Tikka and Warne

[std7mag]

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'll agree with you to a point.
Your opinion is your opinion, and your entitled to it, just like the rest of us.

I like the rail setup that i have on most of my rifles. Just for the flexability that you mention.
I usually run the 20MOA one piece bases from EGW teamed with low rings.
Most of my hunting scopes are 40-42mm objectives.
I know i don't need the 20MOA rail for most of my hunting applications. Keeping ranges to 400 yards or closer.
But i do like to shoot further distances for targets. 600-1,000 yards.
The EGW base, (kinda tall) with low rings puts my scopes at a good level for "propper cheek weld".
But as i use different brands of scopes, with different eye box for each, being able to set them properly makes it much easier with the rail.

I have had to make modifications to rails for clearance between either the flare for the objective & the rail, or the magnification ring to the rail.

 

[DRS]

I put Warne rings on my T3 .270 last summer and they have worked fine so far.

 

[Brian in Montana]

I've used those Warne rings on my T3X .308. The worked well. I have this impression, maybe I read it somewhere, that they tend to move a little over time with heavy recoiling rifles, but .308 would probably be fine.

And I think you're going to like that rifle. Mine has really been my go-to hunting rifle for quite a few years. Its knocked over many a deer, plus 2 elk and 2 bears.

 

[OntarioHunter]

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 disagree. I had to add a rail to my Springfield when I decided to go with Warne quick detach rings. The tube on my Nikon scope was too short to get proper eye relief with standard rings and bases and no one makes extended QD rings. The steel rail I ordered from Sarco was exactly the same height as the "medium" Weaver bases it replaced. This rail had a cutout for top loading the Springfield magazine which just barely allowed the scope to come back far enough for my eye relief. Sarco also makes a "standard" rail with notches full length and no cutout. One of those would take any scope no problem but it looked too tactical for my taste. "Low" Warne QD rings are only slightly higher than the existing "detachable" Weaver medium rings I had on the gun. This is the problem when switching/selecting rings and bases. Make sure you get the proper height. "Medium" is not a standard height when dealing with different manufacturers. In fact, it is different for EVERY manufacturer. Often radically different.

I had no issues with the Warne rings split on top. I seem to recall they were a little bit more fiddly getting them together when mounting but no big deal. They have not marked my scope. I suspect that may have been a problem for another poster who had bases that were not in alignment. Not an issue usually when using a rail.
Edit: I should add that these rings have so far held zero very well. Note that I mounted the rings so that detach levers are on same side as elevation turret. They are also pointed at the turret. This keeps them shielded and less likely to catch on brush when going through thick cover. So far it's worked very well.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

The exception definitely does prove the rule....

 

[OntarioHunter]

The exception definitely does prove the rule....

 

[blacksheep]

Question. What about the Leupold backcountry one piece rings/bases ? Has anyone used them? Thoughts?

bkacksheep