Rings verses Rails

stevenedwards

Well-Known Member
Would appreciate peoples experience with the relative advantages of built in rails over rings if any. Apart from looking good what about robustness and staying secure.
Ive only have one rifle and the scope came with the zeiss rail system which I have never given a moments thought in 6 years !
Planning to get a second and wondering which is best/toughest, some of the high end rings look good.
Thanks for your input

Steven
 

mchughcb

Well-Known Member
N

Got six swarovski single rail. With the tooth arrangement they never move. Best on the market.

Only down side over rings might be if you try to sell it as the audience is less than rings but wait long enough you will always get a buyer at the right price.
 
Last edited:

Muir

Well-Known Member
I can't help but feel this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I have never has a scope move or fall off when properly mounted in rings. Anybody?~Muir
 

deeangeo

Well-Known Member
I can't help but feel this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I have never has a scope move or fall off when properly mounted in rings. Anybody?~Muir
Can't help but think you're right Muir
But then again, I just think rails of any sort, especially piccatinny, look just terrible.
Must be jus' me LOL :D
 

tarponhead

Well-Known Member
I have heard that rails enable the eye relief required for NV gear. Some just like the tactical look. I agree it looks wrong on a sporting rifle, although it looks OK on some military-style scout rifles.
 

8x57

Distinguished Member
I have heard that rails enable the eye relief required for NV gear. Some just like the tactical look. I agree it looks wrong on a sporting rifle, although it looks OK on some military-style scout rifles.
Tarponhead I think you are possibly confusing scope rail systems with the picatinny rail system.

I like the idea of rails on scopes, I think they have several advantages and are a much neater solution than rings. The only problems are that there are so many different systems in use by the various scope manufacturers, also and has already been pointed out the market for selling on scopes should you decide to change is far more restricted.
 

jthyttin

Well-Known Member
Zeiss, Swarovski etc. rails are not meant to prevent scope sliding or falling off. They're just replacements for old prism rail (LM rail) that required gunsmith fitting in most cases. A lot have changed since, e.g. hakmontage are not used anymore and the attachment points on riflescope are both located on maintube etc.

In addition to what's said above, in theory built-in rail gives a bit more flexibility since the whole main tube area can be used. Usually the lowest mounting height is also more than with rings, but it doesn't matter since either scopes have substantial objective bell, or in case of driven game scopes the installation is done at same height than a bigger scope that's also used on the rifle.

If you're afraid of putting stress to the scope main tube, built-in rail makes the tube substantially stronger.
 
Last edited:

Edinburgh Rifles

Well-Known Member
Scope mounting systems have to be one of the most onver engineered and a design area where so many options exsist that simply do not need to

Manufactures of rifles and scopes clamour to develop proprietary systems that will somehow tie in customers to "their" system.

Some options are very well made and designed, some more than they need to be.
Some are just dreadful with poor quality fixing components and/or materials (need I mention Optilok bolts of the design of "Millet Mangle-Loks"!?)

Rarely is a rifle receiver tapped or dovetailed to an exact perpendicular to the vertical, add another component with a variable angel, then another, then the tolerance of the rail.....it all adds up

No doubt they work and work well, aesthetically they are not everyone's cup of tea though.
Rail mount scopes will not hold their value in the UK as the proportion of users is much smaller than on the continent.
The options of rail to rifle mounts is not as wide as it is with other larger brands which is fine if you are buying a rifle most commonly used in the larger rail mount market (the Blaser above is a prime example)

The issues come when you need to use the rifle's integral dovetail or tapped receiver to accomodate one or more components to take the rail system.
More components can equal more issues as the number of fixings increases and definitely more cost.

I personally prefer as few components as possible between my scope and rifle
 

stevenedwards

Well-Known Member
Hi

Edinburgh rifles. I agree with you as far as having as few components as possible, seems to give fewer variables, particularly if the compatibility is good from the start.

Mchughcb. Thanks for the benefit of your experience. So its Swarovski integral rail on another MO3 then.

Many thanks for all your thoughts.

Steven
 

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
I once read an American article that said despite the advances in cartridges, optics, barrel steel and etc., etc., we still attached 'scopes to rifles in the same manner medieval builders attached gutter downpipes to 16th Century houses.

Best system I've ever used is BRNO's ZKK series rail and groove; the sidemount on the No4(T); German claw mounts; Holland and Holland sidemounts.

The Jaeger sidemounts aren't too bad and the US variations of it. And some of the "similar" European styles of it.

All the rest, using pads drilled and tapped to the receiver and rings that fix to it, so Redfield, Leupold, "turn in type".

The Parker Hale pads and rings, Sako, Apel etc., etc., are merely medieval builder 16th Century gutter downpipe variations.
 

stevenedwards

Well-Known Member
Do you think that some of the 21st century highly engineered down pipe fittings are a solution to a problem that does not exist and are pushing the "tactical" button to get us to spend some money or is there a real need they meet ?
 

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
I think Picatinny rails are useful and desirable on a weapon where various quickly changeable sighting options are needed yes.

But on a stalking rifle that wears the same 'scope all its working life and gets detached only once or twice every six months or a year?

I don't know. For me if price were no issue I'd use German style claw mounts or a Holland and Holland sidemount.

Elegant, functional, simple, returns to zero and no screwdriver needed. I've used both and like them equally.

Best of all IMHO is where the rings are brazed to the 'scope itself as the Germans once did.

Only system I've never tried are American Conetrol mounts and bases. Doubt I ever will now that George Miller is passed away.
 

Top