:poke: I also have them on a 264 Winchester.

Yes I have. I believe the first set was on a Kimber 84 in .308. I also had them on a Win 70 in .270 WSM. Both applications were several (7-8 I'm guessing) years ago.

I have aluminum rings on several guns. 4 muzzleloaders and one CF. No issues at all, ever. Some of my ML have run some hard kicking loads from time to time.

I have not personally used the one's you mentioned, but I would in a second if I had them. In fact, I really like the idea of a one piece base/ring.

strength is one thing. steel screws into aluminum threads isint always pretty. unless weight is an issue my vote is steel for the long run.

many of the better known machine shops make they're top of the line rings out of aluminum, seekins precision is one, as is TPS, the burris extreme series are also aluminum, I have those on my 7mm AM, they are beefy.
RR

BlackHawk Tactical are aluminum as well and they are mounted on my work .338 Lapua as well as my personal .338 and 308. Not an issue at all. I also have them on .460 S&W pistol with a Burris LER scope.

I have the DNZ Game reaper aluminum one piece base and upper rings on my 30-06. Although you use steel screws, even if you hand torqued it , you wouldn't strip the base, due to the length of thread engagement in the base. They are engineered this way.

As for the base attaching to the receiver, the elongation of the threads when torqued apply pressure against the screw head base, this is what keep them tight, same applies to the rings.

Its super rigid, particularly when the scope tube is set, there is no bore measurements, nor honing for alignment purposes. The less mechanical connections, the more rigid the mount. Best of all, the base and rings only cost 56.00, saving me money compared to a leopold base and ring set. Not to mention the weight savings on my mountain rifle.

By the way, the DNZ replaced a weaver mount that came on the rifle.

Mine set on the receiver very tight and uniform, a true piece of engineering and machining...

Mossberg ATR 100

you won't be disappointed.

Yep. Never had a problem with them. I have a friend that uses them on a 416 Rigby. They hold up on that rig and it has made the trip to Africa several times. If the recoil of the Rigby doesn't shake them loose, I'm betting they will suffice on whatever gun you want to put them on.

I have 7 sets of Talley LWs on 7 different rifles, ranging from a 700 in 260 to a Mod 70 in 300 WM. Never had a problem and they save a few oz. (sometimes several oz). I highly recommend them. I do utilize steel DDs etc. on my rifles 338WM and above.

I've been using the Talley lightweight 1pc alloy setups for over a decade on several of my rigs. The only time I had any trouble was when I improperly torqued the top of the rings down (got uneven and one side was touching, the other wasn't). The top of the ring cracked then (after several firings). But that wasn't the fault of Talley, it was my dumba... for not leaving proper spacing and torque on the rings. (on essentially all rings you hafta leave a gap, that assures proper "spring tension" which then holds your scope on. If you screw/stretch the rings until they touch then you aren't holding the scope properly anyway)

I recently moved a few scopes around and despite having great Warne steel rings on a Rem Custom Shop 280 (Was holding on a VXIII 4.5x14x50) I switched the scope to another rifle and put a Conquest 4.5x14x40 on the 280 and wanted a lower fit than the Warnes. The Talley 1 pc lightweight fit like a glove and based on my past experience with them, I have the utmost confidence in the system! If I remember correctly, on the LW 1pc setup Talley uses a heavier, courser thread on the rings instead of a regular machine thread. That makes that connection stronger as well!

GREAT stuff! :happy0001:

ps
The DNZ stuff IS great as well but DADGUM is that a big, UGLY setup! Sticks out like a big ol hairy mole on the nose of a otherwise beautiful woman! :s8: