SCOPE RINGS

  • 825 Views
  • Last Post 27 October 2015
joeb33050 posted this 03 October 2015

Burris Signature Zee rings are the best scope rings I've ever used, they don't mark the scope and have those adjustment inserts. But they cost ~$40. On inexpensive scopes, I've been using Tasco mounts, with the ?fiber?cloth?inserts that keep the scope from being marked. On a $30 Weaver K4, $65 Weaver V9 and $100 Midway/Simmons Whitetail Classic at ~$5 they seem to work just fine so far, no marks and no slippy. I still use the Burris rings on more valuable scopes, but I'm too cheap to put $40 rings on a $30 scope.

http://www.opticsplanet.com/tasco-high-centerfire-rings.html

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
bandmiller2 posted this 03 October 2015

That sounds like something I would do, and their even good looking rings too. Frank C.

Attached Files

Mustafa Curtess posted this 27 October 2015

Ditto, here - regarding Tasco scope rings. I have 3 scopes for my 45 Colt Marlin “Cowboy Limited” M1894 re-make). I load it closer to 454 Casull levels. It will cycle extra long COL fromthe magazine - which insures that none of this ammo gets into one of the revolvers. I have each scope labelled for the distance it is zeroed at, and just mount the appropriate scope for the bench I am using. It has been so long since I've neeeded to buy more rings - I forget exactly. but certain scopes require “extended” rings. I think it is Remington that makes them ("Quad-Lok” something.) They work equally well - and are equally affordable.   With a well-proven “standard” CB and load, the previous Zero is still “on” when I mount the scope for a different (silhouette) distance. Scope quality has improved so much over the past 30 -40 years - that one popular brand is as good as any other. If there is ever any problem - it is not the scope - it is ME!  Never mind the ballistics statistics - the 45 Colt loaded  with a 355 gr pointed plain-based Cb is an absolute joy at 400 meters, with impressive striking energy that is reflected in the satisfactory displacement of the “swinger” animal targets. I have long suspected that many of our bullet-casters' notions about terminal effectiveness is based too much on arm-chair gun-writers' prejudices - instead of actual tested results. Hypothetically, they may be “right” - but realistically they are all full of beans.  Incidentally: I have been working with the limitations of ridiculously “slow” twist-rates and how we interpret the Greenhill Formula. Restriced by the (ultra-slow blackpowder rifling that many of our cartridges are still afflicted with - and my need for heavier (and longer) CB's, I have had some custom moulds made that depend more on aerodynamics - than they do on bullet length. I am happy to report that so long as a bullet has a nice, sharp, point at the nose - the Greenhill predictions for length can be greatly exceeded - and still have bullets that remain stable all the way to the target (up to 600 yds. / 500 meters

Attached Files

Close