What are the best scope rings for Tikka T3 300wm

[zwickeyman]

I have DNZ 2 pc aluminum on mine. Very light weight and well made

[lewy]

Talley light weight, one piece ring and base.

[magnumb]

Talley light weight, one piece ring and base.

Talley makes wonderful products.  In fact, I ordered several of their 'lightweight' rings and bases when deciding which bases and rings to mount on my new T3's.

All of my 6 or 7 hunting rifles are scoped with the exact same scope:  Zeiss 4.5 x 14 x 44mm, adjustable objective scopes.  These scopes offer me what I need in a hunting scope and they satisfy my needs and requirements very well.  They were relatively new Zeiss offerings about the same time as the T3's came out, so it was just a fortunate stroke of luck for me.

These models were all 1" tubes as are most scopes, but they sported a more 'pronounced 'orange peel' exterior than any other scope that I was familiar with.  It looked great, was a bit easier to handle securely and had no 'downside' to my way of thinking.  Well, as can happen no matter how much one thinks they have ordered all the right pieces and/or components to build their 'perfect' whatever, I soon found an issue trying to mate said scope, bases and rings together as I had hoped.

The 'lightweight' Talleys were very well made, light (as you would imagine) and exhibited wonderful F&F.  As I tried to secure the scope inside the rings, however, it immediately became apparent that they were not going to work with this specific scope.  Whether the 'orange peel' finish of the scope, the scope diameter itself or that the rings weren't spot on 1 inch diameter, I could not get those rings to totally clamp around that scope model without seeing light in several places between the inside of the rings and the scope tube itself.  I wasn't 'weenie armin' that tightening down process, either...... .  I never expect rings to totally encircle a scope tube as would a single sleeve of some sort due to where the rings are screwed together.  The 'light' that I was seeing between the rings and exterior of the scope tube were in-between the ring/screw attachment area's.  Not good, to my way of thinking, even though after being as secured as possible, I'm sure that they would still be secure today had I just decided to 'live with it'.  Not built to just roll with such things, I called Gary at Talley.

This was many years back, so this is how I remember how it went.  Gary, as usual, was his usual helpful, incredibly respectful, self.  As a true business man, he asked if I could send him one of my scopes and he'd try to figure out the problem and get back to me ASAP.  I gladly did so and he soon gave me a response that made sense.  Because of the rather pronounced 'orange peel' exterior of the scope, the scope actually was the slightest bit larger in diameter than the 1" rings and due to the randomness of the 'orange peel' pattern and the lightweight, ultra smooth surfaced, aluminum rings being more 'flexible' upon tightening down than steel, the light that I could see between the two in several spots was inevitable.  Made sense to me.

He suggested that I go with his solid steel bases and rings and after sending me a few sets and my scope back, I eagerly resumed where I had left off.  Problem fixed.  Due to the superior strength of the all steel bases, rings and attachment screws. I was able to tighten these rings enough to counter the slightly raised 'orange peel' exterior of the scope to where the rings and scope exterior mated perfectly without the slightest glimmer of light showing through.  Using a scope alignment tool prior to tightening the rings down ensured that there would be no damage done to either component. 

Yep........a tad bit heavier than the 'lightweights', but in the scheme of things, I have absolutely no reservations about the integrity of all of my scope/rings/ bases combinations on any of my huntin' rifles.  IMHO...it was initially a 'problem' that I couldn't live with and now a fix that gives me that extra bit of confidence.

Had the 'lightweights' worked for me, I would have been no less happy and confident.  It just so happened that the combination of this particular scope exterior and these 'lightweight' aluminum rings were not meant to be.  As an interesting aside (in my opinion), Zeiss reduced it's 'orange peel' exterior of this particular scope to much less than the original exterior, as I own both the offerings and the difference is certainly notable.

I'm thinkin' that Mr. Talley and Mr. Zeiss might have collaborated a bit.... way back when..... .   

[lewy]

Did you lap?

[magnumb]

Did you lap?

No........and outside of this particular instance, there has never been an issue or situation where I might have needed to......fortunately.  With as many rifles/scopes and assorted hardware that I've had to mate to one another over 4 decades, I have been fortunate, in that regard.  Not that it will always make a difference, but the quality of many products lessens the possibility of needing to consider such 'alterations'.  My situation involved a great company who puts out wonderful products that could not have prevented what occured. The best part was that is was easily remedied and very securely so.

To my way thinking, lapping is often performed when certain items/parts/hardware don't conform exactly as planned or designed.  My situation wasn't due to anyone's fault necessarily, but moreso due to a unique and then quite easily fixable circumstance.  I look at lapping and other such alterations (be the effort prudent and necessary or not) as I do 'break-in' for guns. 

Yep.....I certainly 'wring out' each firearm I have, particularly for my EDC guns.  That makes sense, especially when trying to figure out the most accurate and reliable ammo for that particular weapon.  Always have, always will.  But when I read that I should put 150-500 rounds through a weapon prior to considering it EDC worthy, that's bothersome.  A firearm, any firearm, especially a firearm, should come off the line 100% ready to be carried and used reliably and be able to use more than one or 2 different bullet weights and configurations reliably.  It makes little sense to me to manufacture a firearm that does shoot this bullet well and likely won't shoot these bullets at all (and for the most part, I'm a huge Glock fan just because of this). 

I consider myself fortunate in many ways.  I have the time and overall ability to really wring out any and all of the firearms that I own.  But I do that because it's the most prudent thing to do and many others don't for a myriad of reasons.  Not judging........it just is what it is and always will be.  IMHO.....just like making 'alterations' like lapping/bedding/free floating/breaking-in firearms, etc., to my way of thinking, are steps or quality control issues that should have been addressed loooong before that item hit the shelf.

I promote intimate familiarity with each firearm that we own and can't accept less than that as a prudent approach to firearm handling and ownership, but reality says otherwise.  My Kimber Ultra Carry II instructions, along with all instructions on the 'Kimber' forum tell you that a break-in period of several 100 rounds is necessary to ensure a reliable experience with their gun.  Really....?  Whether affordable for me or not, how many people (especially these days if they can even find the ammo) can afford to do that?  More importantly.......why should they have to....?  Again.....I'm not advocating buying a weapon, loading it up and not wringing it out properly, but every weapon should perform 100% off the shelf with whatever you feed it........period.

In the same sense, but to a lesser degree.......why should I ever have to lap (no matter if I do or not)..?  Once again, reality says that not everything will be designed perfectly and tinkering will be necessary, but better quality control and dedication to putting out as fool proof a product as possible would be a great start.

Just my take.......and the some......

[slm9s]

Talley light weight, one piece ring and base.

+1.


you can get the hard to find extra low height from swfa (or you used to be able to)