this was America.
You can buy and use whatever you want.
As for me I will buy the best that I can afford that will do everything that I ask of it.
Hats off to people that put their heart and their mind into building and selling a well made product and making it available to people like me.....Just an average Joe thats tired of crap.
......SmokeRolls

 

[fish30114]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

Warnes are fine, they are not Steel in most cases, some of the OLD Maxima Weaver style were, not for long. They hold fine on the several sporters I have them on, I prefer steel rings that are more precisely made, for reasons of alignment, and probable unnecessary strenght considerations. For a sporter rig, I will use different type of rings than a target/tactical rig often...but mostly I use Talley's, they are in the middle to of the price bandwidth, and look great on a sporter, and they even offer a 'tactical' ring for Pic bases....

I might ask GAP what they would recommend for your rig too, always worth getting the makers insight IMO....

I definitely agree with the poster who said 99% of folks here have rings that are overkill for their real world use--I think the Burris XTB are an alloy of some sort, and they make a good all around 'tactical' style ring IMO too...If you like Warnes, I would use them and not look back, I just don't like their overall perception of quality they convey, sintered metal and powder coated finish just seem cheesy, but they do work. I'd probably buy something else that I KNEW was steel at their price point if that was the goal (matching price).

Sounds like you are taking a good approach to me.

 

[kombar]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

About the only things wrong with Warne rings are that they won't return to zero very well, and are a little difficult to set up. I will occasionally switch back and forth between optics and match sights, so I replaced a set of Warnes with some Seekins for better return to zero capability.

As you know from experience, Warnes hold just fine. If the scope is going to stay on the rifle, just run them and be happy.

 

[BobinNC]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

TresMon,

I've been without power for 12 of the last 24 hours, and I just finished shoveling 10" of global warming off my patio, so I can get to my gas grill to cook when my power goes out again. So I have completely missed this oh so educational thread when it started.

Now that I've read it, and become enlighted, I realize I must sell/give away all my Badger and Seekins bases and rings. I never realized that they were just a prop for my bad shooting. And I would never want the boys on Sniper's Hide to think I was some sort of fan boy/faux operator.

Maybe it's not too late to get my old Falcon back from the guy I sold it too. I'm sorry I never realized that not only do you have to shoot well, but that your rig must also meet a SENSIBLE price tag/quality ratio!!!!!!

How come this is not a sticky: "ACCEPTABLE QUALITY PRICE TAG/RATIO" for outfitting your Rifle. Or maybe a sticky on "How to not appear to be a tool, gear queer or fan boy in optics, buy buying shit more expensive than TresMon, and Hitnbombs can afford".

How about a guide to "Barska is the new Schmidt und Bender" or "How to finish in sixth place on a poor man's budget".

Is now ok to sport NC Star rings on your new budget rig????? Or is $12. a pair an unacceptable spending allowance for just rings.

Frank (Lowlight) we need some professional guidance on just how little to spend........

 

[jrob300]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How come this is not a sticky: "ACCEPTABLE QUALITY PRICE TAG/RATIO" for outfitting your Rifle. Or maybe a sticky on "How to not appear to be a tool, gear queer or fan boy in optics, buy buying shit more expensive than TresMon, and Hitnbombs can afford".

How about a guide to "Barska is the new Schmidt und Bender" or "How to finish in sixth place on a poor man's budget".

Frank (Lowlight) we need some professional guidance on just how little to spend........ </div></div>

Touche' Bob,

Although I do get irritated sometimes when I feel like I'm being browbeat into spending more than I need to on equipment, I think it's just as possible to be an arrogant snob about how little you spend on your rig as how much. A lot of these threads would be a lot more enjoyable (perhaps less entertaining, though...) if we left some of the swagger at home.

John

 

[Snipers]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

If you have to have the best, then get the best. If you don't, a $50-$60 set of steel rings will do the job (Warne, Burris, etc)99.9999% of the time.

 

[Snipers]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

+1 on JR0b300's comment

I like plenty of individuals, but people in general sort of depress me.

 

[Rob01]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

I would never make someone feel bad for not buying something just because it's more expensive because buying something just because it's more expensive is just stupid. Different people have different needs and budgets and you can most likely find something in your budget that will work for you especially now with all the companies making rifles, optics and gear for our rifles now.

I will however recommend quality, proven parts without feeling bad at all. Yes they usually do cost a little more more but I have found that in the past whenever I cut corners I usually end up regretting it and spending more replacing my cut corner no matter what it be. I have learned that I buy the best quality I can and I never regret it.

 

[BCP]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

1) Buy what YOU can afford. Your money, your choice. No matter your budget odds are there is a piece of gear out there which isn't a pile of shit.

2) The more $$$ people pay, the more quality they automatically expect. This is why you get cock-juggling arguments on the subject as well as the "if I spend 3k on this rifle will I shoot half moa all day" posts.

 

[chad3]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

To a point I have to bring up the old saying:
Buy once, cry once...
Quality may hurt the pocket, but poor quality will hurt the pocket more so in the long run. Only other way I could say it would work is buy the middle of the road stuff (such as TPS and SS scopes) where you know if you want to upgrade you can sell off for little or no cost loss. If however it works for you then you are good to go.
My .02

 

[jrob300]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

TresMon,

The economy has not been friendly to me either. I've had to be extremely creative about funding my habit.

As is often the case... I think most would agree that it's not what you said so much... being broke is not a sin, and being frugal is actually admirable. It's more the manner in which you present your case. It almost smacks of a little entitlement or wealth distribution mentality. You may not have intended it that way, but that's the way it came across to me. That somehow these other guys are bad because they easily spend lots of money on their rigs.

I'm with you here. I think this sport is unnecessarily expensive, but if I want to play, I have to pay. And continue to explore ways to reduce my repetitive costs while maintaining my competitive capabilities.

John

 

[RobG]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Although I do get irritated sometimes when I feel like I'm being browbeat into spending more than I need to on equipment, <span style="font-weight: bold">I think it's just as possible to be an arrogant snob about how little you spend on your rig as how much</span>. A lot of these threads would be a lot more enjoyable (perhaps less entertaining, though...) if we left some of the swagger at home.

John </div></div>

So true. I always lose intrest when it inevitably turns to, "I outshot guys that spent 5x as much as I did in my first match." No one is dogging anybody for shooting less expensive gear. If thats what you can afford and/or all you want to spend and it works for you, great. There is no need to think that everybody that buys expensive gear is a gear snob/wannabe operator/fanboy.

 

[TresMon]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)


I failed (again) to bite my tongue, forgive and move on. Sorry gang.

 

[RobG]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TresMon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I failed (again) to bite my tongue, forgive and move on. Sorry gang. </div></div>

Well hell, you are sitting in your house freezing your azz off. Your brain probably has frost bite

 

[Guest]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I think this sport is unnecessarily expensive. </div></div>

Yes it is but we have let it get that way, by wanting the best of everything, being made to think money will produce small holes far away.

Jhuskey here, owns an runs HardRock range, which is a 1K yd 1-2 moa shooting/scoring contest. 10 points for 1 moa hits an 5 points for a 2 moa hit. There are many and I mean many custom built as well as rack sticks shot there. The deciding factor in/at every match relay is the ability to see your hits(no spotter allowed)and read the wind. That match has been won with rack guns, with cheap glass, rings, an bases. I've seen more than once, a .223 out score a 300wm, why, because the guy shooting it knows what he's doing plus the 223's shoot first. Where as the .308 sticks shoot next, and the anything goes class shoots last, with the braked guns shooting mostly very last.

Many say/think money will buy the target/score. I for one don't think so because if it did, someone would have cleaned Hardrock before now, and that bitch has never been cleaned(200 points), and some of the best this rock has to offer have tried it, Civi's and Military alike. It's all about the shooter, top notch gear is nice but not the deciding factor when lead starts flying past 600yds.

I think many have a problem with the difference between Tactical and Bench Rest.

 

[Bubb]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

I think what we need here is some guide lines everyone can help with... You might make 3k a week or 300$ a week, money is ment to be spent wisely! If you got more money than you know what to do with please PM me, I'll help ya out. When looking at products it's best for us to put into price lines. Best scope up to 200$..400$..600 and so on. Then we can help each other spend what $$$ on the BEST in that price range! This could be done on every item in the shooting world. Look at savage, there guys are using stock savages to (WIN) matches other shooters are spending triple $$$$$ on their guns? There is a price line for every product that will work as well at the more $$$ the rest is marketing. Lets help each other find the best products for the money we have to spend and this forum will keep getting better and bigger. We all had to start somewhere. I'm looking at the TPS rings for my APA .308 cause I feel the will do the job. Even if they where to ever break I can buy another set and still be under a set of badgers by a few bucks! This is a good post and I hope more add to it.

 

[fish30114]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bubb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think what we need here is some guide lines everyone can help with... You might make 3k a week or 300$ a week, money is ment to be spent wisely! If you got more money than you know what to do with please PM me, I'll help ya out. When looking at products it's best for us to put into price lines. Best scope up to 200$..400$..600 and so on. Then we can help each other spend what $$$ on the BEST in that price range! This could be done on every item in the shooting world. Look at savage, there guys are using stock savages to (WIN) matches other shooters are spending triple $$$$$ on their guns? There is a price line for every product that will work as well at the more $$$ the rest is marketing. Lets help each other find the best products for the money we have to spend and this forum will keep getting better and bigger. We all had to start somewhere. I'm looking at the TPS rings for my APA .308 cause I feel the will do the job. Even if they where to ever break I can buy another set and still be under a set of badgers by a few bucks! This is a good post and I hope more add to it.
</div></div>

Bubb, that is a lucid, well thought out response...I like it when something makes sense--that is a solid approach for many I think--well done

 

[Downzero]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RobG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Although I do get irritated sometimes when I feel like I'm being browbeat into spending more than I need to on equipment, <span style="font-weight: bold">I think it's just as possible to be an arrogant snob about how little you spend on your rig as how much</span>. A lot of these threads would be a lot more enjoyable (perhaps less entertaining, though...) if we left some of the swagger at home.

John </div></div>

So true. I always lose intrest when it inevitably turns to, "I outshot guys that spent 5x as much as I did in my first match." No one is dogging anybody for shooting less expensive gear. If thats what you can afford and/or all you want to spend and it works for you, great. There is no need to think that everybody that buys expensive gear is a gear snob/wannabe operator/fanboy. </div></div>

I hope you didn't get that from my post at all.

There's a lot of good product out there, at almost any price point. All I'm trying to say is that "quality" means that a product does the job.

There's no doubt in my mind that some of the more expensive products have exceptional quality, well beyond that which I am even remotely capable of using, and for those who operate their rifles in extreme conditions, I'm sure that's much appreciated. For me, though, I'm happy with what I have, which is within my budget, and works.

 

[shoot4fun]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

I use quite a few of the Burris Signature Zee rings on prairie dog guns. These guns usually travel 1200+ miles in a gun box in the bed of my truck before they get to their targets. I have had zero failures. No broken rings, no slipping scopes, no loss of zero. Do I have any on my high $$ GAP, APA or other builds? No.
I do have a couple of pairs of Warne tactical rings and I like them. They have never given me reason not to. I do think you should match the rings to the scope and rifle. I wouldn't use cheap rings to hold a Premier on a 338LM or a 50 BMG. All one needs to do is see slomo video as to how much the big guns stress the scope, mount and rings.

 

[jrob300]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RobG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Although I do get irritated sometimes when I feel like I'm being browbeat into spending more than I need to on equipment, <span style="font-weight: bold">I think it's just as possible to be an arrogant snob about how little you spend on your rig as how much</span>. A lot of these threads would be a lot more enjoyable (perhaps less entertaining, though...) if we left some of the swagger at home.

John </div></div>

So true. I always lose intrest when it inevitably turns to, "I outshot guys that spent 5x as much as I did in my first match." No one is dogging anybody for shooting less expensive gear. If thats what you can afford and/or all you want to spend and it works for you, great. There is no need to think that everybody that buys expensive gear is a gear snob/wannabe operator/fanboy. </div></div>

I hope you didn't get that from my post at all.

There's a lot of good product out there, at almost any price point. All I'm trying to say is that "quality" means that a product does the job.

There's no doubt in my mind that some of the more expensive products have exceptional quality, well beyond that which I am even remotely capable of using, and for those who operate their rifles in extreme conditions, I'm sure that's much appreciated. For me, though, I'm happy with what I have, which is within my budget, and works. </div></div>

My part of that post was NOT targeted at you.

John

 

[Downzero]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RobG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Although I do get irritated sometimes when I feel like I'm being browbeat into spending more than I need to on equipment, <span style="font-weight: bold">I think it's just as possible to be an arrogant snob about how little you spend on your rig as how much</span>. A lot of these threads would be a lot more enjoyable (perhaps less entertaining, though...) if we left some of the swagger at home.

John </div></div>

So true. I always lose intrest when it inevitably turns to, "I outshot guys that spent 5x as much as I did in my first match." No one is dogging anybody for shooting less expensive gear. If thats what you can afford and/or all you want to spend and it works for you, great. There is no need to think that everybody that buys expensive gear is a gear snob/wannabe operator/fanboy. </div></div>

I hope you didn't get that from my post at all.

There's a lot of good product out there, at almost any price point. All I'm trying to say is that "quality" means that a product does the job.

There's no doubt in my mind that some of the more expensive products have exceptional quality, well beyond that which I am even remotely capable of using, and for those who operate their rifles in extreme conditions, I'm sure that's much appreciated. For me, though, I'm happy with what I have, which is within my budget, and works. </div></div>

My part of that post was NOT targeted at you.

John </div></div>

Okay, cool.

There are plenty of gear queers here.

 

[jbell]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

Hitnbombs , you can get some very good (inexpensive) rings like TPS , Leupold PRW , Warren , ect. They will serve the puropse very good for holding the scope on the rifle securely if properly installed. However they can be a little more difficult if you need to swap scops around or remove your scope for maintence for some reason. That being said the less expensive rings are fine if thats wat you want , but I think we have all been here at one point in time and usualy end up at some point upgrading for one reason or another. So my point is its usually cheeper in the long rin to buy the best the first time around. Enjoy your new rifle!

 

[Spuhr]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

Regardless of the price of the rings, they are still cheaper than many single competitions and single hunts that are at a fair distance from your home.
And I have been at many IPSC competitions (pistol) where I repetadly see the same people have constant problems with the same gun, over and over again.

To me personally quality is important, but scrathes are not.
And NIB means absolutely nothing to me.
So I have actually only in my life bought one NEW gun, and that was a Glock 17. The rest of my firearms are bought secondhand, cause I can simply not afford to buy new.
Same things with scopes and scopemounts.
If the wallet is to thin, it's always better to buy a secondhand top quality scopemount or scope, than bo buy a new item of less quality.

Håkan

 

[Bubb]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

Now there's a point we missed! If money is tight, buy the best second hand scopes and rings. You can shave off 1/4, and some times a third of the price! Which would be worth waiting for!

 

[sable]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

I spent 200 bucks on a pair of Badger Ord rings, and near the same on one their bases. I do not regret this purchase after experiencing the quality of the products.

I bought a 25 dollars scope base for my 10/22 to use with some rings a member here gave me from the pay it forward thread. When the base got to my door, i shit you not, it was bent. Just from shipping. I feel CONFIDENT I could take a sledge hammer and hammer the Badger base through the hood of my car and it would damage the hammer rather than the base. So for me, i choose the best. Im still saving up for an optic, but when i get one, it wont be a Barska.

 

[Pat M]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

Warne makes great bases, mounts, and rings @ very affordable cost.
- I think NF rings are top for me -

 

[BCP]

Re: Rings question(Unbiased answers only)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bubb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm looking at the TPS rings for my APA .308 cause I feel the will do the job. Even if they where to ever break I can buy another set and still be under a set of badgers by a few bucks!
</div></div>

I don't see how they would break on a 308 unless something was wrong from the factory. TPS rings are as stout as anything else out there.

Most of my rifles have leupold rings on them and they are problem free.

The best rings I have used are Seekins but I can't think of anything they do that my TPS or Burris ones won't.