If no intention of swapping scopes, any downside to an action that's tapped for direct scope rings?

[DocAutomatic]

I know most people here generally tend toward actions with integrated picatinny rails because they either intend or can envision likely scenarios where they want to move scopes around to different rifles or try different scopes while maintaining a rough return to zero... but... is there any downside to an action that is only tapped for rings vs action with integral rail, all else being equal, if one fully intends to mount one particular scope to it and not move it around? I have to imagine there's some, maybe small, level of weight savings and compactness advantage to simply having rings directly attached through the tapped holes of an action without integral rails, and probably a fair bit of cost advantage too (yes, I violated my own "all else being equal" rule there), but I admit I am not confident enough to say that I have considered every little aspect of this choice.

Is there something I am overlooking beyond the idea that this prospective rifle will not have the scope moved around? Maybe something to do with eye box/eye relief adjustment range? Anything?

To be clear, I am unconcerned both with what the cool guys at the range might think about such a choice or with some mythical ideas regarding resale value at some indeterminate time point in some indeterminate future might be, I'm wondering if there's something mechanical/tangible/meaningful to the function of such an action choice given the premise that there's no intention of moving/swapping the scope (unless I have to because it broke or something, but that can happen regardless of rail vs direct threaded rings). Through much error/experience I have learned that sharing things like optics/suppressors/other parts among different guns is both annoying and suboptimal, it's worth the price to just keep each gun a complete system, well that's my opinion on it anyway, and like I said, it was formed through a few decades of trying the opposite.

 

[Mike Casselton]

Are you referring to rings like the ones made by Talley?

Like these?

They are really nice if you are looking to minimize weight

 

[Baron23]

I know most people here generally tend toward actions with integrated picatinny rails because they either intend or can envision likely scenarios where they want to move scopes around to different rifles or try different scopes while maintaining a rough return to zero... but... is there any downside to an action that is only tapped for rings vs action with integral rail, all else being equal, if one fully intends to mount one particular scope to it and not move it around? I have to imagine there's some, maybe small, level of weight savings and compactness advantage to simply having rings directly attached through the tapped holes of an action without integral rails, and probably a fair bit of cost advantage too (yes, I violated my own "all else being equal" rule there), but I admit I am not confident enough to say that I have considered every little aspect of this choice.

Is there something I am overlooking beyond the idea that this prospective rifle will not have the scope moved around? Maybe something to do with eye box/eye relief adjustment range? Anything?

To be clear, I am unconcerned both with what the cool guys at the range might think about such a choice or with some mythical ideas regarding resale value at some indeterminate time point in some indeterminate future might be, I'm wondering if there's something mechanical/tangible/meaningful to the function of such an action choice given the premise that there's no intention of moving/swapping the scope (unless I have to because it broke or something, but that can happen regardless of rail vs direct threaded rings). Through much error/experience I have learned that sharing things like optics/suppressors/other parts among different guns is both annoying and suboptimal, it's worth the price to just keep each gun a complete system, well that's my opinion on it anyway, and like I said, it was formed through a few decades of trying the opposite.

For a hunting rifle where weight is a concern, yeah…go for it.

 

[Aftermath]

To be clear, and then I said a bunch of stuff that made it not so clear

Fixed it fer ya.

 

[corsairpilot62]

bro, redfield base and rings all the time. Unless it is a tacticool or clone build.

 

[R_A_W]

Technically, integrated rail is superior across every metric, except weight. Integrated steel rails don’t fail & add rigidity to the receiver. The interface between quality conventional rings and an integrated picatinny is much stronger than the mounting screws on the rings you’re inquiring about could ever hope to be (even if they’re pinned or have a small lug… 8-40’s just don’t compare to crossbolts on modern conventional rings/mounts)

Practically, you likely will never see much difference, other than the few ounces saved. You’d probably damage an optic before seeing any kind of failure on properly installed quality direct-mount rings

envision likely scenarios where they want to move scopes around to different rifles or try different scopes while maintaining a rough return to zero...

Swapping is probably the biggest difference. Optics fail. The ability to quickly swap another optic on without touching ring caps simply to confirm or to save a hunt etc. is a plus for me. User & use case dependent though

 

[spife7980]

Provided it’s of sufficient quality so that the taps are in the right place and correctly in line, nothing wrong with it.

Aka, my cousins savage axis is observably poorly tapped to the naked eye, his rigid mount rings have him tapped out on windage without a true 100yard zero and pinched the shit out of the scope tube. But it was a $400 scope rifle bundle. I would not dare put my Schmidt in its rings to try for a real zero.

 

[Jadazu]

^^^ "Sufficient quality" is a big deal. Any deviation of ring bases and receiver shape from their idealized shapes will result in the rings not being co-axial. The 'axiality' should be checked, using a bar-stock tool matching the scope body diameter.

Some people epoxy bed the ring bases, with a scope diameter bar clamped in the rings while the bedding sets and hardens...

 

[Emerson0311]

No downside to a rail except a bit of weight. Every thing else is an upside.

 

[Budrichard]

Most use a Pic rail for required elevation for distance shooting and not for scope changing as the primary reason for use!
A pic Rail and modern scope mounts can simplify what used to be an 'ART' using direct to receiver mounts.
The direct mounts in the pastwere bot often cumputer aided machined and getting fit in the rings and adjustment for zero could be problematic.
A good pic rail and mounts provide good zero before adjustments if the scope is properly adjusted.
I have used the Tally one piece mounts and they work well.
If you want an offset for distance shooting, a Pic Rail is the way to go.
They usually have 20moa offset but higher can be found.
-Richard

 

[cas6969]

Advantages, yes. Theoretical advantages I guess. So theoretically sometimes they can help. So by using them you know you're doing everything you can. Theoretically.



But if I'm honest the most accurate rifle I've ever owned had classic Weaver half strap rings, two piece Weaver bases and a Tasco scope.

 

[Ronin22]

As mentioned already, an integrated rail is supreme.
Regardless of either mounting type, a guy could be better off rolling one gun, one scope, one crosshair type to follow a KISS doctrine and LITFA. I keep buying and selling scopes so much I've failed both the KISS and LITFA doctrines. LOL.

Scopes and cigars, I just wanna keep trying them!

 

[DocAutomatic]

Ok, I am sold, I will go with integrated pic rail, my main hangup with it was weight (yea, yea, I'll just do more curls at the gym) but I also was thinking of the option of putting this rifle build in a more traditional hunting stock and I thought it might ruin that "tradishnul" look having an integrated rail. I'll get over it, both the 3oz of extra weight and minor aesthetic difference from grandpa Fudd's hunting rifle.

Appreciate the replies and even the gentle ribbing, you guys are alright.

 

[BobinNC]

A Steel Badger Ordnance 20 MOA rail weighs 4.9oz. An alloy Badger Ordnance 20 MOA rail weighs 1.9 oz.

A Steel Badger Ordnance 30mm medium ring (.885") weighs 7.7 oz. An alloy Badger Ordnance 30mm medium ring weighs 3.8 oz.

Doing the math, steel rings and bases weigh 12 oz. and alloy rings and bases weigh 6 oz.

You don't need steel rings and bases for most applications with standard cartridges (non-magnum) unless you like adding weight for balance or to tame recoil.

I used Badger because they give the weighs of their products. Most makers don't.

 

[kc7pwx]

I removed the rail from my Savage 308 bolt action and put the Talley rings on to save weight.
I have three ar-15 that all have forward mag grips and butt stock that hold an additional mag so not light.
With the bolt action I decided to go lightweight. I have it under 10 pounds loaded with 5 rounds fully setup minus the sling and suppressor cover.
Which is what I was looking for. My only other bolt action is over 30 pounds loaded.