scope rails systems vs conventional rings.....

deerstalker.308

Well-Known Member
Pros and cons of each please, I've only had experience of rings, guessing resale is harder with railed scopes?
Railed system looks more solid? And doesn't leave unsightly ring marks on the tube...

This will be for R8 saddle mounts if this makes any difference to folks opinions?
 
I wouldn't say "more" solid
certainly a better design IMO

limited appetite and restrictive market for options on mounts and glass

your particular application with Zeiss or Swaro seems a no brainer though
 
Speaking purely with a concern for the aesthetics and notwithstanding an acceptance of the inherent rigidity in an integral rail, I nonetheless find they still manage to look anything but nicely integrated with scope and action. They also perch unnecessarily high above bore line and, of course, cannot be altered in this regard.

All a long-winded way of saying I prefer fluted bases and nicely contoured rings. The latter looking as though they are a part of the main tube.

I wouldn't dream of mentioning a particular manufacturer!

K‎
 
Last edited:
I don't think they sit high above the bore at all, and over the conventional rings are a few advantages. No strain on the scope tube and the scope perfectly aligned with the bore being two of them.
 
I don't disagree albeit we may differ in what constitutes an acceptable gap between barrel and objective.‎

It doesn't however change ‎my liking for the alternative.

K‎
 
I don't disagree albeit we may differ in what constitutes an acceptable gap between barrel and objective.‎

It doesn't however change ‎my liking for the alternative.

K‎

What's an acceptable gap between barrel and objective in your book?
 
No daylight once a Butlercreek cover is fitted.

K

Well, i wouldn't treat my V8 with a cheap Butlercreek , i've got Zeiss screw in cap, so i will never now if mine falls within your standards i guess... :rofl:

Do you reckon this is not low enough for a 50mm objective?

2wcLBhu.jpg
 
Oh the irony! I was attempting to be inclusive and other than obtuse.

I had intended to say if you can't hear the sound of grit when rotating a parralex adjustable objective then all is far from ideal.

K
 
I understand that the various manufacturers use different dimensioned rails so it is a bugger for the mount makers. Such a small market overall so why can they not talk to each other and commonise the rail section?
Martin
 
Well, i wouldn't treat my V8 with a cheap Butlercreek , i've got Zeiss screw in cap, so i will never now if mine falls within your standards i guess... :rofl:

Do you reckon this is not low enough for a 50mm objective?

do zeiss do one for the ocular lens? have googled without success.
 
I have gone for the rail on the v8 due to finding rings that were not ££££££££ and I must say it was easy to set up no buggering around with cant just #1 eye ball to sort out the lock and go .
 
no just the bell @ around £100 which is a shame if you like to carry your rifle muzz down when its raining have to add they move and close better than my swaro caps.
 
Well, i wouldn't treat my V8 with a cheap Butlercreek , i've got Zeiss screw in cap, so i will never now if mine falls within your standards i guess... :rofl:

Do you reckon this is not low enough for a 50mm objective?

2wcLBhu.jpg

I sincerely hope you don't think I'm trying to tweak your bolt but that setup perfectly demonstrates my dislike. Hell, you could pass a Hornet and some through that gap!

K
 
I sincerely hope you don't think I'm trying to tweak your bolt but that setup perfectly demonstrates my dislike. Hell, you could pass a Hornet and some through that gap!

K

K, I have to say, I agree with you on this one, I would prefer a gap of 1 or maybe 2mm ideally, Shootgun, do you know what height that is and if there are different height options like with conventional rings?
 
Speaking purely with a concern for the aesthetics and notwithstanding an acceptance of the inherent rigidity in an integral rail, I nonetheless find they still manage to look anything but nicely integrated with scope and action. They also perch unnecessarily high above bore line and, of course, cannot be altered in this regard.

All a long-winded way of saying I prefer fluted bases and nicely contoured rings. The latter looking as though they are a part of the main tube.

I wouldn't dream of mentioning a particular manufacturer!

K‎

I have 5 Zeiss Rail based scopes and they sit very close to the barrel, so much so that I have to shave the lens covers. There is but milimeters space! For me the only downside of rail based scopes is trying to attach mounts for lights, lasers and NV add ons. The mounting is rock solid and there is no risk of of the tube getting crimped. I would also add that 90% of the scopes that I see on hunts over here are rail based. Aesthetically, I don't really care but in terms of solidity of hold, closeness to the barrel, they are without doubt a superior design in my opinion.
 
Back
Top