Tikka and Warne

[Lefty315]

So I pulled the trigger, pun intended, and ordered a Tikka T3X in .308. It’ll primarily be a gun to just mess around with but I’ll probably take it on a hunt now and then. I’ve spent the last couple of days searching here and just wanted to see if anyone who uses the Warne rings that Mount directly to the gun are still happy with them? I have a Leupold 3-9x40 in the closet that I’ll initially put on it. Eventually it would probably be swapped for a 3.5-10x40.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I used warne for a while. They worked well. At some point I switched to Murphy Precison T3X SS picatinny rail, as I tend to move scopes around.

 

[riv3rbanks]

I like the Warne rings for Tikka receivers. Simple and no issues with zeros yet. I have that setup in 30-06 and 6.5. Both lefties

 

[Redman]

Leupold recommended to go with Warne when their QD rings and mounts were causing me issues on one of my rifles. I respect Leupold for that and Warne is used on several of my rifles. I use Leupold, Warne, Tally, and Seekins on different rifles depending on the intended use.

 

[MT_Chad]

I've been happy with the warne rings on my Tikka, I like their rings, I have them on several guns.

 

[TX_Eric]

I just mounted up a set the other day, shot with them today. They seem as solid as the Warnes I have on my other rifles which I have no complaints about.

 

[morgaj1]

I'm the odd man out. I don't like the vertically split Warne rings. They are more difficult than horizontally split rings to keep the reticle level during installation and they leave deeper marks on the scope tubes. I like Sportsmatch rings that mount directly to the Tikka dovetail.

 

[Phaseolus]

I have DNZ’s on both my tikkas

 

[SFC B]

Something you might consider for your Tikka is using a rail from Mountain Tactical out of Montana. It is made with the recoil lug integrated into it.....and then a set of precision rings. I use both the Vortex Precision (matched, serial numbered and made by Seekins Precision) and the Hawkins Precision which is made right here in Colorado Springs. The rail/ring combination gives you the best solution for ensuring proper eye relief.

 

[std7mag]

I have several sets of the Warne rings, but mounted on EGW one piece bases.
Have EGW bases on like 8 of my rifles.
Rings are Warne, Vortex & EGW.

While the Warne are good rings, they were kinda a PITA to put on.

When i'm looking to keep weight down, i go with the Vortex rings.
The EGW Keystone line of rings work really well if you don't mind the extra weight. At 2.5oz each for the low 30mm rings, these things are seriously overbuilt!

 

[EastTNHunter]

I have DNZ’s on both my tikkas

I think that the OP is asking about the integrated rings and bases that are popular for the Tikka. They are good. I agree that the vertical split rings, on the other hand, are a pain.

I like a rail for more flexibility in eye relief adjustment. I have a short neck apparently, and set my scope a little further back than most.

Edit: looks like you realized that about the rings as I was quoting/typing

 

[Lefty315]

Thanks for the input. I snagged a pair of Warne rings so I’ll give them a try. Worse case scenario I don't like them and try something else. my Biggest concern was movement on the rail but I think that’s been alleviated with the recoil lug on the front ring. It’s a .308 so I’m not overly worried about movement.

 

[SFC B]

Enjoy your Tikka!!!

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

FWIW, I think you made a good choice. If you end up not liking the Warnes, take a look at the Talley or Leupold 1-piece ringmounts. I use the Talleys on my T3 after some initial issues with the factory rings, and they have been holding up well to 7mm Rem Mag recoil for about 15 years.

I know my opinion might be unpopular with some, but I would never put a picatinny rail on hunting rifle with a standard design stock. Once you add that rail, you will not be able to get your scope as low as you could had you stuck with standard rings. Generally speaking for a hunting rifle you want your scope as low as you can get it without contacting the barrel for three primary reasons: Cheek weld, reducing the angle from line of sight to bore axis, and reducing POI shift from inadvertent rifle cant.

I feel like the flexibility of the rail makes more sense on a precision rifle as these factors are mitigated with adjustable stocks, dialing elevation, and levels.

 

[Lefty315]

FWIW, I think you made a good choice. If you end up not liking the Warnes, take a look at the Talley or Leupold 1-piece ringmounts. I use the Talleys on my T3 after some initial issues with the factory rings, and they have been holding up well to 7mm Rem Mag recoil for about 15 years.

I know my opinion might be unpopular with some, but I would never put a picatinny rail on hunting rifle with a standard design stock. Once you add that rail, you will not be able to get your scope as low as you could had you stuck with standard rings. Generally speaking for a hunting rifle you want your scope as low as you can get it without contacting the barrel for three primary reasons: Cheek weld, reducing the angle from line of sight to bore axis, and reducing POI shift from inadvertent rifle cant.

I feel like the flexibility of the rail makes more sense on a precision rifle as these factors are mitigated with adjustable stocks, dialing elevation, and levels.

I did look at the Talley and Leupold 1 piece set up. I pretty much have Leupold mounts and rings on every scoped rifle I own but I thought I’d look at something different for this gun. My buddy has a couple Tikka rifles with DNZ and Leupold on his. Both seemed a bit high for me but I know he used Mediums on both his guns. I know the Warne are listed as a Medium, I’m hoping they sit a bit lower. Time will tell, rifle has been shipped, ammo on the way, rings on the way and a spare Leupold sits in the closet waiting for its chance!!

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

I did look at the Talley and Leupold 1 piece set up. I pretty much have Leupold mounts and rings on every scoped rifle I own but I thought I’d look at something different for this gun. My buddy has a couple Tikka rifles with DNZ and Leupold on his. Both seemed a bit high for me but I know he used Mediums on both his guns. I know the Warne are listed as a Medium, I’m hoping they sit a bit lower. Time will tell, rifle has been shipped, ammo on the way, rings on the way and a spare Leupold sits in the closet waiting for its chance!!

I think Warne makes a good product, and you will be happy. I used their detachable rings on my Muzzleloader and have had no issues with them or their ability to return to zero. I have Talley Lightweight Lows on my T3 with a Zeiss 40mm scope, and plenty of clearance.

 

[Tikka06]

I have had talley LW’s on one and Warne rings on a pic rail on another. No issues with either.

 

[SFC B]

FWIW, I think you made a good choice. If you end up not liking the Warnes, take a look at the Talley or Leupold 1-piece ringmounts. I use the Talleys on my T3 after some initial issues with the factory rings, and they have been holding up well to 7mm Rem Mag recoil for about 15 years.

I know my opinion might be unpopular with some, but I would never put a picatinny rail on hunting rifle with a standard design stock. Once you add that rail, you will not be able to get your scope as low as you could had you stuck with standard rings. Generally speaking for a hunting rifle you want your scope as low as you can get it without contacting the barrel for three primary reasons: Cheek weld, reducing the angle from line of sight to bore axis, and reducing POI shift from inadvertent rifle cant.

I feel like the flexibility of the rail makes more sense on a precision rifle as these factors are mitigated with adjustable stocks, dialing elevation, and levels.

A 0 MOA rail with low rings will be as low as standard rings/1 pieces. With a scope with a 50mm objective it would be impossible to go any lower without touching the barrel. The other issue with standards is that, given the short length of some scope tubes, it makes some scope/rifle combos impossible.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

For sake of an accurate response I did a little bit of research to confirm what I thought I knew.

Mountain tactical Rail .375"
Seekins 1" Low Ring .76" from center of optic to top of pic rail (This was the lowest I could find, but maybe there are lower. FYI: Hawkins Precision doesn't make a 1" ring)

This puts you at 1.13" from the top of the receiver.

Talley Lows put the center of the optic 1.01" from the top of the receiver (extra lows would put it at .91).

In most brands you are jumping .1" each from low/med/high (Seekins runs half sizes), so in effect removing the pic rail drops you a full height increment and some change in comparison to another Talley to keep it consistent.

Also, the OP is mounting a 40mm scope, not a 50mm.

 

[Lefty315]

Appreciate all the responses and alternatives offered. Should have the gun later this next week and be up and running. I’ll post an update on my thoughts.