accuracy difference with scope rings??

How much difference would higher end rings make over a cheaper leupold or weaver rings? Is there a accuracy difference with a 15$ set and a 75$ set? Any ring to try would be appreciated also... hunting rifles, not benchrest..

not so much as accuracy difference but that the ability to not loosen or move around. I run seekins rings on everything after I set them I don't have to worry about my zero. I know my rigs haven't moved or come loose. I also know they are machined well and won't harm the scope. If you want good rings but don't want to spend a ton get a set of badgers or seekins or vortex matched rings. Torque to spec and move on.

Walter

I've been using TPS rings w/ EGW rails on my last few rifles.. Like the combo, scopes are holding tight & no ring marks..

I usually spend a decent amount on a set of rings, but for whatever reason on the last rifle I put together I paid $35 for a set of rings from SWFA. I bought their brand of rings, they looked good with obvious machining flaws and such. I figured if they are willing to put their SWFA name on it then they are prob good rings. Times will tell. I may kick myself for not getting the Vortex matched rings

Ive used larue, seekins, vortex, tps, warne, tally, burris and dnz on various platforms all with success and no problems. Then ive used redfield, weaver, millett, leupold on cheaper rifles and they are hit or miss. Redfield and weaver seem to be the cheapest of cheap and you can definitely tell. Had a Weaver ring actually snap when I was tightening it down (using a torque wrench at right setting) on a 10/22. The i tried Redfields and couldnt get them to stay tight on the gun. Finally went with Leupold Riflemans on the 10/22 and so far they've held up ok but they certainly feel cheap.

I dont get it when people buy nice guns and shoot crap ammo out of them. Same way when people buy nice optics then cheap out on rings

This.

Almost daily I pick up my rifle by the scope tube. It better not matter.

Talley Tactical and Badger Ordinance is what I have for rings. I use aluminum EGW 20 MOA pic rails on everything. Blue Locktite on all of the screws for the bases and the rings, save the nut on the cross bolt. One scope moves between the 7 Rem Mag and the 7mm-08. Or I can loan that scope to a student. Easily moved from rifle to rifle, then rezero.

I use Talley or Warne on all of my guns.
What I don't use are Redfield or Leupold style with the wind age adjust screws on the rear mount.
Those screws are a weak link and not needed. When Redfield introduced those rings the mount holes were still drilled and tapped by hand and could be off so much that a scope couldn't be adjusted. All of today's receivers are built with CNC machines and the holes are perfectly aligned 99% of the time.

IMO, the construction of the scope is far more likely to cause a rifle to lose its zero than bases or rings. Granted, screws can get loose if not properly tightened during installation. But with scope manufacturers never offering good information on how they design the inner workings of their scopes, you never know for sure what it takes to knock one off.

If you find your rifle won't hold zero or shoot tight groups, check the screws of course. But if they appear just as tight as the last time you checked them, invest in a better scope.

Thanks for all the input, looking into another gun for my son and want it set up right from the start..

I concur.

Those windage screw rings seem to fail more than any others.
I usually buy the 6 hole Burris XTR rings and lap them. Work great.

I used cheapo Walmart ring and lap them never had an issue.

Have cheap ones and high $$$$ ones. Main thing with any of them mount correctly, lap if needed and torque to specs. I believe many scopes have been damaged from poorly aligned rings/mounts, not just cosmetic but torque on the scope body under recoil causing internal damage over time.

Same set up as on my Tikka.