And two rings to rule them all..?

I'm trying to find the lowest possible 30mm rings to mount my Ultradots. Burris Zee Signature are absolutely awesome, but the lowest ones are Medium, and there's quite a lot of space left between the rail and the bottom of the scope. Wondering if there's a better solution aside from making a custom mount.

https://www.leupold.com/hunting-shooting/mounting-systems/prw-mounting-systems/prw-30mm-low/


Only issue is the weight of them.

Yeah, I saw those, and you are right, they are damn heavy...

I use the B-Square low mounts. They're aluminum so nice and light. Just have to be careful with over tightening screws.
Jon

agree with Jon

the B-squares are great for a very cheap mount... very low

1" and 30 mm available


BTDT on over tightening the screws though

I had trouble with the B-square rings. I would not recommend them. The cross screws are round in section, and do not have much bearing surface against the slots in a base.

The cross bolt serves 2 purposes; clamping pressure side to side on scope mount and as a stop to prevent front or rearward movement. The section whether round or flat doesn't matter when considering the minimal forces being applied during recoil; so bearing pressure is really minor. F=P/A; so in otherwords round cross bolt has more force over a smaller area than the squared off cross bolt. But its being distributed into the mount with the same force. Crossbolt should only make front or rear contact (usually not both) and not bottom. If making bottom contact than rings are not fully seating on the base. So in my opinion it doesn't matter. Not liking the rings as a whole is another story :p)
Jon

http://ads.midwayusa.com/product/314163/aimpoint-30mm-weaver-style-rings-matte-medium?cm_mmc=ps_google-_-op_scope_rings,_bases,_and_mounting_accessories_beta_b-_-aimpoint

these are my preferred rings YMMV

Aimpoints are Very similar to the B-Square rings..


http://www.midwayusa.com/product/1254266619/b-square-30mm-sport-utility-weaver-style-rings-matte

I rarely use rings any more, for bullseye, since I am such a huge Micro advocate, but I do use quite a number of the Leupold PRW rings which are built to pull Sheman tanks out of the mud, for rifle applications.. The cross bar is flat and extends to the depth of the 45 degree cut. The cross bar width is .130, so I machine the cross slots to .131/.132 which gives a contact fit.. I started using these a some years ago on swat rifles which are geared up heavily with night vision and large scopes.. Works very well.. Downside is cost.. In comparison they are over twice the cost of average rings, but are superbly engineered.

Jon Eulette wrote:The cross bolt serves 2 purposes; clamping pressure side to side on scope mount and as a stop to prevent front or rearward movement. The section whether round or flat doesn't matter when considering the minimal forces being applied during recoil; so bearing pressure is really minor. F=P/A; so in otherwords round cross bolt has more force over a smaller area than the squared off cross bolt. But its being distributed into the mount with the same force. Crossbolt should only make front or rear contact (usually not both) and not bottom. If making bottom contact than rings are not fully seating on the base. So in my opinion it doesn't matter. Not liking the rings as a whole is another story :p)
Jon

I understand the physics. The B-square crossbolt didn't sit down into the slot in the base very far- only about 1/2 it's diameter. It beat up the slot in the mount. I had it on a 45.
In the 45, I wouldn't call the recoil forces minimal. Might not be a problem on a 22, though.

hmmm can't say I've had that issue at all with mine.

I've seen bases with cross slot not cut deep enough for round cross bolt.
Jon

I realize you wanted lower rings, but here is a way to reduce the weight of steel rings. It weights the same as an aluminum Ultra dot ring.

Jon Eulette wrote:I've seen bases with cross slot not cut deep enough for round cross bolt.
Jon

+1 on that Jon. I've received several Clark scope mount bases in the last few months where the cross-slot was not cut deep enough to allow the Weaver type rings to seat fully. The last two I received from Brownell's were good however.

Walt