So, I notice the old "demountable" Weaver rings are still available, but have fallen well out of favor. Any good reason to not use them? To be clear, these are the ones with two screws on one side and a hook on the other side. Steel top strap and aluminum base.
I'm somewhat partial to them because they are pretty low-profile and snag-free compared to a lot of the all-aluminum mounts that are kind of big and clunky.
My top theories are:
folks just like new stuff
People don't like the asymmetry of them
You can scratch your scope installing them if you aren't careful
All that is fine, but if they are prone to break or work loose, that would be an issue.
I don't know if they are heavy compared to all aluminum mounts, but it couldn't be that much additional weight.

I like them and still use them, I have had no problems with them. Jeff

I still use them too. if you install them by pushing down on the side with the holes, you will not scratch the scope. Lee

__________________
VFW, NRA, VVA, S&WCA 1758

They've always worked very well and hold very close to original zero should you have to remove a mounted scope or replace a damaged one in the field (with a scope that has been zeroed in Weaver rings and mounts). I don't buy them anymore only because I don't particularly like the looks, but I have many bases and rings and still have some scope rifles so equipped with the Weaver rings.

The only drawback with the Weaver rings is in the initial setup when getting the scope reticle straight. Takes a little patience, but it's a one time job.

It's very unlikely many newschoolers are even familiar with Weaver rings/ bases and they would probably not even consider their use. The technology is too old for these folks even if the equipment works as well as new stuff.

They were great in 1962! Today there are much better rigs available. If they are overtightened, they can leave marks, dents or scratches on a scope.

I put a set on a Winchester 70 with a Redfield scope back in the early 90's, just replaced that scope with a Leopold about a year ago. Yes it was marred up a bit, but the scope is/was junk.

I use Burris Signature rings, the ones with the inserts. No scratch or dent sale here.

BTW I'm and old guy

Yep. Other than that, they performed well and they were lighter than the other standard of the day: the steel Redfield Jr. mount

__________________
Keep your powder dry.

Only mounts I ever used. From 300 Win mag to 22LR rifles and 22LR/41 mag pistols/revolvers since the late 60’s. Never had any issues of any kind.

I've found slipping a bit of envelope or a business card along the side as I snap it over the scope prevents the scratches. Dents can be avoided with a torque-driver. I was just wondering why they had gotten scarce and it sounds like they are still giving good service to many in the community. I guess I'll desist my search for anything else.
I wish there were something smaller and lighter, like the same design but with a titanium top strap.

I used them quite a bit back in the day . In fact, some of my older rifles still use them. My biggest beef with them is they can be a pain to tighten down while still maintaining a centered reticle. They have a tendency to rotate the scope body while being tightened. They also do not provide a complete and even mounting surface for the scope tube. Look at a traditional Weaver ring with the top strap installed with no scope and you will see what I am talking about. That said, they do work, but there are better choices out there today.

Larry

I have several rifles bought in 60s that have had Weaver Rings and scopes on them since. Use to drive me to drink getting scope clocked so when you tightened screws cross hairs were plumb. I have a piece of shim brass that is formed for 1” tube. I snap ring over top this to avoid scratching tube, pushing down on hole side. Once on tube you slide it off brass. Brass .015”
Weavers on everything from 22s to big magnums.
Parted with Weaver when they left Texas. The only problem I remember with Weaver mounts & bases was their Pivot model. It was craze to have them on Rem 742 & 760s. The Rifles themselves were a craze in late 60s.
Most were 3006 or 270. Anyway the recoil would auto pivot your scope.I promptly did away with that set up.
I still run into scope issues where Weaver rings are better choice or only choice.
Word of caution: when torquing down ring screws run each one a little at a time. Draw them down evenly. Don’t forget lower is alumilum so don’t go ham handed and strip out.

I use Burris Signature rings on every scoped firearm I own. To me they're well worth the cost. No ring marks on scopes and if you run out of adjustment on a scope, you can use the offset inserts to bring the scope into adjustment without damaging the scope with shims.

I have lots of old Weaver rings lying around, but never did care for them. I'm a bit OCD about some things like have the reticle level and it can be a pain with the Weaver rings. They can also scratch some scope tubes when putting on and removing if you're not careful.

I've never had a scope slip with the old school Weaver Rings .
Once installed the scope stays put ... one 30-06 with a steel Weaver K-4 scope and the old Weaver Tip-Off bases and rings has been in place nearly 50 years ... and never moved .
They may not be "sexy" but if you want an optic to stay in place , even under heavy recoil ... The Weaver Tip-Off Rings will do the job and not break the bank ...
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

After 55 years of mounting and using scopes on hundreds, yes hundreds of rifles, I have used my fair share of early Weaver rings and bases. I detested those early rings. They are difficult to say the least. Get the crosshairs lined up and level, tighten the screws and now the crosshairs are crooked. The cause is the mounting screws on one side only. I do like the weaver style bases built by quality manufactures like Warne. You can on old Weaver bases and the never higher quality manufactures remove the scope and remount it and only be slightly, @1" away from pre removal zero. For us that carried rifles daily but used them seldom this was a bonus. Dismount the scope and put it into your kit. When it was time to kill a deer simply reattach the scope and fill the freezer. Ruger's built in bases offer the same hitability after removal. I like this feature for my lifestyle. Doesn't mean beans to other. I have looked for good quality rings to fit Weaver style bases but have yet to find what I like. Another redeeming quality of the older Weaver rings is they were the only manufacturer of super low rings, which I prefer, so several of my guns still have the old style Weaver's as much as I would prefer something else. Once on and set I have had no failures from them even in the roughest uses.

There are more attractive rings made, but I've yet to find any that do the job any better than the old Weavers.

I have hears a couple of very good shooters say they are the strongest mounts out there, they are just ugly. Shoot em if you got em.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

I like them and have a bunch of them, I still pick them up at gun shows when I see them. I needed a pair last week so I ordered some off ebay for $20. I prefer the gloss finish and the old school look as well. As far as installing with no marks I use a piece of wax paper when I snap the top ring on.

__________________
Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda

I order 2 new made sets for a couple of projects. Two new sets arrived in the box new. The quality was so poor it took both sets to make one set of rings. While I don't care for this style, the older rings were of better quality compared to the 2 new sets I bought.

I wasn't aware the quality had deteriorated, but the original Weaver company has been out of business for decades, I think. The newest Weaver rings and bases I have are probably over thirty years old and many of them much older than that. I've never had a problem with any of them.

I retired the first work day in 2002 and at the time I did not use ebay, any thing I wanted a friend's wife bought or me. I found a K4 stainless scope with stainless rings he asked how much would I go I said 150 and she got it for 126 I have never mounted it and its brand new I always liked El Paso merchandise. Jeff

Ugly as sin. I have more respect for my rifles and scopes than to use them. Though I do have a set on an old T/C Contender bbl.

Best regards,

I have the Weaver pivot mount on my Model 70 fwt in .308 with an El Paso Weaver steel tubed 4x. Never had it pop open, but it's not a hard kicker. I like it, and an surprised there are not modern versions available for shooters who like the ability to switch between open and optical sights on their rifles. Mine always stays well within an inch of initial sight in grouping.

Larry

Attached Images

	win 70 3.jpg (102.1 KB, 43 views)
	win 70 5.jpg (83.1 KB, 43 views)

[QUOTE=rockquarry;141385391]

The only drawback with the Weaver rings is in the initial setup when getting the scope reticle straight. Takes a little patience, but it's a one time job.


The trick is to put a little powdered rosin on the saddle of the aluminum base, and some gun oil on the steel top clamp. Then the scope won't rotate when the screws are tightened.

That's an interesting trick. I'm totally going to try that next time I set one up.

[quote=Rifleman200-10X;141386664]

Getting level is a PITA with those old scopes. I usually have the reticle canted one way and screw down. Then back off just a bit and tap to level, then screw down. Works, sometimes takes a few, but I get it done.

I have a 375 H&H pistol (Encore, 15" and ported) and the only thing that held the pistol scope in place was the old Weaver rings and some resin. Everything else required 3 rings or the scope slipped.

They're great for the period correct stuff too.

Better choices today, never had a problem with the old Weavers. Performed perfectly. What are the "better choices"?