All my current rifles have two-piece scope bases. I've got a new 700 Alaskan on the way and I'm thinking about a one-piece base for it. What are the pro's and con's of a one-piece base?

HighRoad,

Your talking about the Sako one-piece Ring mounts correct ?

I'd be interested in an answer on that as well.

Personally I'm hoping Talley will make a modified base that will fit the sako actions, or maybe a better route would be to have a gun smith drill and tap the Sako receiver top to accept a talley integral ring (one piece).

Spot

i have a one piece base on my 243, and 2 piece bases on my other rifles. never had a problem with any of them, although i believe a one piece base is more stable (steady) than a 2 piece. others may differ which is why they make different types.

My perception is that a one piece mount can induce some stress on an action if the screw holes do not mesh exactly with those of the receiver. Might be rectified somewhat if the mount is used as a guide to drill the receiver. Stress may also be induced if the single piece mount and receiver are fabricated from different metals and expand/contract at different rates.

We may have the same issue though with 2 piece mounts as most scopes are of different metal than the receiver. The old target mounts where the scope was free to travel on recoil might have gotten around that. One needed to remember to reposition the scope after each shot and many a group was spoiled with that slip.

For hunting units this is likely not much of a significant issue. I go AC/DC though among my units, but mostly use 2 piece units on the heavy kickers.

Back in the last century the one-piece was mount regarded by some as stiffening the action, and the two-piece mounts were better for keeping weight down.

After using both I use the two-piece bases now.

jim

Typical one-piece bases only use three screws, 2-piece bases use four. This relates to the old adage that a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. A 1-piece base itself may be stronger--but its connection to the rifle s weaker. Of course, the base(s) can be epoxied to the action, something a few real rifle loonies do.

Personally, on hunting rifles I much prefer the lighter weight and four screws of 2-piece mounts. I especially like mounts that attach directly to dovetails on the action, or mounts where the base and ring are one piece, as in the Talley Lightweights, mostly because I've found both types stronger than the typical screw-on-base/ring combo (though obviously the typical mount has proven strong enough for about any use).

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.

Mount some Seekins Precision alloy one piece base and rings on this rifle and don't look back.

Forget Leupold, redfield type of stuff and even Talley. Get the Seekins and be set for any conditions and nocks that you can give to your rifle.

They are aerospace quality and the price isn't as high as you might assume. Look them up on line and give Glen Seekins a call.

I would love to try some Seekins mounts, but apparently he is having a really hard time keeping up with demand, which is pretty specialized (limited) so far. Any word on that?

I have found the Talley lightweights will keep a hunting scope in place for at least 10 years of hunting, or at least harder hunting than the average guy does.

Mule Deer:

This is the second time I have read this about the Redfield type one piece base and the opposing windage screws. The first time, IIRC was in an article by Ross Seyfried.

I had a synthetic Weatherby Mark V in .300 WBY, with a Leopold 2 1/2 by 8 Scope.

After two or three shots, the screw in the ring would ride up out of the little dove tail in the base and the shots would start climbing. After four or five shots, the rifle would be shooting about a foot high at 100 yards.

Could this be the reason Leopold came out with the dual dovetail mount?

This problem should be given more emphasis in the shooting magazines. I like to have never figured out what was causing the groups to climb like they were, and I would guess that other shooters have had the same problem on lightweight and heavy recoiling rifles. A heavier scope, such as a variable only adds to the problem.

Actually, I didn't figure it out until I read Ross' article.

There is something else I have experienced, and you might have, also. If the front two screws are tightened down, sometimes, due to both the rifle manufacturers and mount manufacturers tolerances, there could be several thousands of clearence between the bottom of the base and the top or the rear receiver ring.

Tightening the rear base screw down will bend the base, introducing unwanted stress, and also the scope won't be perfectly concentric between the front and rear ring.

When I find this in my rifles, I shim the rear until it doesn't give when the rear screw is tightened. I have never experienced the front ring being too low.

This situation can also happen with two piece bases, except it would not be as obvious, but due to the above reason, manufacturing tolerances, one base could be slightly lower than the other, introducing stress to the scope tube.

My bad earlier...

I was thinking one piece / two piece ring base combo.

Spot

Superior products tend to be hard to keep in stock for a small manufactuer like Seekins Precision. Just supply and demand. Besides if they get too big then QC is out the window and you have to start a customer service program. Make it once and make it right.

1234567,

Yes, that is one reason Leupold developed the Dual Dovetail.

Also, if recoil is hard enough, the ascope heavyenough the rings high enough (which seems to be case more and more, as hunters go to larger and larger scopes) the front mount can actually bend during recoil--or at least tip, if the dovetail has any slop at all. The scope actually pulls forward, the rear ring shifting forward slightly between the windage screws. You can se this in many rifles that have been shot much, by looking closely at the rear ring.

In some actions, especially older (but good) actions like the 98 Mauser, a 1-piece can actually warp. the action slightly when the screws are tightened. This also does accuracy no good.

Of course, the best way to fit any mount/scope to any rifle is with as little stress as possible. This is why some custom makers make a mount specifically for that particular rifle--and why rings are lapped once mounted on a rifle.

All of which is why I tend to use two-piece mounts on most of my rifles. 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), and sometimes they are Talleys, either Lightweights or steel, or Dual Dovetails. In general, such mounts hold scopes better, with fewer problems, than all but the very best custom 1-piece base mounts.

Varmint Als website had an excellent article of stress analysis of one piece vs two piece. He also examined the expansion characteristic mentioned earlier by one minute. I dont recall all the detail but more stress was placed on the scope from dissimilar material between the scope and the action than one vs two piece. In short if you shot a rifle with a steel receiver you should have a steel tube to match the thermal expansion/contractions to prevent stress.

I've read about bases being epoxied or silver-soldered onto the receiver, but not a whole lot of detail about it. Either way, it occurs to me that it would be best to epoxy/solder first, then run the screws in later; otherwise if the epoxy or solder gets down into the threads, you'd just about have to ruin the receiver to remove them. Maybe one could coat the screws in release agent and carefully screw them in while the epoxy is runny...

Can you expand a bit on how its done, what to look out for (particularly for stainless actions), etc? And are there tools or jigs to check the "base axis" against the bore axis? I can imagine a steel rod like a ring lapping rod, with a laser innit.

It would seem that soldering or epoxying scope bases to a gun should be considered a permanent installation (not to be removed).

-

I was always told (50+ years ago) that one-piece bases stiffen the action and make it more accurate. Now I know that advice is not correct. Unless the base is welded to the action to make the whole thing a monolitinc structure, it is not any more rigid than a 2-piece base set-up. The screws holding the base to the receiver add nothing to rigidity.

There is one disadvantage to one-piece bases - access to the magazine to load cartridges is impeded. Yesterday, I was at the range and put about 300 rounds of 260 Remington and 308 Winchester downrange and found it annoying and painful (arthritis) to load the magazine.

Lighter weight , easier magazine access and, (arguably) a better appaeance means that I'll switch to 2-piece bases for future purchases.

Big Redhead,

Epoxied bases can be removed by heating them. This melts the epoxy long before the mount or action is affected.

Forum member Brad turned me on to using JB Weld to epoxy bases. It works very good and isnt very hard to remove.

I would not consider a one piece base on any rifle.

The whole concept of accuracy is based on stress removal from the 6 layers of a rifle.

Floorplate to stock
stock to action
bases onto action
lower rings to bases
scoper tube to lower ring
top ring to scope (maybe)

Any binding or sress will at some point releive or change in the tension created, so that accuracy will become affected, whether permanenet or temporarily.

If you are serious about determining the potential accuracy of your barrel, you need the entire lockup system of your rifle tight and as stress free as possible.

My .460 has worn several brands of scope bases, mostly for testing, and still wears Leupold bases today. They will outlast me and the rifle. I do not trust scope mounts and lapp them all. The bases I glue on the action.

Rings and bases are mass produced as are rifle actions. I consider it unreasonable to expect two independent metal objects from two independent manufacturing sectors to be a perfect stress free fit.

AGW

Mule Deer:

You wrote, "The scope actually pulls forward, the rear ring shifting forward slightly between the windage screws. You can se this in many rifles that have been shot much, by looking closely at the rear ring."

When I finally found out what was happening, my thoughts were that the scope was staying in one place and the rifle was trying to jump out from under it.

The base has a sort of what would be called a round dove tail, which the heads of the screws tighten into. As the ring moves, it is slightly jacked up because of the curvature of the dovetail. This raises the rear of the scope, causing the rifle to shoot high if the same aiming point is used, but I guess you already know this.

I imagine that if you kept shooting it, the shots would get higher and higher, maybe three or four feet high.

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

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.

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 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

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.

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

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 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.

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

I visited the Seekins website too. I believe he studied at the Klingon Design Bureau. <---humor

jim

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.

The regular Leupold QRW rings with your exact setup is what I use for the same thing you want. Worked well for years.

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

klingon design bureau ...

now that was funny.

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.

-

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Makes you wonder how we ever competed in matches, shot varmints and big game back in the 70's and 80's with the weak, poorly engineered and nonprecise Redfield, Weaver, Leupold and Lyman mounts we used. If you want to spend money on low volume production scope mounts feel free, but don't fool yourself into thinking they make your rifle any more accurate. Try shooting some groups to test your theory about action flexing not asking "well known gunsmiths".

I always use two-piece bases on a hunting rifle, so I can carry the rifle by using the scope as a handle!

The guys from Hill Country Rifles suggest staying away from one piece scope bases because they stress the action. I think they know what they are talking about.

Been called stupid a hundred+ times for saying the same thing. Thanks John!!!!!

I have 1 piece bases on BAR's and 7400's but have gone to two piece bases on about everything else. I like the Leupold DD mounts quite a bit. I have yet to try the ones that have the base and lower part of the ring as one piece but think they would be good. The two piece bases on bolt action rifles give me better clearance so that I can load more easily and so that I can carry the rifle upside down with my hand around the action. I am surprised more gun makers don't build integral bases into their receivers the way Ruger and Sako do.

1 piece machined base from steel with 4 screws is the best. Two piece bases are fine too without the rear windage screws, and have never given me trouble.As for the 1 piece putting stress on the action well guess the world record bench rest shooters have it all wrong? Grin

Glad they don't

I have used both. On bolt guns, I prefer 1 piece mounts with integral rings or cross slot design, assuming there are no alignment issues, which you can also get with 2 piece bases.

Not a big fan of dove tail mounts, but I have those as well.

I am not aware of any studies that concluded a well fitting one piece mount introduced any significant stress into an action.

It's a non issue.

JM

Why are you glad about that? after reading this post I am thinking that the Savage folks are on top of it once again. the mounts on my Predator are part of the reciever. They are more like two piece weaver mounts so your ring choice is larger

Hank

I just bought a 700 Varmint and now I am really confused about my mounts to be used

I don't want to be stuck with rings that are too high. All the intergal rings are too high IMO.

Talley 2 piece LW combos are the best for the 700. $29.00 at Natchez and you don't have to buy bases.

But what about the Remmy Faux talleys...????

And what about the Talley faux Remmys....????

Good one Swampy..I missed that earlier..


Your trolling skills improve...

Get it right....

"Best selling and most accurate production centerfire rifle in the world."

I thought we were talking about rings and bases, not rifles....

Wrong again swampy.

DNZ

Browning X Bolt - Short Action - Right Hand - 30MM scope tube - Low mount - Black. Measurement from bottom of mount at the front of the receiver to the centerline of the scope tube is .937".

Scope has 44MM objective. Centerline of scope is 1.477" to centerline of bore. I don't call that high.

Those are hideous. Not even if they were free & still too tall. Had a pair once that were given to me. Sold them on eBay.

I'll bet you are the guy that took a file to the barrel of a HB Sako Varmint I found in Rapid City so the objective bell could clear the barrel with Weaver Low bases and rings.

He was probably just trying to file the brand name off the barrel so his buddies wouldn't think he was gay.

Too high? As long as there is minimal clearance between the bell and the barrel and as long as there is minimum clearance between the bolt and the scope then I don't consider the mounts to be too high. I use mainly scopes with 40mm objectives and have never had any problems getting the scopes as low as the dimensions of the scopes allow with the several Rugers I have. I don't like overly high scope mounts either.

For the 745th time, swampy speaks out of his anus, is proven wrong and can't acknowledge it.

Nobody gave you a set of $90 bases and rings. Do us all a favor and just quit lying. You're a sick puppy swamprat, you got some real issues....

You constantly comment on other makes of rifles you have owned and how you worked on them but never could get them to shoot, yet you cannot answer simple questions about any of those makes you supposedly "worked on".

laffin'

You are phony as a 3 dollar bill and crazy as a bastard rat.

Laffin.

Neither of us have any idea what you are talking about.

They stop scope streching dead in their tracks

nothing like pulling up a 3 year old post to do a little ass kissing and trolling...

First honest statement you've made here.

You are clueless, admitting it is the first step towards correcting it.

Keep rambling, you've presented nothing...oh wait...nothing new.

I will not use a one piece base.

John

There's two of you? Multiple personality disorder and they are both clueless.

Swampman1 shares the same cranium...........they are both idiots

I won't anymore.

Tell us how really feel about gunwriters:

I can think of 2 good ones that are still living.

Swampman, do you prefer a spinnning or levelwind for this?

Lee24 and Larry Root ?

I think spinning is easier. The levelwinds are too easy to bird's nest.

Expert info from someone who lives in a cuckoo's nest.

LOL.

.

It was a notch on top of the barrel that was 1/8" deep and an inch long. How many guns you own? Never saw a brand name on top of the barrel. Never knew a Sako that wouldn't outshoot a Remchester 700 rifle wannabe!

Depends for light line and gear I like spinning gear for heavier lines, wieghts, mooching, bottom bouncing and trolling I like the level winds.

I forgot I'd asked the question three years ago! I've had another rifle put together since the Alaskan. I went with Talley Lightweights on it. I like them. If at some point I can't say "no" to yet another rifle, it'll probably wear Lightweights.

I think he's definitely trolling...

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

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...



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

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 never mount a scope without lapping the rings or in the best instances, using the lapping bar to check the rings for true.

John

Laffin'

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...

Gotta say (again)...

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.

FWIW.

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.

Yep they worry me. I have one on a .270 and it's gotta go.