Burris XTR Signature rings

[efm77]

With the XTR's the hard contact points seem to be at the very center and at the edges where the bevel can be seen on the insert. Pressure everywhere else is dependent on the plastic inserts. It there is ANY flex in the inserts, the clamping force will be reduced there. With the old ones, the inserts have 100% hard contact with the steel rings, no gaps anywhere and no worries about anything flexing.
I'm not into all this new "tactical" stuff either and just prefer the look of the old steel rings.
Seems like I've read about problems with the threads in the XTR rings too which could be user error but still, I much prefer tightening a screw into steel over aluminum. I almost bought a set of these a few months ago and did a lot of reading about them.
I've been using the old ones for a whole lot of years, never had a scope move and never put the slightest mark on a scope.
I'm in no way saying the new ones won't work, only that that I prefer the previous system.
If ever in a situation though where there isn't a set of the older ones that I can use, I will be trying the XTR's because having a my scope touching only plastic, has spoiled me for life.

Totally understand that line of thinking and it's very similar to mine. I'd rather use the steel ones too. But as I said, for this particular rifle and scope I'm using, they're just not tall enough to clear the hand guard. So it's either take a chance with the XTR Signatures, or forego the inserts and go to a completely different ring. I hate to do that though because, like you, I'm very pleased with how the Signature Zee's work, and have also been spoiled by the inserts. I may just have to take the gamble and see how they do, and if I don't like them, I'll just have to switch to something else.

[justpassinthru]

Totally understand that line of thinking and it's very similar to mine. I'd rather use the steel ones too. But as I said, for this particular rifle and scope I'm using, they're just not tall enough to clear the hand guard. So it's either take a chance with the XTR Signatures, or forego the inserts and go to a completely different ring. I hate to do that though because, like you, I'm very pleased with how the Signature Zee's work, and have also been spoiled by the inserts. I may just have to take the gamble and see how they do, and if I don't like them, I'll just have to switch to something else.
I'm sure you'll be fine, maybe I'm overthinking all this.

[Dave Hoback]

The XTR are certainly better than the very dated Zee rings, however even they are a compromise, being Weaver instead of Pic. rail, and they don’t even list the Aluminum used. Making me think it’s not even 6061-T6, maybe the weaker 6063 structural or “gasp” 3003(soda can aluminum). They seem to work well. It’s just there are far better options today. To recap, there is absolutely no reason to be running Weaver any longer. Mil-std-1913 or Picatinny rail & rings are far superior. This is not up for debate. It’s simple fact! Also, I would never use rings made of any Aluminum except 7075-T6(they’ll say if that’s what is used). A 1-piece mount in 6061, no problem. But not two separate rings. Take a look at this video. Quite revealing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OpzMiRwt3Q

[efm77]

https://www.burrisoptics.com/mounting-systems/rings/xtr-signature-rings

I didn't think we were questioning picatinny vs weaver. But it's listed as fitting picatinny rails and "most weavers". I've read reviews that people tried them on weaver rails and they didn't fit. I have a set on the way so I'll see how good they are, but mine are going on a picatinny rail. I have Signature Zee rings on picatinny rails and they fit just fine and have had no problems with them.

[justpassinthru]

https://www.burrisoptics.com/mounting-systems/rings/xtr-signature-rings

I didn't think we were questioning picatinny vs weaver. But it's listed as fitting picatinny rails and "most weavers". I've read reviews that people tried them on weaver rails and they didn't fit. I have a set on the way so I'll see how good they are, but mine are going on a picatinny rail. I have Signature Zee rings on picatinny rails and they fit just fine and have had no problems with them.
Me too.

[efm77]

I've sent a contact request to Burris asking about what series of aluminum the rings are made from and will let you know what response I get, if any.

[Dave Hoback]

https://www.burrisoptics.com/mounting-systems/rings/xtr-signature-rings

I didn't think we were questioning picatinny vs weaver. But it's listed as fitting picatinny rails and "most weavers". I've read reviews that people tried them on weaver rails and they didn't fit. I have a set on the way so I'll see how good they are, but mine are going on a picatinny rail. I have Signature Zee rings on picatinny rails and they fit just fine and have had no problems with them.

Yes, Weaver will fit a Pic. rail, but not vise versa. Weaver isn’t standardized, so there are variances among which company is actually doing the machining. Burris is a good example. The came up with their own “in between”. But since Weaver specs aren’t set, they fit some, but not others. They ALL fit Pic. rails, because they are Mil-STD-1913 specs & they are larger. Good thing is it’s standardized. No matter the company, ALL the same. Bad thing is, using rings like the Burris or Weaver style, leaves play in the rail groove. This is not good for consistency. But they will work just fine for almost all of our needs. If you already have them on the way, there is no reason NOT to use them. They should work fine for you. I apologize. I’m speaking of the perspective of one starting from scratch. I wasn’t starting a debate or pointing out anyone questioning the two...there is no debate, and having a full understanding the two, I think, is quite important. As there some of things you’ve just said are indications of not having having the full understanding. That’s all.

My apologies. I’m merely trying to add to the conversation. Meant no offense.

[efm77]

No offense taken. Just seemed a little off topic is all. But yes I do understand the difference between the two. I've always made it a standard practice with both types to make sure I have the cross bolt, recoil lug, etc, pushed against the front of the slot while tightening down anyway. By doing so, I've never had one shift under recoil and I have them on some fairly heavy kickers.

[geezerhood]

Old thread, but I haven't been here in quite a while.....

I just noticed that Burris is offering a QD mount that uses the same ring design as the XTR Signatures. I only use Burris Signature rings, ZEE or XTR, if I possibly can so this is a nice option to consider. The QD mounts don't look too bad. The cantilever up front is a bit too long and too thin for me as I usually run fairly large and heavy scopes like the 10-60xmm March, 10-50x60mm Sightron or big Nightforce models on my AR10 style rifles in 6mm, 6.5 and 30 caliber cartridges. I wouldn't use one on a heavy kicking bolt gun, but on an AR platform, I might.

As to the XTR Signatures, I have yet to find any ring that I like better. The Zee's rail locking design is pretty bad in my view. The bendy tab breaks off if you move the rings around much if you have to bend the tab out to fit the rail. That said, I have only broken two out of probably 20 sets over the last few decades, so i still use them on lightweight guns where the XTR's are too big. I simply will not use a non adjustable ring set unless I have no choice and the XTR's hold up to my 22" 50 BMG and several 338 Lapua rifles. They allow a fine tuned, stress free mounting and they have never failed me for many years. Money is not an issue. My only wish would be a set made of Titanium.

[geezerhood]

I ordered one of the QD mounts for a friend. I must say they are very nicely made. A huge improvement over the original PEPR mounts. I can't tell for sure what the material is that they used for the locking parts, but it looks like titanium. No info that I could find on the Burris website. I will touch a magnet on on there later to see if it sticks.