Warne or Vortex rings?

[MTGunner]

I will be mounting a Burris 1” tube, Short Mag scope on my Tikka TX3 light weight 7MM RM rifle that I have mounted a 0 MOA picatinny rail. Not interested in 500 yard plus shots. Want good strong rings that will handle the 7 Magnum recoil. I am considering Warne or Vortex. What input can I glean from this knowable forum? Thanks in advance. MTG

 

[sneakypete]

I used Warne and like them. It’s a Howa superlite 6.5 creedmor.

 

[fishing4sanity]

I've used both with no problems. Probably just personal preference, but I prefer the horizontal split ring. Also, the Vortex rings I've heard were made by Seekins Precision, at least the higher-end rings. I usually go with mid to higher grade rings and use the manufacturer's torque specs. If Seekins does make some of Vortex's rings, you can also buy from Seekins.

 

[mtmuley]

I'm in the no rail crowd. Puts me in the minority these days. Using two piece rings as of late. mtmuley

 

[std7mag]

I've used & have both.
To keep weight down i prefer the Vortex Viper rings.
Torqued to 18inlb, they stand up to 7mm magnums no problem.

The Warnes are solid rings too! Installing them can be a PITA though.

 

[Seamaster]

A while back I used some Seekins rings marketed by Vortex on a target rifle that were very good. I seem to remember that they cost somewhere in excess $100. I am fairly sure that Vortex puts their name on other manufacturers rings as well, but if you are sure they are the ones made by Seekins they would be worth consideration. I often use Seekins rings on my target rifles.

I use the Warne rings on many of my hunting rifles, including some with very heavy recoil (much more than a 7mm mag). They are priced right and very solid. Recently I have been using the rings that are joined horizontally instead of the vertical split rings. The verticals are solid but to remove the scope from the rifle for any reason they must be disassembled unless they are the QR version. The horizontally split rings allow the scope to be removed and reattached easily with return very close to the original zero, the verticals do not. I often carry a zeroed spare scope in rings when I travel to hunt, so I have quit buying vertical rings.

The Leupold PRW 2 rings (not the original PRW) are very much like the Warn horizontals and are also high quality. I have a few rifles with the Leupold PRW 2 rings and am very happy with them.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I used Warne QD rings on a steel rail when I upgraded my 30-06 WWII Springfield. They were a bit fiddly to install but far from a "pain in the arse." They hold zero after reattached. If you're using a rail, I see no need to lap the rings. Be advised that every manufacturer of rings has a different idea what constitutes "low," "medium," etc height. Important to get it right or you'll be hunting for the crosshairs and unsteady on the gun.

 

[morgaj1]

I have used the Warne vertically split rings before. While they function well, I don't like fact that you have to disassemble the whole ring when taking the scope off the rail. Also, they tend to mark up the scope tube worse than other rings.

The Seekins option above is a great one. Also, Warne's Mountain Tech rings are solid. If you don't want to use a rail, DNZ Game Reaper is a great choice.

 

[antelopedundee]

TPS Products rings are pretty decent too.

 

[PorterHouse]

Have Warne setups on a couple different rifles and have been very happy! Can’t comment on Vortex as I’ve never used them.

 

[Boarmaster]

Never used vortex but I have used Warnes a few times. No issues with the warnes I have.

 

[antelopedundee]

What would be the expected ramifications of recoil? Would the screws that secure the ring halves break or the rings themselves break. Most of the good sets should have at least 2 screws per side securing the ring halves. Some for "tactical" use have 3. I like mine to secure to the rail and tighten using hex nuts. I won't use those that tighten with Allen screws, Torx maybe. I prefer the style and appearance of the Leupold Mark 4s. YMMV

 

[Sheltowee]

+1 for Warne, especially on a high-ish recoiling, light rifle like your Tikka. Really like the crossbar/steel recoil key in the Maximas.

 

[MTGunner]

Thanks to all for the input. MTG

 

[OntarioHunter]

I have used the Warne vertically split rings before. While they function well, I don't like fact that you have to disassemble the whole ring when taking the scope off the rail. Also, they tend to mark up the scope tube worse than other rings.

The Seekins option above is a great one. Also, Warne's Mountain Tech rings are solid. If you don't want to use a rail, DNZ Game Reaper is a great choice.

Curious about your problems with rings marking the tube. I haven't encountered this with my Warne rings. Have you checked to see if your bases are misaligned? The Weaver bases on my Springfield were not properly aligned due to poor job tapping the receiver by poor quality gunsmith. I had to do significant shimming or turrets would run out. Switching to a rail fixed the issue.

I think if one is considering changing scopes on the fly, you should go with quick detach if deciding for Warne rings. Yes, their vertically split standard rings are not handy for this. My Warne QD rings cost ~$80 ($60 US) which is quite reasonable. Not sure their non-QD rings would be any cheaper. As I said, these QD rings hold zero very well. Not sure I would trust swapping scopes with half the standard rings staying mounted to rifle. The scope is never going to reattach to the rifle in exactly the same place the same way. To get it even close to zero, the scope and ring base would both need to be marked before the scope is removed. With QD rings, the rings and scope remain a single unit when the scope is removed. As long as the bases/rail doesn't change (and it shouldn't if properly mounted), the scope(s) should retain zero and eye relief should remain unchanged.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Nothing bad to say about Warnes, other than weight. They're heavy, but solid and functional. I've never used Vortex rings. I really like Talley rings, but maybe you've had bad experiences with them and heavy recoil?

 

[OntarioHunter]

Steel rings are heavier but what's an ounce or two in the grand scheme of things? This current fad for lightweight rifles has gone to absurd extremes, especially in magnum calibres. I'm not necessarily recoil sensitive but I sure don't see any point in brutalizing myself either. The day I can't carry an eight pound rifle to the top of the mountain, I'll be ready for a walker. I do NOT trust aluminum rings (or bases), especially on magnum caliber rifles. Stripping out, galvanization, irregular contraction and expansion, and shitty looking Krylon-ish finish are all a turn off.

I'm not sure if Talley rings are are any lighter than Warne ... but their price tag is certainly a lot heavier.

 

[antelopedundee]

Steel rings are heavier but what's an ounce or two in the grand scheme of things? This current fad for lightweight rifles has gone to absurd extremes, especially in magnum calibres. I'm not necessarily recoil sensitive but I sure don't see any point in brutalizing myself either. The day I can't carry an eight pound rifle to the top of the mountain, I'll be ready for a walker. I do NOT trust aluminum rings (or bases), especially on magnum caliber rifles. Stripping out, galvanization, irregular contraction and expansion, and shitty looking Krylon-ish finish are all a turn off.

I'm not sure if Talley rings are are any lighter than Warne ... but their price tag is certainly a lot heavier.

FWIW Leupold Mark 4 30mm medium steel rings are listed at 7.8 ounces whereas the aluminum ones are 3.6 ounces. I had recently purchased a used set of the steel rings, but sold them and got the TPS Products aluminum ones. Plop a 20 ounce Leupold 171715 scope on the gun and it's a noticeable heft.

 

[morgaj1]

Curious about your problems with rings marking the tube. I haven't encountered this with my Warne rings. Have you checked to see if your bases are misaligned? The Weaver bases on my Springfield were not properly aligned due to poor job tapping the receiver by poor quality gunsmith. I had to do significant shimming or turrets would run out. Switching to a rail fixed the issue.

I think if one is considering changing scopes on the fly, you should go with quick detach if deciding for Warne rings. Yes, their vertically split standard rings are not handy for this. My Warne QD rings cost ~$80 ($60 US) which is quite reasonable. Not sure their non-QD rings would be any cheaper. As I said, these QD rings hold zero very well. Not sure I would trust swapping scopes with half the standard rings staying mounted to rifle. The scope is never going to reattach to the rifle in exactly the same place the same way. To get it even close to zero, the scope and ring base would both need to be marked before the scope is removed. With QD rings, the rings and scope remain a single unit when the scope is removed. As long as the bases/rail doesn't change (and it shouldn't if properly mounted), the scope(s) should retain zero and eye relief should remain unchanged.

It happened on 2 different rifles/rings with mine. Both were mounted on a plumb picatinny rail. Its a fairly common issue with Warne vertically split rings.

Removing a set of horizontally split rings (like Warne Mountain Techs) is the same concept as your QD rings except it takes a wrench to loosen the bottom bolts. They come off in one piece attached to the scope. All you do to reassemble is put them on the rail and torque the bottom bolt.

 

[antelopedundee]

I've got Murphy Precision stainless pic bases on 2 of my stainless actions. They are also available in titanium if that's your preference. Buckeye Optics [eBay for one place] has stainless rings at about $175 a pair. A base and 2 rings can cost half as much as the rifle if one wants to get spendy. OTOH there are ring sets on eBay for under $25 that might likely work just as well.