Lightest reliable pic rings?

[Frank Dux]

Food for thought. Running a scope as low as possible is not the golden rule it used to be. Not saying you’re trying to do that, just bringing up this info that I’ve found while figuring out my own setup. If you use a ballistic calculator and try out some different heights over bore you’ll see they actually shoot a little bit flatter with higher mounts. Some have found that they shoot more consistently from different positions with higher mounts because they can get behind the scope easier.

 

[freddyG]

Can still use their maxima rings for sure. Actual weaver rings like their mountain tech, I am not sure, pic is a no.

Wont work?

 

[SkunkCabbage]

Any chance you could measure the mounting length of your NXS for me?

 

[Balderdash]

View attachment 509751
Wont work?

The Warne Mountain tech fit Weaver width slots, if that is what you're asking.

 

[freddyG]

The Warne Mountain tech fit Weaver width slots, if that is what you're asking.

Those are NF ultralights. They fit the warne slots.

 

[freddyG]

Any chance you could measure the mounting length of your NXS for me?

Yeah. When I get home.

 

[SDHNTR]

@thinhorn_AK gets credit for this but I haven’t tested this yet.

Nightforce ultralight rings on weaver/warne bases. Might be a good alternative to avoid a full pic rail.

Now to see if I have enough mounting room with that setup to fit a 2.5-10 NXS on a Kimber 8400 action.

Why not just use a real 2 piece 1913 rail? Talley makes them, among others. You don’t have to smash a pic ring into a weaver base.

 

[sndmn11]

Those are NF ultralights. They fit the warne slots.

What does the Warne Maxima base slot measure?

 

[freddyG]

What does the Warne Maxima base slot measure?

Not sure. I didn’t measure before mounting. They didn’t need filing.

 

[freddyG]

Kimber part # 1001515a also work. Although they are .25 tall compared to the .15 of the Warne maxima bases.

 

[sndmn11]

Not sure. I didn’t measure before mounting. They didn’t need filing.

If you pull the scope off for whatever reason, I'd be interested in learned what the slot does measure. I don't have any Nightforce rings to measure the recoil lug to learn if they are pic only rings or work with weaver and pic slots.

 

[Dos XX]

I don't have any Nightforce rings to measure the recoil lug to learn if they are pic only rings or work with weaver and pic slots.

.140"

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Food for thought. Running a scope as low as possible is not the golden rule it used to be. Not saying you’re trying to do that, just bringing up this info that I’ve found while figuring out my own setup. If you use a ballistic calculator and try out some different heights over bore you’ll see they actually shoot a little bit flatter with higher mounts. Some have found that they shoot more consistently from different positions with higher mounts because they can get behind the scope easier.

Yes but on traditional stocked rifles like a Kimber Montana you need to keep the optic low to get a good cheek weld. Otherwise you end up with a chin weld or none at all which makes the rifle harder to shoot well or you end up adding a cheek pad or riser which adds weight and bulk.

 

[Balderdash]

Those are NF ultralights. They fit the warne slots.

Freddy:

I apologize; my post was an answer to the post from sndmn11 that was quoted in your post. It seemed he was maybe asking if the Warne MT's would fit weaver style base slot width, so I was trying to help give a definitive to that question.

 

[Balderdash]

Yes but on traditional stocked rifles like a Kimber Montana you need to keep the optic low to get a good cheek weld. Otherwise you end up with a chin weld or none at all which makes the rifle harder to shoot well or you end up adding a cheek pad or riser which adds weight and bulk.

As a general rule, for the reasons you stated and because low scopes are faster to get behind for quick shots at close game, I like to keep the scopes as low as possible on hunting rigs.

 

[sndmn11]

I don't have any Nightforce rings to measure the recoil lug to learn if they are pic only rings or work with weaver and pic slots.

.140"

Perfect, thanks!

View attachment 509751
Wont work?

If @Dos XX measurement is correct it explains what you found.

A weaver slot should be around .18X" wide and a picatinny slot should be .206" wide.

My Hawkins, Talley, and TPS picatinny (specific) rings all have a recoil lug that measure .198-.199".

Without having a set of nightforce ultralights in hand, it would seem they are similar to the warne mountain tech rings in that they will fit a weaver rail, and all weaver rings will also fit a pic rail. Interestingly, Nightforce does not call out the 1913 spec or use the word picatinny in their ultra lite product description, but do call out 1913 spec for both of their steel ring descriptions.

 

[Dos XX]

 

[Balderdash]

Burris XTR 2 piece bases accept pic rings. Otherwise, Warne maxima bases can be opened up to accept pic rings.

 

[freddyG]

Any chance you could measure the mounting length of your NXS for me?

Exactly 5 inches. I don’t think that will work with the kimber 8400/warne bases. The 84L action is exactly 1/2” longer than the 84M. The 84M bases fit the 84L, but the 2.5-10 NXS is just shy of having enough mounting space. I would imagine the 8400 action is similar length than the 84L, but I’m not sure as I’ve never had one.

 

[freddyG]

Freddy:

I apologize; my post was an answer to the post from sndmn11 that was quoted in your post. It seemed he was maybe asking if the Warne MT's would fit weaver style base slot width, so I was trying to help give a definitive to that question.

No worries. I was confused on what you meant for a bit.