Tikka integral dovetail mount, pic rail or 2-piece bases + rings?

[Skydog]

I'd like to be educated on the pros/cons of each of these mounting systems:

• Tikka's integral dovetail mount with the UM rings (or similar rings)
• Pic rail
• Traditional 2-piece bases and rings (e.g. Warne bases with Mountain Tech rings)

It seems like the integral dovetail option would eliminate some additional components and therefore eliminate some additional potential points of failure (i.e. the bases/pic rail and the base/pic rail screws). So, it seems like this would be the most solid/fail proof option for maintaining consistent zero. However, it seems like most folks on this forum prefer the pic rail. Is there some inherent disadvantage/weakness to the integral dovetail system that I am overlooking?

I do like the advantage of the pic rail for the additional flexibility it provides for adjusting the positioning/eye relief of the scope. However, I do not need the ability to swap scopes between rifles. Nor do I need the additional elevation adjustment of a 20 MOA pic rail. I guess my only concern with trying a pic rail is it making the scope sit higher, but is this anything to worry about?

This will be for mounting a Trijicon Huron 3-9 X 40 (1" tube) on a Tikka Hunter .243. Eastern whitetail hunting out of tree stands, most shots within 100 yards, max 300 yards. I suppose I qualify as a Fudd since all I've ever used is traditional two-piece bases and rings, but I'm definitely open to trying the integral dovetail or a pic rail if that is the best way to go.

This will be my first Tikka and my first foray into shooting deer with small caliber/light bullets. Baby steps for a Fudd...

 

[eric1115]

I would (and did) use either UM or Sports match rings for that use. As you say, if you don't need extra elevation or easy scope swapping, the pic rail has very little benefit and substantial potential downside for a normal dimension scope like the Huron.

 

[Skydog]

I would (and did) use either UM or Sports match rings for that use. As you say, if you don't need extra elevation or easy scope swapping, the pic rail has very little benefit and substantial potential downside for a normal dimension scope like the Huron.

Is there any potential downside to the pic rail other than the scope sitting higher?

I guess it could come down to a trade-off between optimal scope height (integral dovetail) versus optimal eye relief (pic rail), and which one of those is more critical to consistent shooting/accuracy?

 

[Lawnboi]

Scope sitting higher may not be all that bad within reason depending on what you’re going to use for a stock.

Picatinny rail is the most adaptable and heaviest. I would buy an area 419 rail and bond with with loctite 380. Pic rail is also nice because if you have other rifles with picatinny you can easily swap stuff.

Um rings are nice, solid and would be a good choice if you have a scope that works with the spacing, and are okay with 0 moa. I’d also mount it with the plans of never taking it off that gun, ie no swapping.

I personally like the Spuhr tikka direct mounts. I have a few but I’m not sure they make all of them anymore. I use these for my hunting guns so swapping around is easy if needed.

I have had a few different sets of rings that only attach with the little 6x48 screws. I’d avoid those.

 

[khuber84]

UM direct mount high rings work well for me. I typically run 1.50 mounts on all my match rifles which get way more reps than the hunting rigs. I'm used to higher setup, so that was the highest option for a direct mount solution.

 

[JGRaider]

Absolutely no need or reason to bolt a bunch of extra stuff on the dovetail rail for shooting distances out to 300 yards. Go straight to the rail with UM or SM and never look back.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

I really like the UM rings and they will give you more flexibility in ring position than Sportsmatch.