Rimfire Central Firearm Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've read a lot of the off-hand references here to how bad the Ruger-supplied base is, but I haven't seen anyone say WHY it's bad. It's a pretty simple tool, after all - a strip of aluminum with four holes in it for mounting to the receiver. It's low enough so that you can see over it to the factory iron sights?

So what's wrong with it?

Jaywalker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
When

I first got my 10/22, I was using a Tasco 4x32 scope (not that heavy). No matter how tight I got the rings on that base, they crept steadily forward toward the muzzle over time. They could not handle the steady, "jack hammer" recoil of the rifle. I got the rings so tight on that base that they cut deeply into the aluminum, but they STILL moved slowly forward, peeling back the bases' metal like petals on a flower.

You might do ok with the factory base if you use a VERY light scope, install a good bolt buffer, and stay away from hi-velocity ammo.

Just my experience, but it seems pretty common.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
I never had a problem with the factory base till I moved up to a higher magnification scope. The heavier the scope is the more it is prone to move on a narrow base. The weaver style rail is designed to prevent this and the rings are better for this kind of base.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,084 Posts
Ruger 10/22 Scope Base Adapter

Jaywalker,

The two issues that give the "Ruger" SBA [Scope Base Adapter] a bad reputation are:

1. It is designed to accept only "Tip-Off" rings. These are the rings originally designed for 3/4" tube rimfire type scopes of the 50's and 60's. It will not accept the much more popular "Weaver" 'DTM' rings, or the "Weaver type" rings...! ! :(

2. Many, if not most, "Tip-Off" rings sold today are made from the cheapest of materials: soft, mild pressed steel, or, dead soft aluminum. Both deform under the slighest of loading, and will not hold the larger, and therefore heavier, 1" scopes popular today.

However, the "Weaver" 'Tip-Off' rings, offered in 7/8" and 1" have a hardened steel clamp with serrations which will hold...! ! :)

Generally, it is recommended that the SBA only be used for the small, light weight, rimfire scopes with 32mm or smaller objectives.

Hope this helps...! ! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,608 Posts
I agree with Mike that much of the problem has to do with the cheaper rings using the softer metals. I have used steel Millett rings on my 10/22 with factory base with a rather large Burris 12X scope and never noticed the rings shifting on ther base. The Shilen barreled rifle has shot numerous "one hole" groups so I would say that there was not a problem. A steel base with steel rings would be ideal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
BigMike:
The two issues that give the "Ruger" SBA [Scope Base Adapter] a bad reputation are:

1. It is designed to accept only "Tip-Off" rings. These are the rings originally designed for 3/4" tube rimfire type scopes of the 50's and 60's. It will not accept the much more popular "Weaver" 'DTM' rings, or the "Weaver type" rings...! !
I read from this that you're referring to TWO different types of rings, not THREE types, i.e., the cheaper "tip-off," and the more expensive "Weaver type." Right?

Assuming that's the case, I went on a seach of my just-moved baggage (new house) and found one of each type - I'd never really paid any attention to the differences before. On an old Bushnell Banner 3/4" tube, there's obviously the cheaper kind: one side of the rings' gripping claw is solidly a part of the ring. The other side is loose and is tightened by a screw. I presume these are the "tip-off" rings.

Another set of rings I found on an old Weaver K-4. They also attach to a rail base, but the split rings are tightened by a screw that runs between the rings and their "claws." I assume this is the 'Weaver' 'DTM' rings, or the 'Weaver type' rings." It would clearly be less susceptible to "tipping" accidentally.

When I ran my recent "Newby 10/22 Range Report," I had the K-4 mounted. It didn't work well, but it was the loose base screws that were likely to blame, not the rings themselves. I'll try both the Banner and the K-4 here soon and see if the SBA can stand the stain, but this time I'll tighten the screws and use Loc-Tite!

452 Shooter:
A steel base with steel rings would be ideal.
Clearly, I'm not an expert in this area, but I would have thought this approach could lead to problems if I use different metals receiver to base. (I would have guessed I'd want rings of the same material as the tube, though.) Steel receiver, steel base, I'd say "yes." Likewise both aluminum. Aluminum receiver and steel base (or vice-versa), I'd think would be a problem. Since different metals expand at different rates with temperature changes, steel and aluminum would seem to ensure that the aluminum portion would definitely bend, like a bi-metallic thermostat. That would seem to ensure, at best, a changing point of impact, and, at worst, a bent aluminum receiver or auminum base.

Jaywalker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,556 Posts
Jaywalker,
Do yourself a favor. Trot down to the nearest Walmart and pick up a Weaver TO-9 base (about 5.00) and a set of Weaver 1" DTM rings(about 11.00) and install them. You won't have to worry about screwing with the set-up any more. The base will accept Tip-off or full size rings. You'll save yourself a lot of headaches.

JL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,608 Posts
"Aluminum receiver and steel base (or vice-versa), I'd think would be a problem."

I am not a metallurgist but there are plenty of aluminum bases manufactured for use on steel firearms so I would tend to disagree about the expansion rate of the two diffrent metals being a problem. Many of the Jack Weigand mounts are aluminum and are designed to be used on steel firearms such as the Single Six , MKII , S&W revolvers and many others. In the normal shooting temperatures encountered on Earth I would not worry about about a base and a receiver being made of different metals causing bending problems. Going the other direction , Leupold manufactures a steel base for use on the aluminum 10/22.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,084 Posts
Weaver 'Tip-Off' verses 'DTM' Rings

Jaywalker.

Weaver 'Tip-Off' Rings


These 'Tip-Off' rings are designed to clamp onto the 3/8" grooved receivers of rimfire rifles, and the 'SBA' that "Ruger" supplies with the 10/22.

Weaver 'DTM' Rings


These 'DTM' rings are designed to clamp onto the 7/8" "Weaver" or "Weaver type" scope bases, like the T0-9 for the 10/22.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
BigMike,

The "tip-off rings" are what I expected. The rings on my K4 are similar to the "DTM" rings you picture, with the screw adjustment running to both "claws," but the rings overall are split top and bottom rather than side-to-side. It looks functional and is likely a variation on the DTM approach. Thanks.

Jaywalker
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top