Thread: I need to learn about rings

Like the subject says..I know a little bit about a bunch of things shooting wiser but SFA about rings. Yeah, I know, you get what you pay for and pay for what you get. But honestly, its pretty horrible trying to figure out why some rings are priced at $100 and some, that purportedly do the same job, cost hundreds more. I know you're going to say "they don't do the same job, thats why some cost more", but how do you know where the value really is for what is delivered? I know enough not to expect great results for $20. I see rings offered on the forum for $100+ and eventually sold for much less. I see rings snapped up at a lot higher prices and wonder what the heck? I probably offended someone recently by offering $60 when $80 was being asked on an original offer of $100.

In this particular case I'm after a set of rings to mount a Scout scope on a Rossi Puma which I have a Pearson rail on. 1" rings required, medium height, (I think).

Then I have a CZ 550 coming that I will need some rings for. Worlds apart right? So they are not likely to be similar priced rings right? But how much different? And why - technically? The CZ is in 6.5x55 by the way.

FWIW I am more a moderate range hunter not a long range shooter - under 300 with the CZ, up to 120 with the 357 - most shots with either are sub 100. I use the range for practice and fun but don't really compete.

If there are threads already elucidating all this please direct me. Otherwise have at it.

some rings run rings around other rings

Originally Posted by northdude

some rings run rings around other rings

I guess humor is always a good start...

Pm sent mate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My conclusion is that rings do not matter. The choices really only come down to aesthetics.

My reasons for this conclusion include:

* despite that scopes guns ammos get tested, I do not see rings get tested, ever.
* no one has come up with any good testing methodology for testing rings.
* I have used many rings, so long as they align perfectly, and most do anyway, I have never experienced any functional difference.
* steel rings are more expensive because they are harder to machine, but they are heavier and do not appear to have any functional advantage. Most scope rails are aluminium, yet no one ever complained. All modern scope tubes too

Warne rings are very good on the CZ actions, steel and nicely made without being too expensive. Aluminium rings are fine for most hunting rifle applications, especially those with 4 cap screws, and double clamp screws. Single clamp screws are easily broken if you over-tighten them. The aluminium Weaver bases are quite capable of withstanding a lifetime of use. There are some very expensive proprietry steel mounting systems that are no better than the Weaver system. Most ring problems are in the screws, either being over-tightened or buggered with ill-fitting tools. There is no real difference in the performance of good quality screws, be they slotted, socket, or Torx. Personally I think only slotted screws look correct on a quality rifle.

Cheap rings tend to have cheaper metal. In most cases this would be fine, but they tend to also use cheaper (easier to strip) screws. Tolerances tend to be closer and more consistent on better rings. Digging out a stripped screw or one that has stripped loose on the bush can mean you end up carrying a heavy ornament for a trip....

And some rifles such as the CZ or Tikka can have proprietary bases so that you have to use their rings and not the cheaper options.....

The best "cheap" rings I have seen were the Mountmaster rings by Nikko Stirling that they put with their AO mount master scopes. two screws each side of the clamp and two on the clamp to hold it to the rifle.