I need a set of medium 35mm rings and all I can find are aluminum. No steel rings to be found from Leupold, Warne, Badger, etc...

Very disappointed.

Tony.

Interesting and something I never focused on.

I thought my Leupold Mk4 35mm medium rings were steel, but when I checked: nope. Spuhr makes some mounts that are considered by many to be among the best, but they are some nonferrous alloy (no doubt aluminum) as well (not to mention expensive).

https://www.milehighshooting.c...&tab=products&page=1

I believe that the rings and Spuhr mounts I have would be capable of handling any rifle/scope/cartridge combination, but I admit I’ve never used any of my current holdings with anything more powerful than 308 Winchester. (Well, a few rounds of 300 Win Mag, but not many.)

I guess I should stop feeling bad because I have an Aero Precision mount that's also made of aluminum and is likely to fall apart when exposed to a dirty look.

Some of the best rings now are aluminum.

Larue Tactical, ADM, Unity, Badger Ordnance, etc are all aluminum now and they all work perfectly.

Tony,

I believe Warne makes steel rings, though maybe not stainless.

Can also check out Murphy Precision.

I ask this genuinely wanting to know the answer and not being contradictory, are there applications in standard 30 cal and smaller rifles where aluminum is not sturdy enough?

I just like steel rings when I can find them. I find that steel is harder to cross-thread and strip out than aluminum is and I like the higher torque values of steel versus aluminum.

I guess I'll just have to go with aluminum though. I've used MK4 steel rings for my 30mm MK4 scope for a decade and never had a problem with them. I've never had any problem with any of my steel rings. I torque them once and I'm set for years.

c'est la vie...

Tony.

I know nothing about this company, but they are advertised as 35mm and steel:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/20220...7Ctkp%3ABFBM3sKerc9j

I think you can find aluminum rings with steel thread inserts. The inserts would address your above-mentioned concerns. I think Larue has options built this way.

Larue part number LTR-35 will work with their mounts, and give you 35mm rings. However, they are one-piece mounts, which may not be your preference. The LT107 may work for you. It's their only 35mm-compatible mount that isn't a cantilever.

I put two and two together, looking at your other recent thread. That LT107 would certainly work on that rifle, and would probably be lower than what you have. It may not be as low as you'd ultimately prefer though.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

The last steel rings I owned were on Dad's pre-'64 Model 70. Those rings and the scope are long gone. Some modern rings/mounts have steel in the lower half, where they clamp onto the rail or mounting grooves. Tightening bolts/screws will be steel or titanium. The rings that hold the optic will likely be aluminum.

With the run-&-gun and drop-the-gun practices in 3-gun and PRS-type matches, if rings/mounts were to fail, this is the likely place. The last time I hear a competitor state, "My rifle would be more accurate, hold zero better, and be more durable with steel rings/mounts" was.....never.

Guess not.

Gents,

Buy quality and be happy with steel or alloy rings and you'll be OK.
My preference is steel rings and mounts for the reasons Benny 6 mentioned.

I've been using Nightforce, Badger Ord., and Leupold with not issues. My preference is Badger Ordnance(when available).

Being a retired Marine means we break things, so steel is a good idea for us...

Wes

I glossed over it before, which isn't helpful; the price on the Larue is HIGH. It addresses your concerns, but $450 is a hefty price to pay.

Rings don't require a high torque, so it shouldn't be a problem with aluminum and a torque wrench, IMO.
Hard to fathom a reason for steel.

Steel offers nothing over aluminum in contemporary rings. High torque isn’t necessary. Buy NF, Spuhr, Badger Ord and all will be well.

I’m sure that everyone who has commented is aware of the fact, but a reminder nevertheless:
Concern about excessive torque on scope rings isn’t just because the screws could be stripped out, but also because if the rings are designed so there’s a gap between upper and lower, tightening them down until the gap disappears can damage the scope tube.

One of the things I like about Spuhr mounts is that the rings are wide with large contact areas and the recommended torque for the six screws per ring is only 15 inch-pounds.

I ordered these last night. Should be here today.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod...00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Leupold MK4 rings. Aluminum.

Tony.

Hell they'll probably go to plastic pretty soon.

Just had the opposite problem, ordered Leupold steel rim fire rings cause the didn’t make the aluminum for picatinny rails.

Added an ounce to the build, first world problems.

quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:
Hell they'll probably go to plastic pretty soon.

Carbon fiber is a possibility. How many people would have predicted carbon fiber wrapped barrels 15 or 20 years ago? Not me, and I have one now.

Titanium, magnesium, and who know what other types of alloys may be in the cards. Cost, component design, parts manufacturing demands, tolerances, weight -- they all come in to play.

I go my Mark 4 rings in today. Looks like medium was just the right size.









Torque for the bases were 65 inch pounds and 28 inch pounds for the rings. They must be using a better aluminum than other rings I've used in the past. Other aluminum rings used to call for 15 to 18 inch pounds.

The Mark 4 steel rings called for 25 inch pounds, IIRC.

Tony.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: benny6,