I am not a fan of cheap rings (Or scopes
) Its my belief you get what you pay for and I have had cheap rings and I have had them fail on me more than once! My time to enjoy myself is becoming shorter and shorter. This makes it more valuable. I cannot "afford" cheap crap that fails and ruins or ends my day afield.
I lost a very good buck (He very likely died) when I had a Weaver rings alloy base break.crack. Unknown to me I checked the torque on the screws before a hunt and the difference form cold to hot must have done them in. I know I hit the deer as I had good blood but never did recover him. "Perturbed" the hell outta me!
Last year I would have answered up Leupold PRW rings with out hesitation. But I had these fail on me under stiff recoil as its design only supports the recoil shoulder on one side. This is a serious flaw for any ring but one as otherwise well made this is a very weak link.
What I will recomend and what I have used is the Burris ZEE rings. They have been a favorite here for many years and they are a quality product. For a while they used a funky small screw that commonly failed. But that was years ago. They also makea version with alighning colars to make up for imperfect bases. Stops kinked/scratched scope tubes.
My other choice is the excellent Warne ring. Its similar to the PRW but offers complete support at the recoil shoulder.
As for rings, a scope should be mounted as close to the barrel as possible. Craning you head up off the stock results in poor ergonomics, poor cheek weld and the end result is not as much accuracy as would be otherwise available to you. One other thing is trajectory. When you mount a scope high off the barrel you create a less and less appealing trajectory the higher you go. With a 50-100 yard shooter this isn't a big deal. But as the yardage lengthens this becomes very important.
With a handi friendly scope LO rings are the norm. There is no reason for extra high or even high with a quality, handi friendly scope.
Good luck,
CW
