Scope mount suggestions please.

[Hamm59701]

Just purchased a bergara ridge wilderness in 6.5 prc. I have a leupold vx3 4.5-14 44mm to mount. Obviously this will utilize remington 700 mounting options, (rail, one piece, 2 piece???) Prefer to save some weight but not critical, hoping to hear some productive insight on the best option. Thanks in advance.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I’ve had very good zero holding success with a picatinny rail epoxy bedded to action and ARC M10 rings. Lots of things are fine, I’ve found this combo excellent.
Also degrease all surfaces and threads with acetone prior to screwing together. It’s crazy how much oil is on most new components.
I don’t really care to save weight on mounting hardware, just my preference.

 

[220yotekiller]

I used a Leupold rail and Leupold Backcountry rings on my 700. Just make sure you get the lowest possible rings that will clear your bolt handle. Lower is always more stable. Always, always, always use ether nail polish or if you want, blue locktite to keep everything tied together.

 

[TN2shot07]

I know there are some fancy options out there but I’ve had good luck with the Leupold standard ring/bases and the dual dove tails on my hunting rifles.

The Talleys are a good lighter weight option and won’t break the bank either.

The flexibility and options of a rail are nice but i can’t stand the way it looks on a nice rifle. Completely personal problem!

 

[OntarioHunter]

I know there are some fancy options out there but I’ve had good luck with the Leupold standard ring/bases and the dual dove tails on my hunting rifles.

The Talleys are a good lighter weight option and won’t break the bank either.

The flexibility and options of a rail are nice but i can’t stand the way it looks on a nice rifle. Completely personal problem!

I am ordering a CCOP rail for my Springfield. Kinda out of necessity. I'm changing to detachable rings and no one makes anything extended which would be necessary given my scope's tube length and positioning of two piece bases on the receiver. These rails don't look too bad. Slots only on the ends and a cutaway section over the fixed magazine box to assist with loading through the top. The rail will allow me to close the distance between rings without tapping new hole(s) in the receiver. It will be easier to drill a new hole in the rail to match existing threaded screw hole in the receiver ahead of loading/ejection port.

 

[Hamm59701]

Thanks for all the input. Looking online led me to leupold backcountry one piece rings. Looks like a good middleground around $100. Any experience out there with them?

 

[nrpate05]

I'd go Talley lightweight one piece rings. They're money

 

[std7mag]

I use EGW (www.egwguns.com) one piece rails.
They are kinda tall, but lets you use low rings for up through 50mm objective.
For light weight rings, i use Vortex.

 

[MNfarmer]

My favorite for all my hunting guns is either Talley‘s or the DNZ gamereaper one piece mounts.

 

[El Jason]

Another vote for tally light weights.

 

[ImBillT]

My preference is 1-piece, and my preference is steel. I’ve had excellent experiences with Leupold QR, Leupold standard, Leupold MK 4, EGW, and Ferrell. That said, Leupold QR rings and bases will absolutely wear out, and the latest batches of Leupold standard bases has had absolutely terrible rear windage screws. I have not actually had any problems with aluminum bases or two piece bases, so when weight is an issue, I don’t hesitate to go that route.

One substantial problem I’ve encountered is Leupold Sako rings. They were very incorrectly engineered and absolutely cause problems at a high rate. You aren’t looking for a Sako base though, so no worries on that front.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Hawkins if getting one-piece. A good pic rail and rings installed as described by @SnowyMountaineer is always a good option and allows you to get the scope where it's perfect for eye relief while still having good ring spacing. Having rings too close to the turrets is a compromise that can result in a less reliable scope function.

I have used talley LW without issue but I'm also aware of plenty of people who have had failures so I wont put them on another rifle.

 

[Don Fischer]

Is this you first set of rings or have you had them before? If it's you first set, asking about rings is about like asking for anything else. Just depend's on who you talk to weather their good or not. Myself i like steel rings. Had a set of alumiun one time and thouth they worked, they were ugly! If you had rings before, anything wrong with what yoiu had? I tend to be a bit frugal and really don't like spending more than I need to to get a decent looking set that work. Key word is work. I don't recall ever having a set that didn't do exactly as they were designed to do. I tend these days to use Weaver steel mounts. They look fine, work well and won't break the bank! At the end of the day you could spend a lot on a set you don't really care for and they will work. Or you could spend quite a bit less on a set you like and they also will work. I've had Redfield and Leupold one piece base's and rings and no complaint at all, they also did what they were designed to do. Now on my Mod 70 I have a Redfield 2-7x scope and to mount it I had to get extension rings. Hope I neever have to do that again but, they do what they were designed to do. Happens again though and I'm looking for one of those one piece base's with all the slots for rings and hopefully not need to worry about extension rings. In the end, I have gone through a lot of set's of rings and bases and have never had a set not do what they were supposed to do. Set of aluminum Tasco's rings years ago had to get rid of because they were really really ulgy, you might thing different and they did do what they were supposed to do.

If this is not your first set, anything wrong with what you used before?

 

[Mattfeth]

I like using a Leupold rail with Warne rings. Haven’t had a reason to change.

 

[Boarmaster]

I pretty much am using the Talley LWs on my rifles these days. I might try the Luey backcountry sometime. I am not exceptionally hard on things.