Survey: rings or rail

[JHM]

I would like to ask the following question: rings or rail on the scopes and why.

I have always preferred the rail mount because perfect cross alignment is achieved and the tube is not marked when changing to another scope, between other reasons. However, most mounts are ring mounts and it would be good to discuss the pros and cons of both mounts.

Best regards, Jorge.

 

[Totoro]

Ignorant here but you do mean by ring or rail mount?

I'll throw my 2 bits into discussion once I have a better understanding.

D

 

[Opposite Pole]

I see no advantages to rings vs rail for most scope uses. Rail is easier to mount and does not put any stress on the scope tube. If a scope is available in a rail version, that is what I buy. If the rings are over torqued or misaligned even by a fraction of a degree, they stress the scope tube; rail does not. With a rail, you can be a complete numb skull and over-torque the screws to the point of stripping threads. You will damage the screws, not the scope. I know no reasonable person does that, but it illustrates the point. One area where rings seem to have an advantage is the availability of canted scope mounts for long-range shooting. I have never seen (or looked for) such a mount for a rail scope. Perhaps they exist but I haven’t seen one.

 

[Opposite Pole]

Ignorant here but you do mean by ring or rail mount?

Here is a Zeiss version also used by some other scope makers. Swaro has their own version, S&B offers their own was well as Zeiss option.

Zeiss ZM/VM Rifle Scope mounting rail - Optics Trade Blog

History of Zeiss inner rail In the past, a lot of European scopes were mounted to the rifles with the use of a traditional prismatic rail under the scope housing. This type of rail is today called LM rail, however, most of the scope manufacturers later decided to develop a new type of mounting...

optics-info.com

 

[Totoro]

Oh I see, European style of mounting.

Sorry friend, to that topic I have no experience.

However, I will say when mounting the scope into the rings I always bed the scope to rings even after a light lapping.

 

[VertigoBE]

Although I am by no means an expert on the matter, rails seem the superior option, however they are much less common, therefore especially on the mid-range priced scopes, you will not have a lot of choice. Basically, when going for rail mounts, you will mostly be limited to the more expensive brands: Swaro, Zeiss, Kahles, and maybe two or three others. While ring mounts, the choice is unlimited almost.

 

[fourfive8]

Some years ago rails became a "tactical" thing. Add the word Picatinny to top off the cool factor description. Both systems have their place. Actually Weaver, unless I'm mistaken, was one of first to use it in their one piece base before it was called a Picatinny rail.

For plinking, target rifle scope mounting and "tactical" rifle scope mounting along with accessories for the tactical "look", a rail mount system makes sense and it allows for a much more foolproof, torque free and easier-to-do mounting. For adding elevation to a scope mount system for extreme long range shooting... whatever system works for the purpose- just not my bag as long range sniping and is definitely not in my lexicon for hunting rifle use.

For most hunting rifle scope mounting, especially DG, I prefer two rings. I lap and use a solid rod to prevent off-axis torque and stress to the scope when mounting. Two rings maximize loading port space for loading and ejection. Example of maximum loading port clearance is shown below- my 416 Rem Mag Win M70 with scope using dual dovetail mounts.

 

[Berettaco]

It is usually cost and selection availability- I prefer rings and have little to no issues. For newer rifles I opt for DNZ or Talley. Classic rifles I like Warne or sunny hill. This allows me to change or mount various scope sizes to the exact height I prefer for little $.

 

[Challer]

I use rail mount exclusively. Perfect reticle alignment, no stress on the tube, easy to adjust eye relief, no lapping. The idea that European rail mount is somehow tacticool is ludicrous. Europe is about hunting. Tactical scopes, other than things like ACOG, are all ring mounted. The rings are often mounted to a rail, sure. But a square bridge receiver is just a rail by a different name.

 

[VertigoBE]

Some years ago rails became a "tactical" thing. Add the word Picatinny to top off the cool factor description. Both systems have their place. Actually Weaver, unless I'm mistaken, was one of first to use it in their one piece base before it was called a Picatinny rail.

For plinking, target rifle scope mounting and "tactical" rifle scope mounting along with accessories for the tactical "look", a rail mount system makes sense and it allows for a much more foolproof, torque free and easier-to-do mounting. For adding elevation to a scope mount system for extreme long range shooting... whatever system works for the purpose- just not my bag as long range sniping and is definitely not in my lexicon for hunting rifle use.

For most hunting rifle scope mounting, especially DG, I prefer two rings. I lap and use a solid rod to prevent off-axis torque and stress to the scope when mounting. Two rings maximize loading port space for loading and ejection. Example of maximum loading port clearance is shown below- my 416 Rem Mag Win M70 with scope using dual dovetail mounts.
View attachment 429167

@fourfive8
Unless I grossly misunderstood the OP's question, I believe he did not ask about opinions on picatinny/weaver rails versus other mounting options, but rather scopes with an integrated rail, or scopes without an integrated rail that have to use rings:

Swarovski Z8i without rail, which will need rings to mount to a rifle:

Which you mount like this:

Swarovski Z8i with integrated rail, which cannot use rings to mount to a rifle, but uses a specialised rail mount:

Which you mount like this:

 

[C.W. Richter]

Some years ago rails became a "tactical" thing. Add the word Picatinny to top off the cool factor description. Both systems have their place. Actually Weaver, unless I'm mistaken, was one of first to use it in their one piece base before it was called a Picatinny rail.

For plinking, target rifle scope mounting and "tactical" rifle scope mounting along with accessories for the tactical "look", a rail mount system makes sense and it allows for a much more foolproof, torque free and easier-to-do mounting. For adding elevation to a scope mount system for extreme long range shooting... whatever system works for the purpose- just not my bag as long range sniping and is definitely not in my lexicon for hunting rifle use.

For most hunting rifle scope mounting, especially DG, I prefer two rings. I lap and use a solid rod to prevent off-axis torque and stress to the scope when mounting. Two rings maximize loading port space for loading and ejection. Example of maximum loading port clearance is shown below- my 416 Rem Mag Win M70 with scope using dual dovetail mounts.
View attachment 429167

Bingo. I prefer talley bases and rings on the most accurate rifles owned. If you're going to use the ugly as sin clunky rail system on a hunting rifle at least use steel models like those from Warne.

 

[Opposite Pole]

Bingo. I prefer talley bases and rings on the most accurate rifles owned. If you're going to use the ugly as sin clunky rail system on a hunting rifle at least use steel models like those from Warne.

We’re talking about different things. We’re discussing scopes with integrated rails that do not require scope rings as per @VertigoBE post above.

 

[Opposite Pole]

Like so

 

[Challer]

Bingo. I prefer talley bases and rings on the most accurate rifles owned. If you're going to use the ugly as sin clunky rail system on a hunting rifle at least use steel models like those from Warne.

Integrated scope are far sleeker than any ring. You’re thinking Picatinny rail mounted scopes- that still have rings. We’re talking no ring, no rifle rail.

 

[Opposite Pole]

Or like so

 

[fourfive8]

@fourfive8
Unless I grossly misunderstood the OP's question, I believe he did not ask about opinions on picatinny/weaver rails versus other mounting options, but rather scopes with an integrated rail, or scopes without an integrated rail that have to use rings:

Swarovski Z8i without rail, which will need rings to mount to a rifle:
View attachment 429194
Which you mount like this:
View attachment 429196


Swarovski Z8i with integrated rail, which cannot use rings to mount to a rifle, but uses a specialised rail mount:

View attachment 429195
Which you mount like this:
View attachment 429197

Yes, you are absolutely correct for scopes that have a rail (or other mount system) integral to the scope body. But those are usually proprietary mounting systems... so discussion of rings would obviously be mute.

 

[fourfive8]

I just love auto correct/fill… not! Obviously the word should be ‘moot’! Apologies.

The scopes with integral rails are truly a very limited commodity so really won’t apply to any broad based discussion about preferences between rail and ring mounting systems in the common vernacular. Kind of an apples vs oranges concept.

 

[Alaska]

Some years ago rails became a "tactical" thing. Add the word Picatinny to top off the cool factor description. Both systems have their place. Actually Weaver, unless I'm mistaken, was one of first to use it in their one piece base before it was called a Picatinny rail.

For plinking, target rifle scope mounting and "tactical" rifle scope mounting along with accessories for the tactical "look", a rail mount system makes sense and it allows for a much more foolproof, torque free and easier-to-do mounting. For adding elevation to a scope mount system for extreme long range shooting... whatever system works for the purpose- just not my bag as long range sniping and is definitely not in my lexicon for hunting rifle use.

For most hunting rifle scope mounting, especially DG, I prefer two rings. I lap and use a solid rod to prevent off-axis torque and stress to the scope when mounting. Two rings maximize loading port space for loading and ejection. Example of maximum loading port clearance is shown below- my 416 Rem Mag Win M70 with scope using dual dovetail mounts.
View attachment 429167

Why do you have your scope mounted wrong ?

 

[AZDAVE]

I like the rail systems on the few scopes that have them, I saw a good number when was in Germany, but here in the states I have only seen and handled two scopes that had the rail system. (SWARO). So it comes down to what is available. All my scopes have rings.

 

[rookhawk]

This is a complicated question because even in the "like so" photos I don't see optimal, only necessary evils.

First to concur, we are talking about European railed scopes, not Picatinny rails.

As to "why use a rail scope" there are two key benefits. 1.) It allows the absolutely lowest scope mounting which in turn reduces recoil and allows a stock to operate well with iron sights or an optic. 2.) It allows micro-adjustment of the front-back eye relief to allow precise location for an instinctive, snap shot without searching for the scope when shouldered.

So if you are buying a rail scope you better be achieving points 1 and 2 above. Sadly, many people do not understand how form and function work and they just pay more for a rail needlessly. Many times people put a scope with an exit objective so large on their rifle that they cannot get the scope low anyway. They also may find that they do not need micro-adjustable rails because the main scope body has adequate length to slide it back and forth to get good eye relief.

Apologies to my Germanic gun friends above (I own them too) but the blaser/heym mounts that clamp to the barrels or receivers aren't that great on their mass-produced kipplaufs, drillings, combo guns, and double rifles at the entry-level. The problem is they take up more room than a normal action mount and normal quick detach scope rings. They also do not have the tolerances to give quick detach the same level of assurance as the truly excellent quick detach arrangements from EAW and Rechnagel like claw mounts, pivot mounts, and the like. (even more superior if the claws or pivots are integrated into the quarter rib or the square bridge to make the mounts even lower.

A rail mount into a German claw with a saddle machined into the bridge or quarter rib in an ultra low location that identically matches the iron sight to stock comb alignment is the ultimate. It is rarely achieved because so few people understand what these expensive components are designed to accomplish.