Need help with Burris tactical rings and bases

I want to put the Burris tactical rings on a Savage model 16 with the Accutrigger (round rear). I have not used this set-up with these types of rings before, so my question is do I need low, medium, or high, rings to mount a scope with a 40mm-42mm objective? I also need to know which bases that I will need to mount these rings too? I will be using the gun for hunting. I have always used the Leupold STD and Burris Signature "twist-in" style rings, so this is new to me. Any help and advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

The height you need depends on the bases you use. If you prefer a two piece base I'd suggest the Burris Xtreme bases. Multi-slot and steel. Good price too.

One piece base, most people go with EGW. I'd also look at the new Weaver Tactical rail. It's a little lower than the EGW.

I'm willing to bet you'd be able to get away with Lows with any of those bases.

+1 grinder lows on egw will surfice up to a 44mm obj with caps that I know of

I've run the lows with EGW and a 50mm, but I wouldn't be sure with a 42mm with AO.

The EGW's are pretty high. The EGW HD's, Weaver Tacticals, and Burris Xtremes are pretty low, but I think they will still work with low rings up to a pretty big objective.

I forgot to mention that the scopes will be the 40mm-42mm objective with AO and have the Butler Flip Caps. So will the low rings still work? Thanks.

If this is with a 30mm tube scope, XTR lows will probably be fine, but mediums will give you a bit more clearance and possibly a more appropriate cheek-weld (ask me how I know). I ended up using Medium XTRs with the XTR bases and the SWFA SS 3-9x 42mm (30mm tube) scope (the $600 model - not the cheapie $300 one).

For a 1" tube scope, you have to go medium.

Have you considered Talley Lightweight one-piece ring+base? I've found these to be at least as good (if not better). Try this... take ANY pair of XTR rings, and check out the center alignment when the ring mounting nuts are opposed to teach other when mounted - see how the rings are not concentric. Now try that with the Talleys - perfect. The Talleys are tough too! (don't let the name fool you). Most people who've actually tried the Talleys would not go back. Their only down fall is that they can't be mounted as anything other than 0 MOA (IE - not able to mount on a 20 MOA rail - or any rail for that matter).

PM me if you want to try the Talley...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AROKHUNTER

I forgot to mention that the scopes will be the 40mm-42mm objective with AO and have the Butler Flip Caps. So will the low rings still work? Thanks.

---

NO - they will not.

Lows on a weaver 1piece extended multi slot picatinny style 20 MOA base. Had plenty of clearance with a leupold mark 2 (now markAR) 6-18 x 40 with AO and butler creek scope caps. This is on a heavy barreled 10 fcp.

1" tube

If using a 1 piece rail, you can probably step down the ring size (as 1 piece rail base will be significantly higher than most 2 piece weaver/picatiny bases)

These will be holding a scope with 1" tube and I do not know which rail to get, so throw some ideas my way on combinations such as the XTR low rings with a specific base or the XTR medium rings with a different base. The barrel is a varimint contour heavy barrel. Thanks.

So let's assume that you have plenty of elevation and windage adjustment - no need of a single rail other than IF you feel it will help with any alignment issues you "might" have (there is always some level of alignemnt issue, but a single rail is not always the solution).

So...

[1] Burris Xtreme bases (for you Savage - find part number)
[2] Burris XTR 1" rings - Medium

Be sure to lap the rings before final scope installation.


Also... try the "test" I suggested in my earlier post (you are going to be shocked - and possibly somewhat concerned).

Okay, so let's say that I go with the Talley rings. I have had an interest in them for a while anyway. What height would I need in the Talleys? Low, medium, or high? I am just as lost with the Talley rings as I am with the Burris XTR. Again, the scope would be a 1" tube with 40mm-42mm objective with AO and Butler Flip Caps on a model 16 with varmint contour heavy barrel.

You'd need the Talley Medium 1" rings. Here is how I arrived at that...


42mm objective = ~ 1.97" OD bell (= 0.985" radius). Subtract 1/2" for the tube = min. req clearance of 0.485" add 0.13" for the barrel drop (0.355") and subtract 0.10"for the Buttler cap.

So that is 0.455". 0.5" will leave you with approx a 0.045" gap (estimated minimum gap)

Thanks for that jhelmuth. I may go that route. Don't know yet, but you got me thinking.

Like I said.... just even "borrow" a setof XTR rings and do the test. They will NOT be concentric.

Don't get me wrong... I'm a Burris fan (ALL their bases and their Signature rings). I also LOVE my Talleys. I'd take either of these on any rifle I have.

In my limted experience......

I set up up a 12VLP with a 0moa Farrell base XTR Med bases and 50mm scope.

I found it a little bit high, I switched to a set of XTR Low rings and now it's perfect.

I'd go with an EGW rail, 0 MOA if you shoot 400 yds max, or 20 MOA if you need extra elevation for dialing up elevation for longer ranges (500+ yds)

Burris Xtreme 1" LOW rings will accommodate your 42mm when mounted on either of these rails. I have three sets of these and have been happy with them all. No ring marks on the scopes, no need to lap them, and no slippage. Built very sturdily.

Jhelmuth I too have found that with xtr's the nuts better be on one side together I actually had one scope that was 5-6" off center turned the rings around so that both nuts were on the other side no problems zeroed fine with 3-4clicks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quickkillaught6

Jhelmuth I too have found that with xtr's the nuts better be on one side together I actually had one scope that was 5-6" off center turned the rings around so that both nuts were on the other side no problems zeroed fine with 3-4clicks

---

Correctamundo....

I don't like the fact that these will NEVER sit over the center of the barrels vertical plane. That translates to having to not only adjustig elevation on longer shots, but you'll have to slightly fiddle with the windage too. Why Burris - a great company BTW - had this design flaw in these I'll never know. When I found out (I had 2 sets of these) I called them and theytold me that was not supposed to be and they promptly sent me out a replacement set. Even those were off - which you think they would have checked.

I still use Burris (and Talley) today. But I stay away from the XTR rings...

All the best,

jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quickkillaught6

Jhelmuth I too have found that with xtr's the nuts better be on one side together I actually had one scope that was 5-6" off center turned the rings around so that both nuts were on the other side no problems zeroed fine with 3-4clicks

---

The nuts need to go on the left side of the action for the lugs to seat properly against the rail.

After some input and some extra thought, I think that I will go a different route rather than use the Burris XTR rings. I have been looking at the Talley rings and they seem to be more appealing and more of what I need. Thanks for all of the input here, as it has played a HUGE part in my decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geargrinder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quickkillaught6

Jhelmuth I too have found that with xtr's the nuts better be on one side together I actually had one scope that was 5-6" off center turned the rings around so that both nuts were on the other side no problems zeroed fine with 3-4clicks

---

The nuts need to go on the left side of the action for the lugs to seat properly against the rail.

---

Hmmm.... Burris did not tell me that when I spoke with their support staff. Additionally, that makes no sense to me. Why would them be "more" centered with the nuts on the left than on the right? Seems to me that ANY Weaver or Picatiney rail should be centered over the bore axis. Therefore, the rings should be centered over the bore axis as well. It seems IMPOSSIBLE to be centered only when they are on the left side. Maybe you can show me how I can be wrong about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhelmuth

Hmmm.... Burris did not tell me that when I spoke with their support staff. Additionally, that makes no sense to me. Why would them be "more" centered with the nuts on the left than on the right? Seems to me that ANY Weaver or Picatiney rail should be centered over the bore axis. Therefore, the rings should be centered over the bore axis as well. It seems IMPOSSIBLE to be centered only when they are on the left side. Maybe you can show me how I can be wrong about that.

---

Turn them over and you will see why. The threaded pin that the nut screws on to is milled under the ring. The milled portion creates a flat face to seat against the rail.

If you put the nuts facing the right side of the action the rounded part of the threaded pin will seat against the rail. Very little surface area to resist recoil= not good.

That's why they designed them for the nuts to be on the left.

I guess I'm smarter than the Burris tech. Now you are too! ;D

As already discussed, Picatinny rails and Weaver rails have different widths depending on the spec and manufacturer. A set of rings will only be correctly centered if they are matched to a correctly dimensioned rail. If the rail is too wide the rings will center away from the nut side. Narrow rails will let the rings center on the nut side.

If you base is centered over your bore, the rings should be off center by the same amount either side depending if you installed the rings correct or backward. There must be some other information missing. ???

gear grinder you are correct! I am left eye dominant and right handed so I pick up left or right handed rifles and shoot either way decient out to 300 now for surgical work better shoot left handed past that, but i wanted to set my left handed gun up with the nuts both on the right side out of my way (not that they are in the way but just because i guess) and like mentioned above no dice, pulled them off and turned them the other as the rest of my xtr's bahm no problems

Their bases... so how could they get them "wong"?

I don't have them to look at further, but here are my "thoughts"...

> What are the differences between the “Picatinny” and the “Weaver” systems? The profile of the two systems is virtually identical (Depending only on the quality of the machining done by the manufacturer, the two systems should be indistinguishable from the profile). The key difference is in the placement of the recoil grooves and with width of the grooves. MIL-STD-1913 (Picatinny) grooves are .206” wide and have a center-to-center width of .394”. The placement of these grooves has to be consistent in order for it to be a true “Picatinny” MIL-STD system. Weaver systems have a .180” width of recoil groove and are not necessarily consistent in a center-to-center measurement from one groove to the next.

> If they do not align on the bore axis on oe side, it is geometricly not possible for it to do so on the otherside. The ONLY way you can have it work that way is to have a rail which is NOT symetrical. This is NEVER true with either the Picatinny OR Weaver rails - they are, but design, symetrical in the profile. (see above). I cannot find a single reference on their specs which contradicts that.

Maybe you can prove me wrong? ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhelmuth

Their bases... so how could they get them "wong"?

I don't have them to look at further, but here are my "thoughts"...

> What are the differences between the “Picatinny” and the “Weaver” systems? The profile of the two systems is virtually identical (Depending only on the quality of the machining done by the manufacturer, the two systems should be indistinguishable from the profile). The key difference is in the placement of the recoil grooves and with width of the grooves. MIL-STD-1913 (Picatinny) grooves are .206” wide and have a center-to-center width of .394”. The placement of these grooves has to be consistent in order for it to be a true “Picatinny” MIL-STD system. Weaver systems have a .180” width of recoil groove and are not necessarily consistent in a center-to-center measurement from one groove to the next.

> If they do not align on the bore axis on one side, it is geometricly not possible for it to do so on the otherside. The ONLY way you can have it work that way is to have a rail which is NOT symetrical. This is NEVER true with either the Picatinny OR Weaver rails - they are, but design, symetrical in the profile. (see above). I cannot find a single reference on their specs which contradicts that.

Maybe you can prove me wrong? ???

---

I'm not out to prove anything. Just to share my opinion and some information.

#1- Every manufacturer maintains different tolerances, even with the same design specification. XTR's are not precision machined by any stretch of the imagination. Neither are their bases.

#2- I never said or meant to imply that the rails were ever made non-symmetrical. When I was talking about the base being centered over the bore, I was saying that it was possible that the action was not drilled for the bases centered above the bore. It's not uncommon for them to be drilled slightly off.

Im running low Burris XTRs and EGW rails on 6 different Savage rifles. They offer plenty of clearance with up to 50mm obj and a Varmint barrel even with flip caps my one medium XTR is on a long action with 20 MOA rail 50mm and varmint barrel and just as soon as I have the extra 50$ im going to change it to low rings. IIRC I think I have a little over 1/4 inch clearance after the caps are installed.

Larry