Question on mounting detachable rings, Weaver to Picatinny.

JJ45 · September 28, 2023, 03:46 PM

Hello, I recently acquired a new Ruger Mini 30 Tactical carbine.

It came with the usual Ruger medium height rings which are too high for my application since I have a Leupold 1x4-20 I plan on mounting. With the 20mm objective I can get the scope as low as I want it. They also include a rail which is "piccatiny" size

So in order to have the iron sights quickly available I decided on detachable rings. I got Weaver Grand Slams with the paddle release. These are advertised as mediums but they are as low as any (many reviews on these rings said they were actually low, not medium, and they were spot on)

I have used Warne Maximas in the past but always with Warne bases which provided a tighter fit.

I have read two ways of securing Weaver rings to any rail type base; one is to push both rings forward against the recoil slots before tightening (both Weaver and Warne recommend this method) and the other is to push the rings in opposite directions, in theory, opposing one another....which method is advisable?

Mindful the 7.62x39 doesn't have much recoil but the weapon is relatively light.

Polinese · September 28, 2023, 06:43 PM

I've always pushed both forward but have no scientific reason for doing this. 1 piece mounts don't have any opposing forces and work just fine.

JJ45 · September 29, 2023, 09:14 AM

That's what I'm thinking now. As they say "read the manual" All the mfgrs of these rings say push the rings solid towards the muzzle but I guess opinions vary as usual.

ocharry · September 29, 2023, 09:33 AM

its a inertia thing

gun recoils under the scope before it moves...so the gun is moving before the scope starts to move...so if the scope rings are pushed forward against the rail lug it cant move...both recoil at the same time

i guess the scope could slide inside the rings if they werent tight enough

my .02

ocharry

**Unclenick** · September 29, 2023, 07:48 PM

That's basically it, except that bearing forward assures the gun and rings move together. Both being at the rear leaves space for inertia to nudge the scope forward. Putting one of the mounts to the rear puts all the force overcoming the scope inertia through the other ring rather than sharing it between two of them. It's a weaker configuration.

September 28, 2023, 03:46 PM	#1
JJ45 Senior Member Join Date: June 8, 2015 Posts: 908	Question on mounting detachable rings, Weaver to Picatinny. Hello, I recently acquired a new Ruger Mini 30 Tactical carbine. It came with the usual Ruger medium height rings which are too high for my application since I have a Leupold 1x4-20 I plan on mounting. With the 20mm objective I can get the scope as low as I want it. They also include a rail which is "piccatiny" size So in order to have the iron sights quickly available I decided on detachable rings. I got Weaver Grand Slams with the paddle release. These are advertised as mediums but they are as low as any (many reviews on these rings said they were actually low, not medium, and they were spot on) I have used Warne Maximas in the past but always with Warne bases which provided a tighter fit. I have read two ways of securing Weaver rings to any rail type base; one is to push both rings forward against the recoil slots before tightening (both Weaver and Warne recommend this method) and the other is to push the rings in opposite directions, in theory, opposing one another....which method is advisable? Mindful the 7.62x39 doesn't have much recoil but the weapon is relatively light.

September 29, 2023, 09:33 AM	#4
ocharry Senior Member Join Date: October 20, 2006 Posts: 687	its a inertia thing gun recoils under the scope before it moves...so the gun is moving before the scope starts to move...so if the scope rings are pushed forward against the rail lug it cant move...both recoil at the same time i guess the scope could slide inside the rings if they werent tight enough my .02 ocharry __________________ The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim." - Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC

September 29, 2023, 07:48 PM	#5
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	That's basically it, except that bearing forward assures the gun and rings move together. Both being at the rear leaves space for inertia to nudge the scope forward. Putting one of the mounts to the rear puts all the force overcoming the scope inertia through the other ring rather than sharing it between two of them. It's a weaker configuration. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

September 28, 2023, 06:43 PM	#2
Polinese Senior Member Join Date: September 27, 2010 Posts: 950	I've always pushed both forward but have no scientific reason for doing this. 1 piece mounts don't have any opposing forces and work just fine.

September 29, 2023, 09:14 AM	#3
JJ45 Senior Member Join Date: June 8, 2015 Posts: 908	That's what I'm thinking now. As they say "read the manual" All the mfgrs of these rings say push the rings solid towards the muzzle but I guess opinions vary as usual.