These arent very practical at 300+ dollars for outfitting a bunch of rifles, but I have a set of QR's on an L691 and non-QR's on an MK5, bedded on the action, they are as stress free as it comes...And surprisingly durable. With all the screw's and joints in them, I thought they would be a nightmare..I've had them on my 30-378 for over 10 years, only coming off one time for a re-barrel, they have been awesome. EAW's, I ordered mine from NECG.
These arent very practical at 300+ dollars for outfitting a bunch of rifles, but I have a set of QR's on an L691 and non-QR's on an MK5, bedded on the action, they are as stress free as it comes...And surprisingly durable. With all the screw's and joints in them, I thought they would be a nightmare..I've had them on my 30-378 for over 10 years, only coming off one time for a re-barrel, they have been awesome. EAW's, I ordered mine from NECG.
These mounts are identical to the factory mounts on my .275 Rigby. They have been on the rifle for over 40 years.
John
When truth is ignored, it does not change an untruth from remaining a lie.
These days I just slap everything in a pair of Burris signature Z's clamped to two piece Weaver bases. If any of my scopes or actions are stressed you wouldn't know it by the way they shoot and that's all I really care about.
Latest issue of Shooting Times has a good article by Greg Rodriguez on accurizing. He spends time at Hill Country Rifles learning about this. Regarding the topic of this thread...
Quote
For example, if the rear of your one-piece scope base doesn't sit flush on the receiver with the front side screwed down, it will stress your receiver once you torque it down. Hill Country's gunsmiths have seen many guns that wouldn't shoot with on-piece bases improve dramatically when fitted with a two-piece design.
I'd bet this happens far more than most would think...or want to admit.
One piece bases are not for the experienced and not necessary for strength.
Caveat: We are talking mass produced scope bases here. Something made by a David Miller or D'arcy Echols custom to fit a custoem finished bridge or integral with a bridge is not the issue.
John
When truth is ignored, it does not change an untruth from remaining a lie.
In the past, when I used 1 piece bases (Not anymore, for the reasons above), I would always tighten the two front base screws to the receiver, then I would check the rear, and if there was space between the base and receiver, I would shim the rear.
It is also possible that the front ring will be too low, so I would remove the base and attach it with only the rear screw.
If there was space between the front receiver ring and the base, I would shim it.
This would have been shorter if I had written it to mean that I shimmed the base and receiver where needed, but I didn't think of that before I wrote the above.
"Quote: For example, if the rear of your one-piece scope base doesn't sit flush on the receiver with the front side screwed down, it will stress your receiver once you torque it down. Hill Country's gunsmiths have seen many guns that wouldn't shoot with on-piece bases improve dramatically when fitted with a two-piece design."
If the base bends instead of the receiver, that will cause the scope to bend or be stressed between the front and rear mounts.
Of course, lapping the rings would eliminate this, but how many scopes are on rifles with rings that have never been lapped?
I would think 4 times more torque being applied to the larger, longer action screws is much more likely to induce stress into an action than a well fitted 1 piece base held in place with a few small 6x40 screws tightened to a measly 12 in. lbs.
Amazing how all those snipers who make 800+ yd. kills don't know what they're doing according to some here.
It's kin to building a lightweight airplane from Iron and worrying about the additional weight of 2-ply toilet paper in the bathroom.
If you can run the screws all the way down with your finger tips, there is going to be minimal stress imparted on the action...
Every time I read through threads like this, with all the talk about lapping rings, misalignment caused by poorly machined actions, torqued scope tubes, misaligned drilling for bases...
I come away ever more convinced that Burris really nailed it with their Signature rings.
They're all I will ever use, and I don't even think about these issues any more! Solves just about all of 'em, and doesn't cost hardly any more than your average rings, nor take up a lot of one's time dealing with such headaches.
Here's a Redfield rear windage type ring that started to self destruct on one of my rifles. I have a similar Leupold rear ring that has done the same thing.
![[Linked Image]](http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu121/littlejoek/rings007.jpg)
