What Scope Rings or Mount should I get for the Vortex RAZOR® HD LHT™ 4.5-22X50 FFP on a Sig Cross 6.5 Creedmoor? I am thinking a medium height but not sure about it or the brand.
Last edited:
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Scope Rings/Mount for Vortex RAZOR® HD LHT™ 4.5-22X50 FFP on a Sig Cross 6.5 Creedmoor
- Thread starter adventuringit
- Start date
Do you already have both scope and gun? Are you trying to minimize weight? Are you willing to carry a bunch of weight and spend $400?
I have scope and rifle. I am looking for the lightest high performance option. Most shooting will be on the range, maybe a competition hear and there for fun, and then hunting every once in a while.
Just went through the process and ended up ordering a 1.5 Scalarworks. Probably would have got a Badger but couldn't find one in the dimensions I needed. You might have better luck at 30mm. After doing some research I came to the conclusion there are a bunch of solid mounts out there. It just depends on what cost/features/weight you're looking for.
Since you have both in hand, you can check this page out, it will walk you through how to choose the height you want:
www.americanrifle.com
Those rings are quite good, although there are lighter (less repeatable) rings out there, along with the various Spuhr one-piece mounts which are likely more repeatable but super heavy and expensive. Hawkins makes ultralight rings, about 4oz for a pair. Those M10's by ARC are about 1.5-2oz heavier.
If I was buying all new rings from scratch, I'd be getting the M10s. Love that single-screw design, much less likely to misalign your scope during installation, and ARC does top-notch work. The Spuhr option is too heavy and too expensive for my taste, but it's HUGELY popular for good reasons.
ETA: Repeatable in this case means you can take the scope off the gun, reinstall it, and have (ideally) the same zero. Since I move my scopes between different rifles in different calibers, this feature doesn't buy me anything; I have to re-zero no matter what.
M10 Scope Rings
www.americanrifle.com
Those rings are quite good, although there are lighter (less repeatable) rings out there, along with the various Spuhr one-piece mounts which are likely more repeatable but super heavy and expensive. Hawkins makes ultralight rings, about 4oz for a pair. Those M10's by ARC are about 1.5-2oz heavier.
If I was buying all new rings from scratch, I'd be getting the M10s. Love that single-screw design, much less likely to misalign your scope during installation, and ARC does top-notch work. The Spuhr option is too heavy and too expensive for my taste, but it's HUGELY popular for good reasons.
ETA: Repeatable in this case means you can take the scope off the gun, reinstall it, and have (ideally) the same zero. Since I move my scopes between different rifles in different calibers, this feature doesn't buy me anything; I have to re-zero no matter what.
Seekins Precision rings and EGW HD bases. Both 7075 T6 Aluminum. Lightweight, and super strong. I've never had an issue with any of my setups.
Neglected to mention I've got the Seekins/Vortex on most of my glass; wish they were M10's.
I have this scope in Seekins Precision low's on my Defiance Deviant Hunter, the objective sets about 1/8" off the barrel. Cant go wrong with Seekins.
What are your thoughts on this: https://www.shortactionprecision.com/collections/bases-and-rings/products/spuhr-unimountSince you have both in hand, you can check this page out, it will walk you through how to choose the height you want:
M10 Scope Rings
Those rings are quite good, although there are lighter (less repeatable) rings out there, along with the various Spuhr one-piece mounts which are likely more repeatable but super heavy and expensive. Hawkins makes ultralight rings, about 4oz for a pair. Those M10's by ARC are about 1.5-2oz heavier.
If I was buying all new rings from scratch, I'd be getting the M10s. Love that single-screw design, much less likely to misalign your scope during installation, and ARC does top-notch work. The Spuhr option is too heavy and too expensive for my taste, but it's HUGELY popular for good reasons.
ETA: Repeatable in this case means you can take the scope off the gun, reinstall it, and have (ideally) the same zero. Since I move my scopes between different rifles in different calibers, this feature doesn't buy me anything; I have to re-zero no matter what.
That's the Spuhr one I meant, it adds 3oz and over 100% in cost vs. the ARC M10s. But! Tons of people swear by them, and very respected shooters at that.
In short: if cost and weight are not a concern, you want the Spuhr Unimount, no question. If weight is the ultimate concern, the Hawkins Ultralight rings are your huckleberry. Otherwise, go with the M10s. While I agree that the Seekins/Vortex PMRs are quite good, the M10s just have a clear design advantage in the same price and weight class, so they make no sense to me if you haven't bought either. My last PMR pair came with a scope, so I didn't need to buy rings separate, that's the only reason they're on there and not M10s.
I think I can deal with 3 ounces. It also has the leveler which saves weight on adding one.
Now I have to figure out height.
Now I have to figure out height.
I wasn’t gonna press him too hard on the weight thing, because then I’m gonna have to ask him why he bought an ultralight FFP scope and then started cheerfully strapping extra ounces to it
So many options. What is the lightest most accurate scope mount? I like the weight of the rings but I was reading about the unimount and how it is machined for accuracy.
Most accurate? Did you mean tightest and smallest tolerances? I don't really know your answer and I'm not even sure the manufacturers would disclose that but I've had 1st hand experience with NF's X-treme Duty unimounts, Badger Ordnance Unimount, MPA's BA mount and Spuhr's SCP mount and I have zero issues with any of them. The Badger was the cheapest of the 4 I mentioned. I am a BIG unimount fan simply because I swap scopes around a lot and don't want to deal with the picatinny rail's tolerances.
”most accurate”: This is somewhat unclear. No mount system will make your weapon more accurate, but ones that torque your scope, slip under recoil, or come loose will hurt accuracy. None of the options proposed have a reputation for doing that, so I don’t think you have anything to worry about here. If you’re asking about repeatability, which means you can take it off of a rifle, put it back on, and keep your zero, then the unimounts will be better, but there’s a good chance you’ll still be 0.1-2 mil off. @AznTactical makes a good point about moving it to different rifles: not all Pic rails are created equal, so it’s possible that a poorly machined rail wouldn’t allow you to mount a scope that had rings set up on a properly machined rail. I’ve never had this happen and I only run rings; still, it could.
“lightest”: We’ve pretty much answered this, dude. Just google “ultralight scope rings” and compare weights. That’s it.
Listen, you’re gonna have to make compromises in this game, always. Cost, weight, availability, performance, resale value, aftermarket support, and more, these are all sliders and you will never get the best on every slider at the same time. In this case, most accurate (by which I’m going to assume you mean most repeatable) is the heaviest. Choose which matters for you more, and bear in mind that a mount that weighs and costs half as much as a unimount will be more accurate/repeatable than you are.
“lightest”: We’ve pretty much answered this, dude. Just google “ultralight scope rings” and compare weights. That’s it.
Listen, you’re gonna have to make compromises in this game, always. Cost, weight, availability, performance, resale value, aftermarket support, and more, these are all sliders and you will never get the best on every slider at the same time. In this case, most accurate (by which I’m going to assume you mean most repeatable) is the heaviest. Choose which matters for you more, and bear in mind that a mount that weighs and costs half as much as a unimount will be more accurate/repeatable than you are.
I have always trusted my setups to Seekins. Never had a single issue with them, and I am fairly rough on all my gear.
DK
DK
I had meant repeatable based on what you had said. I am still learning how this all works.
I just need to take what all has been said and make a decision. Thanks for the input.
I think I am leaning towards rings because of weight.
Sorry if I came across harsh, it’s personal failing off mine, especially on the Internet.
Hopefully we’re helping, but you should be able to pick your height easily, and I don’t think you can go wrong with anything that’s been suggested, it’s just weighing which features are the most important for you.
Happy shopping!
Hopefully we’re helping, but you should be able to pick your height easily, and I don’t think you can go wrong with anything that’s been suggested, it’s just weighing which features are the most important for you.
Happy shopping!
For shits and giggles and to try to prove my OCD towards unimounts I lapped some Warne Mountain Tech and Vortex PMR rings installed on EGW and Seekins picatinny rails. There was witnessed marks from the abrasive compound which is telling me that even if rings are perfect the tolerances of the pic rail may cause the rings to be not coaxial or concentric. I'm still using the same Warnes on my hunting rifle mainly because no other unimount can achieve the low height I wanted. There's lots of debate on lapping too. I never lap quality unimounts. I always lap rings.
What are your thoughts about these? https://www.milehighshooting.com/spuhr-sr-3000-30mm-separate-rings-0-moa-1/
Last edited:
I have moved scopes in Seekins rings from rifle to rifle to rifle and never and issue. I make sure my rifle bases are not stressed though. If they are then bed it and take it out and you won’t have to lap anything. I haven’t lapped a ring in almost two decades and never an issue. I wouldn’t lap any quality modern ring.
Interesting post. IMHO this is definitely true. Another option is releasing pressure off the optical tube and then putting the stress onto the crossbolts.
Last edited:
