Guys, I need some BEEFY rings to mount a scope on a TC Pro Hunter in 460 S&W. Someone mentioned Wieland (spelling) rings, and another guy recently mentioned some rings that are all steel instead of aluminum, although I can't remember who it was that he said makes them. He said they were about $30 per ring though. Which I am fine with that, as long as it is quality stuff.

My last 460 revolver ate scopes and rings like they were oreos. The Leupold VXIII was the only scope to take it in stride, so it will have the nod on this TC. Only problem is, I never did find a set of rings that I was happy with.

Thanks guys.

these are Leupold Rifleman vertical split rings on my 458 Win Mag. This is the same thing on my 300WM
This is on the 458 Lott
This is the 458 Lott I built for Bobhanson1

This is on my 500 Linebaugh before I switched it to a red dot, if these rings hold up to these monsters they will hold up to the 460.

by the way the Leupold rifleman rings are about 12.00 a pr at wally world.

I also use 3 or 4 Leupold vertically split rings on a .454 Casull, 2 .475L's, a .500 WE, and numerous single-shot calibers up through .375 JDJ and .45-70, with no problems

To emphasize a Rods point, put more than just two rings on their!


I have put four rings on my bigger rounds just because I can... LOL


Set of Encore's. Top, 17.5in 375 JDJ. Bottom, 17in 460 S&W.

Duane





Ps, JMHO, consider an all steal mount.

I don't have anything nearly as powerful as the other guys above but having more rings is never a bad thing.

My personal rule of thumb:
2 rings: Anything up to a moderately loaded 44mag
3 rings: Heavy loaded 44mags, 454 and 480Ruger
4 rings: 475L on up

Two others to look at are Weigand and Warne. Both top quality rings and if set up correctly will hold your scope tight under the most abusive recoil.

I am sure you are aware as well that ring fit has much to do with how well rings and scopes hold up. Most rings out of the box may only engage with about 50% of the surface area. Lapping the rings will up that number to close to 100%.

Thanks guys! Yeah the all steel idea is what I want. Probably just cause of being paranoid, but I'm tired of messing with problem rings, so I don't want to take the chance.

I have used Warne steel rings on many different pistols and rifles. They are by far the highest quality rings I have found. They are more expensive than $12 a pair, though. But well worth it, IMO.

Cabela's has them.

If you dont want them to move and only want to use 2 rings Burris XTR tatical rings. They are not cheap though. Im shooting a set on a 300 WSM pistol havent moved yet.

I'm with Gregg- 2 or 3 Warne rings and I don't worry about it, plus they don't mar the scope finish like a lot of the aluminum ones do.

I've also used the Burris tactical ones, but I don't like them as much as they have a large bolt on the side that tends to snag on holsters, clothes, and brush at the worst times. The Warne ones look cleaner and hold tight.

Are you guys lapping in the rings or consider it a waste of time?

I have steal basses and four Burris Zee rings on 5 barrels. I have not needed to lap any of them. Maybe I have just been lucky… LOL

I find the opposite. I have had many steel rings scratch the boojah out of scope tubes, Ruger rings the worst, but never with the aluminum Leupy's. Have had Leupy's on everything up to a 45-70 pistol and no problems whatsoever.

Rod, I checked walmart.com 'cuz $12 is a whale of a deal on a pair of Leupold rings. The closest to a $12 pair of rings I found there were aluminum made in China. I found NO Leupold Rings on their site as you describe them.

You must have a special Walmart up there or sumthin'.

As for rings marring scopes, I have had problems also. I will say however that I have had NO problems of that kind with Warne's rings on Warne bases. Maybe just lucky. Or maybe they are just that good in quality.

Yes - lapping the rings is worth the time if you can do it, IMO.

The last time I was in the Wally here I didn't see them either. Prior to that I had gotten a few pair for $14. Inflation sux....

Warne Maxima rings are what I put on my 460, you want all steel, rings and bases.

I would agree in general with the steel rings marring scopes worse than aluminum, however Warnes seem to be the exceptions... I haven't ever lapped any of my Warne rings and haven't had a single scope marred by them, which has not been the case with Leupolds, the older Burris models, Weavers, etc.

Those are the ones, the Leupold Rifleman vertical split are aluminum and made in China. I think the caliber of weapons I run them on show that more $$ and steel are not necessary. The best way to look at is to use what your comfortable with. Is steel necessary or will it do any better than my 12.00 aluminum rings, no, but if it makes you feel better use it. Another thing to look at is inertial force. The heavier the scope and hardware attaching it the more strain it puts on the mounting screws. When the gun recoils the scope initially wants to stay where it is and then it wants to keep going even when the gun is stopped. The weight of the everything on top of that barrel is directly proportional to the amount of energy working agains the screws and a firearm like the Encore that recoils straigh back more that rotating is even worse because instead of instead of dealing with "normal stress" on the screws your dealing with "shear stress" which is stressing the screw at it's weakest point. There are other pros and cons to aluminum vs steel and I've used both and both will get the job done but one has no real advantage over the other in a case such as this.

I agree about the weight being a disadvantage but in the difference between two rings (one steel and one aluminum) I don't feel this is much of a factor compared to the scope weight. In addition, chances are the cheaper rings and bases (China) will come with the cheaper (soft steel) screws which is the REAL factor in holding bases and rings to scopes and guns. I posted elsewhere that the difference in screws is HUGE, and that the better mounts and bases should (but not always) come with industrial strength hard screws, which are many times stronger. For "my money" I would choose steel over aluminum; JMHO.

i'm with rod. the leupold rifleman vertical split rings with a weaver base, on the TC's especially, are hard to beat. they hold on most everything, proven time n again to me by several handgun shooters(friends)with heavy hitters. i just shoot medium to light stuff, but love the leupold/weaver aluminum setup. i do not want steel on my TC's.

I was lucky and bought a small stock pile of Burris Zee Rings when they were on sale for 20.00 a set.

My biggest observation with scopes on heavy recoiling rounds parallels Greggs somewhat. I found on really heavy calibers I was having problems with aluminum basses, even with 4 Burris Zee rings. Now that could be because I was using 4 standard sized screws with the base as well.

i've heard experiened others state that you do not want to MIX aluminum and steel on the base/ring set. i've not done it enough to have trouble i've noticed though.

There's aluminum and steel. That's a 200-yard group. I have no intention of changing.

I ask about lapping as I have a Bushnell variable inbound. I will mount it to my FA83 in .44 magnum to see if I shoot better than with my Ultra-dot. The mount will be my T'SOB and three rings that come with it, which are aluminum

I am using 4 Burris Zee rings on my 16.5in SSK in 35-06 JDJ with T-SOB mount. The 2-6 Bushnell hasn’t moved in the slightest FWIW. But there are 4 rings on their… LOL

yeah, n 5 shots ain't no test on the mount. try 500, n see if the steel peens the slots in the aluminum. if not....i guess yer good to go.

LOL...

Also don't forget who posted that Kyode, he is been banned...

As to the mixing of steel and aluminum (or perhaps any combination) is to get things mounted properly as to bearing surfaces. I am a fuss for quick detach rings in general, and they are not all created alike. Leupold has in recent years switched to a larger block that goes into the slot (as opposed to just the screw shank) with their quick detach rings.

If I am putting steel rings on aluminum bases (or really on all combo's just extra careful with aluminum), I am very careful to make sure the rings are seated in such a way that the forward edge of the block or screw is set against the trailing edge of the base, for all slots. This may seem obvious to most, but perhaps not all. When the gun goes bang, the gun moves to the rear while the scope "moves" forward in it pressure (as Rod pointed out). You can wallow out an aluminum slot with a steel screw if you are not mindful on how you set everything up.

And in the same vein, with a quick detach when the scope goes on, it goes in the slots first with just a touch of side ring pressure, then I slide it forward so the screws/blocks are mated to the slots as noted above, then I tighten down on the side screws.

Craig

Craig, that makes a lot of sense, and is something I have not thought about before. I have just focused on the ring to scope mating. now I will be conscious of this.

Thanks for the insight

Jeff

I'm with racksmaster, Warner steel base and rings, as many rings as you can fit in. I too have a T/C Encore in 460 S&W mag and it used to eat bases and rings like oreos, lol.

Gunz, It only happened to me to me once on my 16.5 TC Custom Shop 270 Win. After that, I found the little extra money spent on basses and rings was well worth it. I LOVE the Warne mount. The only thing I don't like about it is simple that the groves are too far apart to put four Burris Zee rings on and utilize a 2-6 Bushnell scope. If that is my only complaint I am doing well. LOL

Duane

if it works for you, that is all it needs to do. burris rings are definately good ones imo.

The fact is there are several good ones.

Your right and I should have been more clear. They work for "me..." LOL

it's all about confidence in your equipment and your personal preference but if a standard 4 hole Weaver mount and 3 Rifleman aluminum rings will stand up to over 5000ftlbs of muzzle energy they will handle the 460 which is about half that number. I will eventually drill a couple more holes in my mount and stabilize the front of it but I'm not worried about it coming loose as is.

x2 That combination is all I have ever used, although 45/70 has been my limit ;-)

You can spend whatever you wish, but for a grand total of $30 + or -, I am set.

I agree Rod. It is "all about confidence".

To me, confidence is what makes the shot. You practice, practice, practice so that when the time comes, you have the confidence to make the shot.

I, personally, will gain confidence in my set up right off the bat by going with steel. The 6 hole base that I had MGM put on my custom barrel is steel, so I'm gonna go with steel rings.

That barrel was finally shipped yesterday, so now the very anxious wait for the little brown truck begins.

Or maybe its the little white truck this time...

That is a great statement. With that in mind, some users on this forum that have had issues with aluminum mounts on hard“er” recoiling rounds. They are just expressing concern over the time, money, and headaches they have suffered. And it is all in the presentation I guess.

I have used standard Leupold DD base and rings on my Encore chambered in 375 H&H AI and it never missed a beat. In fact, I went through at least 100 rounds with that barrel and the 2-6 Bushnell 3200 shot one of the best groups I have ever shot with a SP at 100 yards. It was simple a four hold base and two rings configuration. The Leupold setup cost is a whole $50.00

On the flip side, I use a Weaver aluminum base on my Encore 270 barrel and it ate two Burris scopes. Once while wearing “two” sets of Weaver rings and once with “two” sets of Burris Zee rings. I put a four hole TC allow mount on the barrel after the Weaver base striped the first two screws, out of four, on the base. All the sudden that barrel started grouping at 100 yards again.

So when people start suggesting overkill on suggestions it is simple because they don’t want users to have the same problem that they have had to endure. Is the money worth it, well, it is to some people. This is what I do know, if one of my current “big” rigs goes out because of a mount issue I am sending the barrel in for a 6 hole T-SOB.

I am not trying to beat a dead horse so I will shut up now, but I think that there are points on both sides of the spectrum. I also think that users are so passionate about the subject just because they care.

TCTex said-- "I also think that users are so passionate about the subject just because they care."

I agree!!! That's why I come here. Its the only place I can find people who share my same passion / illness / obsession!!