Do rings matter?
3999
81
Hello all,
I just purchased a new savage mkII and it came with an ok weaver 3x9 scope. I have already purchased a new scope but am currently looking at rings. My questions is how much do the rings matter in terms of quality when used for a .22 for general plinking and groups between 50 and 100 yards?
I just purchased a new savage mkII and it came with an ok weaver 3x9 scope. I have already purchased a new scope but am currently looking at rings. My questions is how much do the rings matter in terms of quality when used for a .22 for general plinking and groups between 50 and 100 yards?
1 - 20 of 82 Posts
I've been using Monstrum rings lately, including on my CZ 455 for target matches. For the last pair, I even lapped them, although it certainly didn't look as though it was necessary either before or after I got done with it. Some people have strong beliefs about "You get what you pay for" in general, and about the precision of various brands/models of rings. I don't, and I have a box full of different level/cost rings for a variety of rifles over more than 30 years. But I wouldn't try to convince anyone to change his mind about this. 😂 It often depends on the look you want to go for or the specific purpose or rifle or likely conditions to which they'll be subjected.
Certainly there is junk out there. Certainly there is overpriced stuff out there. Read a bunch of detailed reviews and make your choice.
Certainly there is junk out there. Certainly there is overpriced stuff out there. Read a bunch of detailed reviews and make your choice.
Joined
·
541 Posts
They don't matter unless you get serious about longer range shooting, or are really rough on your gear.
Use some NON PERMANENT thread locker, a torque wrench, and quit worrying about it.
That said, I got some 'stainless" rings once that were stripped out from the factory, they came with a cheap Simmons scope...so it might be worth spending more than $5 on rings.
Use some NON PERMANENT thread locker, a torque wrench, and quit worrying about it.
That said, I got some 'stainless" rings once that were stripped out from the factory, they came with a cheap Simmons scope...so it might be worth spending more than $5 on rings.
Joined
·
527 Posts
as long as machined correctly they will not matter. I have used Amazon cheap rings on 1" tube and 30mm scopes for plinking rifles and as long as all threads allowed proper and reasonable even torque (example 15in lb for ring screws) and have performed fine on bolt and semi rifles. They do matter in some circumstances for features needed like ultra light, ultra touch, bridge mounts, sturdy elr etc.
you can also put tiny paint lines on all screws after torquing that way you cna see if they 'move' in addition to tiny lower strength threadlock, if you dont mind the aesthetic.
you can also put tiny paint lines on all screws after torquing that way you cna see if they 'move' in addition to tiny lower strength threadlock, if you dont mind the aesthetic.
Joined
·
702 Posts
Agreed. It's not a win. mag requiring nightforce 300$ rings but good rings for nice rifle will pay dividends.
Joined
·
44 Posts
Do you have a specific set you've been gravitating to? I've seen a bunch on amazon is there specific ones to look out for?
Thank you everyone who has provided information on the topic.
They matter. Some cheap cast rings have a depression on the bearing surface and can mark the scope, Some cheap rings will not be in alignment. Some cheap rings will not hold well. Some cheap rings look cheap.
I prefer Burris signature ring which cost a little more, but eliminate almost every ring problem. It doesn’t make sense to me to study what rifle and scope are best suited for what you want to do, and then put little or no thought into what base or rings you want to hold it all together.
I prefer Burris signature ring which cost a little more, but eliminate almost every ring problem. It doesn’t make sense to me to study what rifle and scope are best suited for what you want to do, and then put little or no thought into what base or rings you want to hold it all together.
Well, he suggested he is using Monstrum, and that is the exact Chinese brand I now avoid. I got a set that had the holes drilled offset, I am not new to scope mounting and I caught the problem before trying to mount the scope. After sending them back I read reviews on the same rings and sure enough, I was not the only one to receive them in that state. On the other hand, I have had great luck with the Monstrum brand scope flip covers.
IMO, you don't need to spend crazy money, but sub $90 for a quality set of rings that mount a nice optic is worth it. I have never spent $100+ for rings but I have for flat top AR mounts.
Joined
·
527 Posts
the cheapest ones I ever tried were 'modkin' at 14$ these were used on 22s that will only see a range for casual plinking and wont even see woods for hunting use. My other goto is vortex not cheapies but they stand behind their (made in china) product. All else i use Sphur and ivey, kelbly, nightforce
Here are the ones I'm using with my Athlon Argos 8-34x56 scope: Monstrum Precision Picatinny Scope Rings 30mm
Here are the ones I used for the 1" 6-24x40 Tasco scope I had on it previously: Monstrum Precision Picatinny Scope Rings 1 inch
Here is what's holding a small Tasco scope on my S&W AR-15/22: Monstrum Slim Profile Series Offset Cantilever Picatinny Scope Mount, 1".
I've also got a Monstrum Picatinny Riser on the AR-15/22, a Monstrum flashlight on that rifle, and I've got the Monstrum Scope Ring Alignment and Lapping Tool Kit. I haven't had any problems with any of it. The rings are perhaps not the most elegant and artistic in the world, but for the guns I've got them on all I care about is function and reliability. For different rifles I might look elsewhere.
The Vortex scope on my wife's AR-15 is being held on with cheap Leupold Rifleman rings. If that rifle were being used for anything other than target shooting and some wildlife control, I'd want something sturdier. But for our purposes, they're fine.
My 457 sits under an Arken scope mounted in Arken rings. I figure if the scope manufacturer makes rings they should mate well with their scope.
On the other hand, I have a Remington 700 LTR and the Burris scope on it is mounted in a pair of ARC rings..... NOT cheap but I love those rings!
On the other hand, I have a Remington 700 LTR and the Burris scope on it is mounted in a pair of ARC rings..... NOT cheap but I love those rings!
Joined
·
135 Posts
It's best to lap all no matter the price.
I like Burris Sigs too, have them on all my scoped rifles. I like them because they are solid, well made, NEVER damage the scope and, with the accessory inserts, provide up to 40 MOA or so of external adjustment where needed or desirable. But the OP didn't ask about any of that, and I limited my response to just what he asked. For 50-100 yd. plinking with a .22 you really don't need exceptional rings. Just about anything will do if they're properly made. The best inexpensive rings I've ever used on a rimfire are BKL's. They have no faults. BKL rings meet all normal requirements if external adjustments aren't needed, are well made, have never damaged a scope I've had them on and cost about half as much as Burris Sigs. If I wasn't willing to spend $40-80 for rings I'd use BKL's.
I know that this continues to be viewed as the "best practice." But I've put a bunch of scopes on without lapping, and a bunch with lapping. My suspicion is that -- particularly with the materials and machining now being used -- lapping in general should be unnecessary -- IF there isn't some problem with the base or receiver or the scope itself. Of the last four scopes I've mounted, I've lapped only one set of rings -- and only because I was being especially careful with my rimfire target rifle. And in that case there appeared to be nothing gained other than a little smoothing/polishing. Also, I think there's some argument that lapping may contribute more in the case of higher recoil rifles, though even that seems more dogma than anything based on empirical study. This is something a lot of people believe strongly, and they won't be deterred.
Still, I won't recommend against lapping -- which will often require you to pay someone to do it if you don't have the necessary equipment yourself. And you probably should pay someone if you aren't pretty confident in what you're doing. How much lapping is enough? How much lapping is too much? How can you tell? There are some fine lines there. It's like lapping tuning slides on brass musical instruments (which I've done a LOT), care must be taken or you end up ruining something that you were trying to improve. Oops.
I've noticed that the practice of lapping is usually recommended the most by people who sell lapping tools. Obviously Burris Signature rings, with their plastic inserts, can't benefit from lapping, and frankly none others I've used over the decades have ever needed it either - so far as I can tell, anyway. But if I ever have any doubts then I guess I'll be in the market for a lapping tool. They cost a lot less than a good scope.
😂 😂 😂 But lapping tools are cool. What's not to like about a few steel bars? But you need a differenc set for each diameter scope tube. And once you invest in the tool, why not lap every set of rings you install? Just to amortize the investment. I know mine's sitting on the shelf awaiting it's next chance -- which may never come. Oh, well, my son will end up with it.
There's also a pretty lengthy history of using various sorts of non-metallic strips inside rings (I recall some cases of that stuff actually coming with the rings) to ensure a higher degree of conformity and friction between ring and scope, along with careful directions on how to use it. I think that different schools of thought evolved on how best to secure a scope in rings -- along with a bunch of horror stories about scopes being ruined by doing things wrong in one way or another. Along with a dose of "Since things can be done this way, they should be done this way. It is the way."Lloyd S said:
And NOBODY wants to ruin a nice scope.
1 - 20 of 82 Posts
