Talley Lightweight

jon12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
67
Does anybody have any experience with talley's lightweight bases with integral rings? I know talley is known for solid scope mounts, and these should be no different, especially since the base and ring is one peice instead of seperate peices, but I usually the thier regualy 2 peice bases and fixed or QD rings. Also, a pair of lightweight bases w/ integral rings costs quite a bit less than thier regular 2 peice base and and set of thier regular fixed rings. Any input??
Thanks.
 
I just installed a set of these on a pre-64 in 375 H&H.

Fit and finish are excellent. Alignment was good amd initial lapping demonstrated no need to go any further.

I have a little Leupold 2x7x33 on the rifle. Only have 60 rounds down with this set-up but no worries so far.

My intent was to lighten my old M70. It previously wore a large Zeiss and conventional Talley bases and QD rings.

The only drawback I see is the inability to easily remove the scope and go to iron backups. For my scenario, I needed to lighten up for a high elevation mountain hunt next fall.

To summarise, very good quality for a ridiculously low price.

Holler if you have additional questions.

Good luck.
 
Jon, I have used the Talley aluminum rings on two rifles so far. They are very good quality and I am pretty sold on them. The heaviest recoiling rifle has been a 30-338 I had built and they have been fine through several hundred rounds. They are also on Remington Mountain rifle. I am going to order another pair for a Mark V. I like their steel rings a bunch, but the price of these and the light weight make it a pretty easy decision. No other rings of comparative price come close in my opinion. Good luck
 
I don't have any pictures of them, but you could go to www.talleyrings.com and I think they have pictures of them. At this point Cabela's has them for $35 and I think the price direct from Talley is $39. They have a nice matte finish on them and should be good for a variety of applications.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 21 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top