[cnelson181]

Well, I got them in today. Mounted, lapped, and resighted the rifle in. (bloody 50 F. here WOW!)

So here are some pics. OKshooter was correct. They are .625" from top of the dovetail to the bottom of the scope tube. Scope is a Weaver V24 w/ Varminter reticle. Without further ado..... (I suck at taking pics. )

Craig...

 

[avidhunter1]

I like CZ's rings. I have screws loose, but not in my rings.

you said it

 

[Steve in IN]

... OKshooter was correct. They are .625" from top of the dovetail to the bottom of the scope tube. ...

So, they are the same ht. as their 11 mm rings.
Avidhunter, you don't get points when I make it that easy.

 

[cgv69]

Thanks for the pics guys.

What I learned from this thread is the CZ rings are a little too tall for a 40-42mm scope (IMO anyway) and the BKL's are even taller. Mind you, I like my scopes as low as they will go (to the point of almost touching the barrel out front or maybe just high enough to make room for flip caps) but that's just me.

Are these the Brownells\Warne 7.3 rings I've read a lot about?..

If so, do any of you know if the stated high on Brownells sight is correct (.406")? If so, I also read they fit the American's rail well and they are priced right. They are just a little on the ugly side IMO

 

[cnelson181]

cgv69, those are Warne 7.3/22 rings.

The ones that Brownels has under their name made by Warne are a little wider and utilize a double base screw.

The heights for them are .425" for the medium and .525 for the high's.

They fit the 11mm dovetail wonderfully. I have a set on my CZ Scout.

I don't necessarily like the fit of them on the CZ's 3/8" dovetail. They do fit a standard 3/8" dovetail (Marlin, Savage) quite well. :t

I do not like the way that you have to snap them over the scope tube. You can easily scratch the tube. I also don't like the 3/4 circumfurance ring top. The way it's positioned and the angle in which the retaining screw goes into the bottom half opens the door for you to crimp the scope tube. I have expierenced this on more than one occasion and no I wasn't torquing on the rings.

Just my personal preference. They are a good ring for the 11mm

 

[Steve in IN]

... What I learned from this thread is the CZ rings are a little too tall for a 40-42mm scope (IMO anyway) ...(

That is true for the American barrels, etc. For the Varmint barrels, the rings are about as low as you can go with 40 or 42 mm AO scope.

 

[JEE]

Ha... you posted in my thread and I posted in yours.

The fit is good.

I'll post some clearance pics under my 4200 4-16x40mm SF once I've lapped them.

 

[avidhunter1]

So, they are the same ht. as their 11 mm rings.
Avidhunter, you don't get points when I make it that easy.

AWWWW come on

 

[cgv69]

cgv69, those are Warne 7.3/22 rings.

The ones that Brownels has under their name made by Warne are a little wider and utilize a double base screw.

The heights for them are .425" for the medium and .525 for the high's.

They fit the 11mm dovetail wonderfully. I have a set on my CZ Scout.

Good to know. I need a new set for my scout. I just got one of those Weaver SG scopes and tried to use a set of Tally's but had bolt clearance issues. Probably would have been fine if I mounted the scope back further (to fit behind the rear sight) but I took the rear sight off so I could mount the scope further forward. The Talley's are listed as .350 or .400 depending on who you ask? I wonder if these Warne's at .425 will be tall enough?

I do not like the way that you have to snap them over the scope tube. You can easily scratch the tube. I also don't like the 3/4 circumfurance ring top. The way it's positioned and the angle in which the retaining screw goes into the bottom half opens the door for you to crimp the scope tube. I have expierenced this on more than one occasion and no I wasn't torquing on the rings.

Just my personal preference. They are a good ring for the 11mm

Well I do agree with you there. I am not a fan of that style at all. I'll deal with them for the scout (assume they work for my app) but they are not something I would like to use on an American with a nice scope.

Honestly, I haven't seen what I consider a good option for the American with a 40-42mm Obj.? The CZ's and BKL's are too tall. Don't care for the looks of the Warnes and apparently they don't sit ideally on the American. Same thing with the Burris rings. The 13mm Luepolds look nice and apprently fit well but only come in gloss and are not tall enough for a 40mm A/O. There are some others I'm forgetting right now but none of them seem "right" to me.

That is true for the American barrels, etc. For the Varmint barrels, the rings are about as low as you can go with 40 or 42 mm AO scope.

Yeah, but these rings are for the American! I guess they just made them the same size as their 11mm rings?

 

[JEE]

Good to know. I need a new set for my scout. I just got one of those Weaver SG scopes and tried to use a set of Tally's but had bolt clearance issues. Probably would have been fine if I mounted the scope back further (to fit behind the rear sight) but I took the rear sight off so I could mount the scope further forward. The Talley's are listed as .350 or .400 depending on who you ask? I wonder if these Warne's at .425 will be tall enough?

The Warne 22 mediums are tall enough to clear it. I don't have pics of the Weaver SG scope in those exact rings on my Scout, but I do know that they are just a little bit taller than the low B-Squares that I was using with it.

I'm using the Warne mediums now, just with a different scope... anyway, the actual height is .456".

If you wonder why the scope is so forward, the eye relief is over 4 inches.

 

[cnelson181]

cgv69,

I have the Weaver SG 4x on my little one's Scout. :t The mediums will work fine. I have the high's on mine, but that is what I had on hand at the time. :t

Craig...

 

[JEE]

I'm very pleased!

I got steel rings that fit perfectly... The clearance is nearly what I had before... and the scope is now centered over the bore. :bthumb:

 

[cgv69]

cnelson & JEE, thanks for the add info :bthumb:

JEE - I forget, what scope is that on your scope? IIRC it is a discontinued Burris model but I forget which one?

 

[cnelson181]

cgv,

that scope there in JEE's pic is a Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x40mm sf. :t

Craig...

 

[cgv69]

cgv,

that scope there in JEE's pic is a Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x40mm sf. :t

Craig...

Craig, Thanks but I was referring to his second to last pic of his scout with the small scope

 

[cgv69]

cgv,

that scope there in JEE's pic is a Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x40mm sf. :t

Craig...

Craig, Thanks but I was referring to his second to last pic of his scout with the small scope

 

[MGT]

Craig, Thanks but I was referring to his second to last pic of his scout with the small scope

It looks like an older/discontined USA made Burris Compact 4x20. JEE will be along soon enough with the right answer. The closest thing in the current Burris line would be the Philippine made Burris Timberline 4x20.

Here is a bit of history on this Compact/ShortMag/Timberline by Chuck Hawk.

 

[cnelson181]

Ahhhh, sorry. Misunderstood. :t

Craig...

 

[JEE]

Yep... it's a 4x20mm Burris Compact. This was what they were calling them after the "Mini" series and before the Short Mag Series, which was the last of these being made in the USA. I sent this particular one to Burris for a fine plex reticle and a parallax change. It's definitely one of my favorites and it's too bad that Burris has discontinued them altogether.

There are still 4x Timberlines around and they should still be good scopes and I would hope that they are built to the same specs. The USA ones are getting a little harder to find on the auction sites, but pop up from time to time.

More and more scope makers seem to be abandoning their fixed power lines which is a shame, but the trends of the market decided. I'm glad that Leupold is still holding on, but even they have trimmed a little.

I'd love to see the return of the Weaver T10... but probably only a handful of kooks like me would buy them.