Scope mount options for bolt action

[TrueBlue711]

When it comes to bolt action, what is your preferred method to mount a scope? Using a picatinny rail section + the various mounting options from there? Or a more traditional dedicated scope mount that screws directly into the action like Leupold has (dovetail)? Are there any known advantages of either one besides ease of installing/uninstalling (picatinny has the win there)? Does one hold zero better than the other? What about for heavier calibers such as 300 Win Mag?

[Don Fischer]

I don't know how that picatinny base works. Thinking you you can better sit the rings on it? Only have one instance where that would have been a big improvement. My mod 70 6.5x55 has an action that putting on a 2-7x Redfield requires an extension ring and then not a lot of room for adjustment. If the scope was a bit longer it wouldn't be a problem. Thinking of a new rifle later this year and will probably remove that scope and use it on the new rifle and get something different on the mod 70.

[NoSecondBest]

Both Pictinney and Leupold are screwed into the action via pre-drilled mounting holes, so I'm confused with your description. Pictinny allows the use of a much greater variety of rings where the Leupold bases are dedicated to Leupold rings only. I use some of each on different guns. Generally, a one piece base such as the Pictinney (or Weaver type) reduces the chances of the rings being misaligned which can cause the scope to not sit in the rings as well as they should. I prefer a one piece base over a two piece set up if given the choice. If I have to use a two piece base I usually opt for a Leupold if they have a set that fits that particular gun. Both will hold zero fairly well, and both have been used on the hardest kicking magnum rifles out there with no problems. If they are mounted correctly they will both function very well. Unfortunately, a lot of inexperienced "gunsmiths" don't know how to mount a scope correctly and don't know what problems to look for. Over torgueing is very common as well as under torgueing. Also, some systems don't lend themselves very well to being able to move the scope fore or aft to accomodate eye relief and the user ends up with the scope not quite in the right position. FWIW, I've probably mounted a few hundred scopes over the last fifty plus years. Do you have something specific in mind?

[jmr40]

I'd avoid anything with dovetails. Originally scopes were not adjustable, you adjusted the mounts to zero the scope. Dovetails were used for adjusting the windage.

At one time it was pretty common for the scope mounting holes to not be drilled correctly and dovetail mounts could get the scope aligned with the barrel if needed.

Neither of those have been an issue since most of us have been alive, but some guys still use them because that is what grandpa used. They are expensive, heavy, hard to mount correctly and will cause issues if not mounted correctly. On an older rifle that needs them sure. But otherwise there are much better options.

On a hunting rifle I like Talley Lightweights. The bottom half of the ring screws directly to the rifle eliminating separate bases and rings. They are very light, easy to mount and reasonably priced.

https://www.opticsplanet.com/talley-...192280cce45ade

DNZ mounts are good too. The Talleys are a little nicer looking, but the DNZ might be tougher.

https://www.opticsplanet.com/dnz-ded...ube-mount.html

Something with a cross slot base (Weaver, or Weaver style) would be next. With a Weaver style ring.

https://www.opticsplanet.com/leupold...qrw-bases.html

The picatinney rails do the same thing as the Weaver bases. You just have more options as to where you mount the scope. I don't have a problem with them, but they can be more expensive and heavier than needed on a hunting rifle. I have rifles with all of the above on them except dovetails.

[Don Fischer]

I have an old 30-06 with old Redfield vertical split rings. They are attached to a one piece Redfield base. The base look's exactly like my one piece Leupold base and I've never tried it but I suspect the rings will work on either base.

[std7mag]

I use EGW solid bases.
2 of them 20 MOA.
I also use Warne permanent or Vortex Viper rings.

[Capt Rick Hiott]

Its nothing but DNZ for me.........

I just mounted my second 1,300 dollar Meopta scope on them...........

[Paul B.]

"I have an old 30-06 with old Redfield vertical split rings. They are attached to a one piece Redfield base. The base look's exactly like my one piece Leupold base and I've never tried it but I suspect the rings will work on either base."

Don, they will. I've done it a couple of times.
Paul B.

[Art Eatman]

I started using Weaver rings and bases in 1950. There are many which work just as well. What's important to me about the Weavers is that I've never had a problem with them.

One set-up has survived some 4,000 rounds of '06 in some 30 years, which seems like a reasonable test.

[Rifletom]

Have used Redfield bases and rings For years. They simply work. And are reliable.
Only on my Mod 94 do I have something different. Weaver bases and rings there.

[Road_Clam]

Most all my precision rifles are fitted with EGW bases :

http://www.egwguns.com/index.php?p=egw_catalog&cid=147

And my go to rings are the steel Warne Tactical series :

https://warnescopemounts.com/product...ings/tactical/

More importantly that "which brand is best" focus on precision and patient installation of your scope mount setup. I use blue loctite on my rings, and red loctite on my bases. Ive observed so many "loose scope mount" occurrences at my gun club from fellow shooters, myself included prior to using loctite.

[tobnpr]

Always a pic rail rather than two-piece mounts for modern bolt guns.
The only potential downside is the possibility of a case banging the bottom of the rail on ejection, but that's rare and can usually be solved if it occurs.

You get infinitely more versatility to position your rings/scope, the ability to use a down-angle if needed, and the one-piece rail assures you're not tweaking your scope tube if the mounting holes aren't perfectly aligned in both axes (which isn't as uncommon as you might think).

[emcon5]

I really see no point for a rail for the vast majority of applications. If you plan on swapping optics regularly, then a rail makes sense, if not then it really does nothing for you.

Most shooters mount a scope on a rifle and that is where it stays. If that describes you, then don't overthink it. I am partial to Leupold bases, but any will work, preferably one piece so it is impossible to misalign.

[webberwood]

Another vote for DNZ. Rock solid mounting system and a great value on top of that! I installed one on my primary hunting rifle and has it held zero through four years of abuse, foul weather and countless rounds of ammunition. I was so pleased with the results I bought one for every rifle I own.

[dgludwig]

I much prefer bases that are part of the receiver as evidenced in many Ruger bolt-action rifles. Plus, as a bonus in the case of Ruger, the rings come free of charge.