Warne vs. Talley Rings--Do I need a base?

[Minnesota1]

I'm looking at the warne and talley rings for my tikka t3 lite in 243.  Which do you prefer?  Do I need to get a base for these or can they attach to where the factory rings would attach to?  What would your opinion be on having them vs. not having a base on it?

Thanks,

Bob

[quickdtoo]

Warne makes rings that fit the dovetail, Talley lightweights mount to the top of the receiver, neither require a base. See the "Mounts" thread down the page.

Tim

[379 Peterbilt]

Both are quality. JMO though, I'd go with the talleys, as they just look better.

[ratgunner]

I have the Warne rings,cant say about the Talleys never tried them.

[BoarHunter]

I personally prefer rings attaching directly to the receiver dovetails. I have a Sako and uses Warnes fixed bases. It is rock solid !

I don't trust these bases fixed with 4 anemic screws about 3.5mm in diameter !

[4MUL8R]

Warne bases are well-made but oversized in comparison to Talley.  I tried to use Talley bases on the factory tapped holes with some 30mm Talley rings, but the scope dimensions and the positions of the tapped holes just wouldn't work out.  So, I went with Warne which fit anywhere on the dovetail.   For the Tikka 595, the Warne ring has a recoil lug that fits into a recess in the forward ring.  It is a bit more difficult to get installed than a Weaver base Warne, but you can do it.

I also tried Millett rings -- I believe they are called Angle-Loc.  They directly fit the Tikka dovetail and are pretty svelte.  I have both 1 inch and 30mm versions.  The Warne and Talley vertically split ring design is just so much nicer, though.  No questions on whether or not the rings are parallel and in line with the action.

[ccoker]

haven't tried the Talleys, I have used the Warnes and been very happy with them on both Sakos and Tikkas