who likes vertical split / ultradot scope rings

Am I the only one that can not stand vertically split scope rings?

Tighten the bottom screw on the rail, tighten the top screw on the scope, rail attachment now loose, repeat until scope tube crushed. Oh and by the way its still loose on the rail.

Hate them. For several reasons. Mounts optic too high and you always lose zero when removing and reinstalling. They are garbage.
Jon

I had mine pre installed on revolver I bought, adjusted the scope positioning a bit, seem just fine. Had another set on 1911, seemed fine.  They do need to be adjusted in tandem so neither side overtightens. Else no issues. Once theh are on a gun I don't take them off, so zero not a problem.

Hmmm, I pulled the rail off my LB to shoot iron's. Put it back on, re-mounted the MD-2 with the original rings and it looked as close to zero as it had been. But I'm a mere Marksman ... and my rail is *perfect* ;-)

As for the lower screws not tightening properly, I'd be looking at the rail first for being of proper dimension. Don't know about pistol, but there's some funny stuff out there in rifle land.

Merick wrote:Am I the only one that can not stand vertically split scope rings?

Tighten the bottom screw on the rail, tighten the top screw on the scope, rail attachment now loose, repeat until scope tube crushed. Oh and by the way its still loose on the rail.

Me no likely either!

I hate them. Any other ring I know of is horizontally split. Take off the top halves and the scope and clean or do other work on pistol, put scope and halves back on and really no need to re zero. With the UD rings there is no such option.

So what rings do you recommend that are lightweight? I happened upon a 30mm UD used but it has no rings.

I've been happy with Leupold 'Rifleman', about 2.6 oz/pair. Or the 'Back Country', about 3.2/pair. BC have 4 screw caps, and are much more attractive.

Several of us just had this discussion at league. 
Ive kept a torque screwdriver in my box since installing a new UD while the other was being repaired. I have had to re-torque the screws several times due to the aluminum relaxing or temp change. To top it off the older dot coming back had issues with the vertical turret detent not keeping the dot in place. Would seem like I would bench it then a week later be readjusing multiple clicks. I shoot poor enough with the dot in the correct position, now I never know if its the dot, or the mount or me. I also aesthetically hate the spit rings because they spilt doesnt appear to perfectly align with the scope centerline. Have a set of steel rings to try when I remount the old dot.

Talley makes very high quality lightweight aluminum rings that bolt directly to the gun without a base. I used the Weaver scope base chart to cross-reference this one. These rings will bolt to a M41 without using a base. They are offered in 1" and 30mm with choice of height. Just an idea for another source of mounts.
https://www.talleymanufacturing.com/product/remington-model-742-scope-mounts/

shoot308 wrote:So what rings do you recommend that are lightweight? I happened upon a 30mm UD used but it has no rings.

After I figured out how to use them, I think the weaver strap rings are hard to beat.

I am looking at the Vortex Pro rings. They only weigh about .3 ozs more than the UD ones.

The only real advantage of vertical split aluminum rings is a bit of weight savings. This comes at the cost of difficult installation, loss of zero if removed and higher chances of stripping the base screws. After easily stripping base screws that go into aluminum I no longer trust them. I now only use aluminum rings that go into some sort of steel which excludes most all aluminum rings. I do like the Warne 213M vertical split steel rings on my 22 conversion for extra weight but the base screws are steel on steel.

Amazon has these:
CCOP SR-3004WL Low Profile Rifle Scope Picatinny Weaver Steel Ring, 30mm

At $23 a pair I have them on all my bullseye guns. They have worked well for me.