Printable View
Thus week I'll be taking delivery of a 10 FCP-SR and Primary Arms 4-14x44 FFP (30mm tube) optic. Since this is my first bolt gun, I'd like to know which rings anybody with this rifle & scope combination has used with success, or at least with a 44mm objective lens. Without actually having it in my hands yet, it appears that low rings would work but I'd like confirmation of that as well. I don't want to use a cheek riser of any sort.
Thanks for any help that you can offer
I really like my PA 4-14x44 I've had it on several rifles. Some of your ring choice will be determined by your choice of bases, I generally just buy medium rings and have never had a problem with clearance. You could probably use low rings if you went with a 20 MOA one piece base because that will add some height. I really like Warne vertical mount steal rings. I have seen some people say they are difficult to work with but if you follow the directions I have found them the easiest system to get perfectly level with the action. I actually have my PA 4-14 on my savage model 11 in med Warne rings if you would like a picture.
Agreed on the Warne and they have an interactive app that you feed the objective size in and what combo rings and bases works.
I have gone with the rails now, I like the freedom of where I can set things better and I think it adds a bit more rigidity to the setup though I may be fooling myself it has any significant affect.
My savage with primary arms 4-14x44 in medium Warne rings atop a Weaver 20 MOA rail. http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...a186901abb.jpg
Sleeper99, my rifle will have a 0 MOA base so I was hoping to get by with low rings for that reason but in looking at your picture I'm wondering whether the medium rings will be required anyway. I'll just have to wait until it gets here and measure everything.
Warne rings seem to be pretty popular. Do you know why some people say they're hard to work with?
Very nice setup you have there. Thanks for the info and picture.
Wow, I read the OP's post and thought I would be the odd man out on recommending Warne. But, yeah, I like Warne as well. Most of my scopes use Warne quick release rings. I have never had a problem with them returning to zero. Lows should do fine. Below is a picture of my 10FCP SR with Warne 20 MOA base in HS Precision stock and Leupold 50mm scope with 30mm tube. It has low Warne permanent rings. Often times the base thickness might matter. But, the low Warnes have always offered plenty of clearance for me in normal mounting situations.
Also, like Sleeper99 said, I don't know why people have such a tough time with them. Follow the instructions, and they are crazy easy to install.
http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/...psht7bvqbe.jpg
Thanks tcoz for the compliments. I have a fair bit of clearance with my medium rings and judging by Nic's picture( very nice rig by the way) you should be fine with your low rings, kinda makes me want to order some low rings and try them out. Here is how much clearance I have with my current set up. http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...e0838b1e7b.jpg
I think most people don't like the vertical mounting nature of the Warne rings. I think they are much easier to get the scope level because when you torque down the ring screws it doesn't tend to rotate your scope.
Ok, so far three people have responded and all three of you are Warne ring fans. Based on what I can see of your rifles, you guys must know something. Why did you choose them?
Do not leave out Burris Sig. Zee rings , These will be your best friend
will not leave ring marks , plus you can adj. the cant
I really don't remember. I am pretty sure they were recommended by members of another forum I go to. Like you, I did some reading and looked at reviews. I was convinced after the first set I bought. Made in the USA, which is a big plus. I have used several sets, and never had a problem with any.Quote:
Originally Posted by tcoz
Also, while I am thinking about it, Leupold sells rings very similar to Warne that are not vertical split. I have a feeling they are made by Warne, as they are very similar. (I seem to recall reading they were made by Warne........which would be a plus.) I bought some on sale a while back and just got around to using a set. I was happy with the installation. The top half clips over the tube. Many people complain about them scratching the scope when trying to put the top half over the tube. But, the trick is to use two allen keys in a screw hole on each side of the clip and squeeze the allen keys together just enough so it causes the top clip to open up just enough to go over the tube without force. I tried that, and it worked perfectly. If you do not like the look of the vertical rings, that might be an option. They make permanent and quick release style rings......just like Warne.
https://www.leupold.com/hunting-shoo.../prw-30mm-low/
I had to use a set of Burris Signature Zee rings on my .223 Axis since point of impact was so low. They do work well, and it is impossible to scratch the scope since the plastic inserts protect it. My biggest issue is that they are made in China. The finish on the set I have is not that great.Quote:
Originally Posted by drybean
I will say, I have removed Warne rings from some of my scopes, and they have never left any marks on my tubes.
drybean, do you know why the Burris Zee rings for a 30mm scope come only in medium and high and not in low.
XTR Signature Rings !!!
http://www.burrisoptics.com/mounting...ignature-rings
They're the same idea as the Signature right (with moa off-set inserts) but tactical style with 6 caps. You'll want the 30mm 1.00"high (their lowest), # 420221
Zero, these were the first rings I looked at but decided that they were a little pricey for my needs since I don't need any scope cant. I only shoot as far as 200 yards although I'm always on the lookout for somewhere I can stretch it out a bit more.
This is why I like the Warne rings. They are half the price of most other quality made steel rings. As far as I can tell they are manufactured well, made of steel, made in USA, and a tremendous value. Here is Warne's explanation:
http://warnescopemounts.com/why-vertically-split/
My bet is they function just as well as more expensive options. They are not for people who are constantly moving a scope from rifle to rifle unless you go with the QD version. Here is a link to the low mount 30mm vertical split rings 36 bucks plus free shipping:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0007...DJL&ref=plSrch
Just my opinion, but you can't beat the quality for the price.
Thanks for the link Sleeper. I'm going to give those a shot. For that price I really don't have much to lose. Made of steel rather than aluminum and made in the USA are the biggest selling points for me. A five star Amazon rating and no review under three stars says a lot as well. I would order them today except that I want to measure the height of the rail on the FCP-SR just to be sure the low rings will make it even though I'm 95% sure they will.
Many thanks to everyone for your input. I appreciate the absence of snarky comments like those that have caused me to stop visiting a couple of other forums. Since I'm brand new to bolt guns and relatively new to magnified optics, you'll be hearing quite a bit from me in the future.
You're welcome sir, good luck with your set up. Please let us know how it works out for you. I think you'll be happy with the rings. If not you can print a return label from Amazon and just drop them off at the closest ups store. I also have found that most of the regulars to this forum are very helpful and nice. I am reasonably new to shooting (about 5 years) but I try to read a lot and soak up as much as I can. I look forward to your update.
I will also say I'm a fan of Warne rings. Great value for the money, fit and finish is great, or at least historically it has been.
One thing to to pay attention to, is not over tightening the rings, you can easily crush a scope tube with the vertical split rings! I haven't had issues with this but have read of a good number of guys pinching a tube.
As long as Warne furnishes torque specs it won't be a problem.
Pretty sure it's 25 inch pounds, it's on the package.
Yep, I should have mentioned that earlier.......25 in/lbs for the Warnes. Invest in a good torque wrench if you do not have one. I have a Sturtevant Richmont 36/4 I bought off of eBay. Very well made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeper99
I use Burris XTR signature rings. However, I have a set of Nightforce A117 rings for sale that came on a scope I just purchased.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/255...le-rings-matte
Another vote for Warne. I have them on a Savage muzzy and a Model 14 .308. On my recommendation, and with me lapping their rings and installing their scopes for free (!!) 2 buddies have them: one on a Remington CDL and the other on a Ruger American Rifle in .270. 100% flawless performance. Aesthetically, I like the vertical split, which I think looks cleaner than horizontal. Purely personal preference though.
What is you guys trick to leveling a scope with that vertical split? That is probably the most aggravating thing about installing those Warne rings IMO.
You just tighten the bottoms first to nice and finger snug. The top screws are just barely in and only grabbing a few threads. Then you level to scope, torque your bottom screws to 25in/lbs and then when you tighten to top screws the scope doesn't rotate at all. My biggest issue with horizontally split rings is torquing the ring together and keeping the scope level. Maybe it's just me, we seem to have opposite problems.
Warne Fan here for the under 100 dollar set. I like the lightweights for walking hunter stuff. Heavy QD's for the FTR.
cowtownup,
Level the gun in a vise, level the scope loose in the rings, tighten ring bolts in an x pattern to 25 in lbs with thread locker, monitor the leveling as you go. What specific trouble are you having?
Do the Warne tactical rings only differ in that they have three screws at the top of the ring? Any other differences besides the price?
I think the tactical rings are Picatinny style only.......meaning they will work on a Picatinny mount, but not a Weaver style. The regular rings are Weaver style. Weaver style will work on a Picatinny or Weaver style base. It is because the spacing on the Weaver is a bit narrower than Picatinny. I don't think the Warne Tactical rings are offered in a low version either. I've never found the need to use the tactical rings, but I do like to use Picatinny style rails because it offers more flexibility when mounting the scope.Quote:
Originally Posted by tcoz
You're right Nic. They aren't offered in a low version. I guess they're definitely meant for mounting on an AR in that case. I would think however, that for three times the price there must be something else different about them. Doesn't matter though. I have the standard version on order from Amazon, but they're out of stock right now.
I can't tell you why, but for some reason, Picatinny style rings are always more expensive. I use the Warne Weaver style rings in Ultra High on all my scoped AR-15s, and they are not as expensive as Warne's Tactical type. (Yeah, Warne also makes Weaver type rings for the AR too.) I might consider the Tactical style on a heavy kicking caliber, which I don't shoot, or if the price was better. Otherwise the Weaver style works just fine.
They are just more cumbersome to mount. I like being able to set a scope down in a set of rings... Its just easier IMO...
The Burris Signature is all that I will use anymore, either the original or the XTR. Why put ring marks on a 1000 dollar scope or any scope for that matter, adjustable cant all the way to 40 MOA with the XTRs. And Standard bases.Quote:
Originally Posted by drybean