Burris PEPR Scope Rings and who else is doing it better now?

[Rastus]

So being immersed in work the last 3-4 years has put me behind the curve.  I really liked the Burris PEPR one piece monolithic scope base and rings....only one point of contact for the base and rings.

Who does it better and lighter now?  I'm looking for some one piece base/rings to replace the current two piece setups I have on CZ 550, CZ 452, Remington 700's, etc.

With single piece ring/mounts I don't need my scope alignment tool anymore....all I need to do is hone the rings to true things up.

I'd like to screw the thing directly to the receivers and don't want a base (proprietary, picatinny or otherwise) that accepts rings...I want it all one piece.  I can't see how having one piece can't be superior to having several contact points as opposed to a single contact on the receiver from a strictly stability standpoint.

The PEPR's I use, of course, can't screw directly into my AR receivers and the picatinny on the uppers is a machined part of the receiver so it's still a single contact. 

I'm really interested in this to upgrade my bolt guns.

Thanks in advance,
Ken
 

[Rastus]

?

[tombogan03884]

Being luminum , I don't think scope rings screwed to the reciever like steel will hold up.
They had a reason for coming up with the rail system beyond, "Hey, I got an idea".

[Rastus]

Yes but adding fastening points also adds potential failure points.  I like aluminum and I think so long as you have proper pressure applied to the scope and receiver if nothing is shifting why would steel be any better than aluminum?  Steel certainly is heavier and harder to true up with honing.

If you bang a scope bad enough to mess up aluminum rings you've probably destroyed your zero anyway.

[PegLeg45]

I worked in the aluminum industry for years. The biggest issue you can have is galling in softer alloys. Aluminum can be less forgiving to mistakes.

[Sponsor]