I may have an issue - tally bases

I guess we’re talking about two piece talleys. I absolutely hate the design and in my mind is the worst manufactured and engineered scope mount for a heavy recoiling rifle. I also don’t like the way they look.

Lucky for me I’ve sheared off two or three different sets of them on hard recoiling guns a 340 Weatherby standard Marc five, a Winchester model 70 and 338 Winchester that had a carbon fiber stock and kick like a mule and a Remington 70O 416 big game.

Tally ultralight mounts are fine. But what I do on those is I use Loctite and that works like a champion. Then again, you’re also not taking the scope off and putting it back on again.

Muskox said:

I guess we’re talking about two piece talleys. I absolutely hate the design and in my mind is the worst manufactured and engineered scope mount for a heavy recoiling rifle. I also don’t like the way they look.

Lucky for me I’ve sheared off two or three different sets of them on hard recoiling guns a 340 Weatherby standard Marc five, a Winchester model 70 and 338 Winchester that had a carbon fiber stock and kick like a mule and a Remington 70O 416 big game.

Tally ultralight mounts are fine. But what I do on those is I use Loctite and that works like a champion. Then again, you’re also not taking the scope off and putting it back on again.

Click to expand...

I'll offer a contrarian view to that. I have used them for twenty years plus on at least a dozen rifles up through .404. Never an issue (to include never a stripped screw - I do use a torque wrench), and they always return to zero. I also think they are by far the most elegantly designed and finished of the two piece lever dismountable options. They make Warne's look like a shop project, and are far simpler than EAW/Recknagel while offering a lower mount solution for most scopes. I hate Picatinny on anything but an AR and so do not use mounts designed for rails on any fine firearms. I do like the Alaska Arms design and have them on three or four rifles at the current time.

Muskox said:

I guess we’re talking about two piece talleys. I absolutely hate the design and in my mind is the worst manufactured and engineered scope mount for a heavy recoiling rifle. I also don’t like the way they look.

Lucky for me I’ve sheared off two or three different sets of them on hard recoiling guns a 340 Weatherby standard Marc five, a Winchester model 70 and 338 Winchester that had a carbon fiber stock and kick like a mule and a Remington 70O 416 big game.

Tally ultralight mounts are fine. But what I do on those is I use Loctite and that works like a champion. Then again, you’re also not taking the scope off and putting it back on again.

Click to expand...

You just have to use less torque using locktite. They said they don't recommend it but understand some folks love that arrangement.

Man, I have never had a talley malfunction or break on me. Ever. Duly noted.

Red Leg said:

I'll offer a contrarian view to that. I have used them for twenty years plus on at least a dozen rifles up through .404. Never an issue (to include never a stripped screw - I do use a torque wrench), and they always return to zero. I also think they are by far the most elegantly designed and finished of the two piece lever dismountable options. They make Warne's look like a shop project, and are far simpler than EAW/Recknagel while offering a lower mount solution for most scopes. I hate Picatinny on anything but an AR and so do not use mounts designed for rails on any fine firearms. I do like the Alaska Arms design and have them on three or four rifles at the current time.

Click to expand...

Talleys are one of those things, that a lot of people love and a lot of people hate.

My first set was from the 1997 era on a 340 Weatherby with a wood stock. No brake and a lot of recoil. I don't think they lasted 15 rounds. Scope was a Leupold LPS which was one of Leupold's first 30mm scopes. The 416 was a package from a shop in Maine that had a box of ammo with 19 rounds remaining and a 3-9 Leupold on it. Recoil was typical 416 Remington, but the mounts were done before I got through the box. That was in the 2009. Wild West guns put a muzzle brake and sold it when I left Alaska to help pay for my move back to the lower 48 in 2014.

Probably had the Talley ultra lights on 5 rifles never a problem. But recoil is a lot different on a 270 WCF Kimber Montana that weighs 8 pounds with a scope than it is on a Mark V or 700 weighing 11 scoped with a lot more powerful cartridge.

I think the 2 piece mounts are ugly, but that is another conversation.

I often complain about some popular mass produced scope mount’s quality control .
And the need to lap them to get 100% scope contact and zero bind.

But even more prevalent than out of spec rings and mounts are rifle actions out of their own manufactures spec.

The front and rear of the actions not being 100% straight, true, same height due to sanding and polishing after machining. 1/1000 too much sanding or polishing on the action can show as bad ring bases or rings.

and I would normally blame the rings when it’s the rifle action.

What happens to the rings? I would imagine they are cnc'd out of billet steel? How do they fail?

They sometimes are not concentric or have high and low spots. Or are rough inside


Below are some of my non lapped rings. And a set that needed a lot of work.




Then a pair of Area 419 rings that as you can see are ABSOLUTELY concentric and smooth. For 100% smooth scope contact. And for the same cost as the brand shown that often needs lapping.

Not critical for shooting a buffalo at 50 yards.

But “faulty” scopes are usually caused by faulty mounting

Will do, thank you.

Mike