|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,104 Likes: 4
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,104 Likes: 4 |
There is a lot of smoke and mirrors relating to scope bases and rings. I have broken and bent scopes, broken mounts, bent rings, gouged scope tubes and swapped the scopes back onto lighter recoiling rifles to see if the innards were intact. This is brutal.
In all my tests, I have come to believe that the rifle recoils away under the scope forcing belated inertia on the scope which we know as scope slip. In extreme cases the scope tube will buckle at the first ring.
Two things;
1. I Araldite the bases to the action.
2. I never glue the grub screws to the action or the rings.
The reason I do not, is that I have never, repeat never, see any scope bases loosten if tightened in the first place. I believe if anything, the grub screws actually tighted because of the inertia, which although may be contrary to the process of gluing, is a fact as I have seen it.
AGW
When truth is ignored, it does not change an untruth from remaining a lie.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,211 Likes: 26
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,211 Likes: 26 |
1234567,
OK, my way explaining wasn't exactly technically correct. I have ended up explaining it that way too many times, to people who just don't get it, as a matter of simplification of the forces of recoil on a scope. You would be surprised at how many people think thbat because rifle and scope are bolted together, they act as a unit.
Like Aussie, I have made a bunch of experiments on scopes with rifles and mounts. You would be astonished at what the average shooter prefers to believe, other than the truth I mean.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 268
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 268 |
Aussie,
This isn't the 1960's anymore. Now practical field rifles like Surgeon Rifles and Praire Gun Works are milling bases directly into the rifle's reciever.
Also Seekins, Badger ord, Farrell, and companies like Near Mfg. have been tested in conditions far worse than what you or I am presently operating in and offer a stable platform for keeping your optics locked in tight.
Now go to an F-class match or even over in Iraq or Afganistan, and tell me how many Talley or Redfield or hunting mounts you find.
Sorry. Our scout snipers will not be using the two piece rig because our they are fairly flimsy and don't support your accuracy theory.
Perfectly machined scope rails and mounts are then lapped to absolute perfection.
BTW companies like Near Mfg and Seekins do NOT mass produce their product. No, its tight-spec aerospace quality and worth the price and wait of getting them.
Good grief man. Why limit yourself with 1960's technology and mass production quality when today there is so much better mounting hardware to be had?
I have 2 rifles we use to varmit hunt with out to around 2000 yds. There is absolutely no chance of me putting my optics in some cheap production bases and rings. Ain't gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,969 Likes: 10
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,969 Likes: 10 |
My 30-378 with Leupold windage mounts was actually shearing off the dovetails on the rear ring and the front ring appeared to be tipping forward. Yes, the scope was staying put and rifle going backward. Went to Talley's and it's now the most accurate unit I own. 1Minute
Last edited by 1minute; 12/24/07.
1Minute
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 434
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 434 |
Thanks for all the input. My contemplation of a one-piece base is no more. All my hunting rifles, standard to medium bore, have performed great with std Leupold two-pieces bases. I don't abuse my hunting tools, but they have seen their share of hard knocks and so far I've yet to have one loose it's zero. I've just ordered rings and bases from Midsouth. I deviated from Leopolds Std rings and bases in that I went with the Dual Dove Tail set-up. It'll be the first time I've tried them. I'm sure I'll be happy.
Good shooting and happy hunting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,116
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,116 |
1Minute,
If the old boy at Conetrol (George) is still building bases and rings give him a call. His bases and rings are somewhat pricey but they will hold the scope on a magnum where you put it.
The Leupold QRW or the PRW mounting system pretty much eliminates any problems with a scope moving around on top of any rifle or at least I have had no problems.
Gotta watch the Conetrols. Regular routine annual inspections of the screws through the bases into the bottom of the rings (if you shoot a lot) is a good idea. I had a problem after I had installed the third barrel on a SAKO AV in 300 WM. The screws tightened up in the rings and cracked the seating area. When that happens it strings shots horizontal and will drive a guy crazy trying to figure it out.
It took about 2000 rounds through three barrels to cause the Conetrols to fail. I installed new Conetrol rings and it cured the problem. Also have a set of Conetrols on a Sako 75 in 7MM RM. Gun shoots real good so the scope must be staying put. It's got a Spencer barrel on it and has around 100 rounds logged through it last spring/summer.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,887
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,887 |
I took a look at the Seekins web site. The bases seem to available for a very limited number of actions. I'm not sure I see the rationale of spending $90.00-$100.00 for aluminum Weaver style bases when Weaver Steel bases are priced at one tenth that price. Their rings look sturdy but bulky and are limited in height selection especially for one inch rings. I believe their Weaver style bases are more 1940-1950's technology than 21st century tech.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,833
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,833 |
I have "shot loose" the single dovetail units and won't use them anymore. I like the Tally LW units. They have help up just fine after 650ish rounds through an 8 lb 338 Win Mag with a Leu 3.5x10x50 AO. I also like Leu PRW and QRW rings/bases, though they are heavy. Dual dovetails are not a bad choice either.
Like Mule Deer says, the height and weight of the scope is a major factor. I had a 17 lb 6.5x284 that wore a Nighforce 8-32x56 BR scope. The scope weighed about 2.25 lbs. I had it in Nightforce extra-high rings and bases--they are EXTREMELY beefy. I finally had to Loctite the ring caps on because they'd start to loosen after a couple matches (say 70 rounds). The recoil on the rifle was almost non-existant.
Conversely, a Leu 2x7x33 in med Leu QRW mounts went a couple hundred rounds and stayed put on a 10.5 lb 416 Rem generating around 50 ft lbs of recoil.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,955 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,955 Likes: 1 |
Sometimes these are as simple as Weavers (which in many ways are darn good mounts, with enough "give" to accomodate the difference between rifle actions and scopes, yet enough strength to hold scopes very well) MD .... Are there any QD type rings that deserve a second look for Weaver type bases? I use all steel weaver bases on my 375 and would like to have a QD set up for a second scope for an upcoming fly-in. thx
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,935
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,935 |
I took a look at the Seekins web site. The bases seem to available for a very limited number of actions. I'm not sure I see the rationale of spending $90.00-$100.00 for aluminum Weaver style bases when Weaver Steel bases are priced at one tenth that price. Their rings look sturdy but bulky and are limited in height selection especially for one inch rings. I believe their Weaver style bases are more 1940-1950's technology than 21st century tech. I visited the Seekins website too. I believe he studied at the Klingon Design Bureau. <---humor jim
LCDR Jim Dodd, USN (Ret.)
"If you're too busy to hunt, you're too busy."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,515
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,515 |
I took a look at the Seekins web site. The bases seem to available for a very limited number of actions. I'm not sure I see the rationale of spending $90.00-$100.00 for aluminum Weaver style bases when Weaver Steel bases are priced at one tenth that price. Their rings look sturdy but bulky and are limited in height selection especially for one inch rings. I believe their Weaver style bases are more 1940-1950's technology than 21st century tech. Seekins makes Picatiny rails not Weaver, there is a difference. If you have multiple rifles with Weaver bases odds are you cannot switch scopes between rifles without repositioning the rings on the scope. If they are wearing Picatiny rails the slot spacing is the same from base to base and the rings will not need to be moved. That is part of the reason for a 1 piece Picatiny rail. Base & ring selection is limited in the tactical/precision rifle class as they are not mass produced. They are produced for the rifle/scope combinations used in that specialty. My hunting rifles wear Conetrol, Talley, & Deadnutz rings and bases. My precision rifles wear Badger Ordinance, TPS, Nightforce and Seekins bases and rings. Run whatever you're comfortable with, after all it's your rifle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,789
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,789 |
Sometimes these are as simple as Weavers (which in many ways are darn good mounts, with enough "give" to accomodate the difference between rifle actions and scopes, yet enough strength to hold scopes very well) MD .... Are there any QD type rings that deserve a second look for Weaver type bases? I use all steel weaver bases on my 375 and would like to have a QD set up for a second scope for an upcoming fly-in. thx The regular Leupold QRW rings with your exact setup is what I use for the same thing you want. Worked well for years.
Used to be bobski, member since '01
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,324 Likes: 9
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,324 Likes: 9 |
In reality, about the weakest mount on the market is one of the most popular--and heaviest. The typical Redfield-type mount, using a 1-piece base with dovetail on the front end and windage screws on the rear, is the worst at holding a scope in place. It only uses 3 base screws, and the windage screws at the rear are not enough to keep a scope from shifting forward slightly under about any significant recoil. Yet because the whole system weighs close to half a pound, many shooters regard it as stronger than Superman. Yep, when I was growing up those one piece Redfield bases were considered de riguer. No wonder my rifle was so heavy for a 14 year old to pack around..........  For me, another advantage to the 2 piece system is easier access to the bolt/chamber/magazine when loading/unloading. Casey
Casey
Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively...
Having said that, MAGA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,117
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,117 |
klingon design bureau ...
now that was funny.
abiding in Him,
><>fish30ought6<><
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,950
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,950 |
I found that the Warne Maxima bases do not work well with some Weaver bases. The problem is with the "hollowed-out" aluminum bases - the ones with a wide deep groove in the top so you can see your open sights. The Warne Maxima rings have a "recoil key" that fits in the cross-slots in the bases, but the key is not as wide as the base, so there is only a small amount of engagement. I have seen this combination move under heavy recoil (the rings slide on the bases). The Warne rings work okay if you use steel Warne bases (and probably the steel Weaver Grand Slam bases), although I have heard of the recoil key breaking under heavy recoil. For these reasons, and the fact that they are heavy and ugly, I can live without Warne rings. Sorry, but I'm a straight shooter, and that's my experience. The Weaver brand rings work well with Weaver bases because the "recoil key" is actually a full-length screw that is square in profile and mates perfectly with the cross-slots in teh top of the bases.
-
Our God reigns.
Harrumph!!!
I often use quick reply. My posts are not directed toward any specific person unless I mention them by name.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,320
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,320 |
Highroad:
I have the Leupold dual dovetails on a .300 RUM, holding a Leupold 3.5X10X50 m/m, and it works just fine. In the five years I have owned it, the scope has never moved that I can tell.
My teeth, when shooting 180 grain factory loads from a bench are a different matter, though.
I am sure you will be satisfied with your choice of mount and rings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,324
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,324 |
I used Warne Maxima steel bases and Burris Signature Zee rings to mount a Vari-X III 2.5-8 on my .338 Win mag. The POI has not moved in the past 8 years and that includes 5 round trip flights to either CO, NM or MT for elk hunts.
That combination still works for me. My other rifle have Talleys except my "Bob" has Burris Signature DD's.
I would like to hear more about the new "Dead Nutz" 1 pc. base & rings.
PASS IT ON!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38 |
Mule Deer, have you tried the Dednutz 1 piece scope mount/ring setup? I'm picking up a new Weatherby Vanguard Deluxe in .30-06 soon, and am considering using this mount, or the Talley light weights(bought through Weatherby) that have the Vanguard name on them. Scope will be an Elite 4200 3-9x40. I have a friend that has switched all of his rifles to the Dednutz mounts, and really likes them(obviously). They use all 4 screws, so it should be a very solid mount. They're supposed to be very lightweight too. The Dednutz mounts do look a bit "odd" to me though. I know you're very fond of the Talley's, so I'd really appreciate your opinions on this. I'm also considering the steel Talley fixed rings and bases with the Weatherby logo on them. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,104 Likes: 4
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,104 Likes: 4 |
Aussie,
This isn't the 1960's anymore. Now practical field rifles like Surgeon Rifles and Praire Gun Works are milling bases directly into the rifle's reciever.
Also Seekins, Badger ord, Farrell, and companies like Near Mfg. have been tested in conditions far worse than what you or I am presently operating in and offer a stable platform for keeping your optics locked in tight.
Now go to an F-class match or even over in Iraq or Afganistan, and tell me how many Talley or Redfield or hunting mounts you find.
Sorry. Our scout snipers will not be using the two piece rig because our they are fairly flimsy and don't support your accuracy theory.
Perfectly machined scope rails and mounts are then lapped to absolute perfection.
BTW companies like Near Mfg and Seekins do NOT mass produce their product. No, its tight-spec aerospace quality and worth the price and wait of getting them.
Good grief man. Why limit yourself with 1960's technology and mass production quality when today there is so much better mounting hardware to be had?
I have 2 rifles we use to varmit hunt with out to around 2000 yds. There is absolutely no chance of me putting my optics in some cheap production bases and rings. Ain't gonna happen.
My apologies for the late response as I only just saw this. I would like to point out that I am not questioning the actual precision generated in modern technology for making scope mounts and bases. What I challenge is the insinuation that any scope mount manufacturer can make bases that can fit the inconsistency of mass produced actions on the usual range of factory rifles. That is no slur on the manufactures as I have been in their plants and seen the care they take to get it right, but the variance in actions is there, and I see your partial support in my opinion in stating the need for lapping. That was entirely my point. The base to action varience is the problem. The point of referencing the .460 was to highlight that 2 piece mounts are strong enough for most commercial needs. Specialist military needs and competitive shooting are not representative of hutning rifles as I have stated on numerous occasions. There was no point is raising this aspect with me. AGW
When truth is ignored, it does not change an untruth from remaining a lie.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,105
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,105 |
I was told by 3 different well known gunsmiths that the 1 piece rail doesn't allow the action to flex as much as the 2 piece bases,6 of my 12 rifles have SEEKINS PRECISION 1 piece bases and rings EXCELLANT,2 have Ken Farrel 1 piece bases and rings because his co. is the only 1 I could find that made them for Weatherby Mark 5 actions also EXCELLANT BUT EXPENSIVE,soon all the rest will have SEEKINS PRECISION ON THEM.
|
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,845
Posts18,517,388
Members74,020
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
