Who here sets their scopes this way?

I was checking out Midway USAs Youtube channel (which I'd strongly recommend to anyone into gunsmithing or wood working) and I came across this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdyGeNHfbiA

It seems that everything has to have the word Tactical before it's a decent product these days, but the idea for adjusting windage on the rings just seems logical to get the scope perfectly in line with the barrel axis.
So why is it not common to do so?
 

Pahoo

New member
Pretty much how I mount scopes.

This is "generally" how I mount my scope but some steps have been left out and perhaps presented, in the full video version. I have most of the tools listed and then some. It's good when you have rings that can me adjusted but not often available. .... ;)

I don't completely understand your concerns. Learning how to mount a scope, is a really learning curve. Most of "us" have learned how, the hard way and are still learning. ..... ;)

Be Safe !!!
 
I wasn't really concerned, more intrigued that windage adjustable rings weren't more common place on target rifles/tactical/long range rifles that one would think it would matter the most.
 

jmr40

New member
Back years ago scopes didn't have internal adjustments. You simply mounted a scope and adjusted the rings for windage and elevation. Rifles didn't come drilled and tapped from the factory until the 1950's and 60's. To mount a scope your gunsmith had to drill and tap the holes. It was common for them to not be perfectly aligned with the barrel. Windage adjustable mounts were the answer to the problem. They corrected poor gunsmithing.

Today, with rifles coming from the factory with pre drilled mounting holes it would be extremely rare to find a rifle that needed windage adjustable mounts. If I had rifle that needed them, I'd return the rifle as defective before using them on a modern rifle. They might be necessary on an older rifle.

Compared to more modern mounts with a cross slot, or with the bottom half of the ring made into the base they are simply not as strong and dependable for precision shooting. You simply won't see anyone interested in accuracy use them.

They are expensive, heavy, complicated, hard to mount correctly, and if mounted incorrectly will damage the scope. After mounting it is fairly common for the windage screws to shoot loose resulting poor accuracy. The front dovetails will wear giving a loose fit between the ring and base over time.

Despite they all steel construcion they are not particularly strong. The front ring is held in place by a steel rod about 1/8" in diameter that fits into a dovetail in the base. The rear ring is held by 2, fingernail sized slivers of metal on each side.

Lots of guys still use them simply because that is what they saw grandpa use. But there are far better options today. Unless you actually have a rifle that needs them because the scope mounting holes are drilled incorrectly.
 

Pahoo

New member
Not a problem.

I wasn't really concerned, more intrigued that windage adjustable rings weren't more common
They are more common than you think and although a bit old-school, they are dependable. They are harder to work with but it's really not an issue. Some of the old-school "stuff" is still pretty good. Is there better? You bet and you need to capture the spirit of the video on mounting a scope. ..... ;)

Be Safe !!!
 

thallub

New member
Many of my rifles have Leupold and Redfield dovetail rings and mounts. Some of those guns have fired >40,000 rounds. The rings and bases have never worn out.

One Leupold dovetail ring broke due to recoil. The gun weighs 6.5 pounds unscoped and is chambered for .375 Alaskan.
 
Top