I picked up a second hand Fieldcraft chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor. It came with some 30mm talleys (low) and I am considering swapping to the talley pic rail and standard rings. Does anyone know if a combination of the base/rings can net a lower scope height than their standard "low" rings? The ability to be able to easily swap scopes on the rifle while maintaining zero is very appealing, but I would really like to keep the scope at the same height, or lower if possible.
Thanks!

Also... I noticed on Talley's website when on the Fieldcraft Picatinny Base they list four action sizes: Magnum, Long, Short, Micro. Barrett has teased a "micro" action but not released anything that I have seen yet. Hopefully this means something is coming soon! If they offer a 6.5 grendel I will definitely pick one up. Talley Micro Action Base

I wish they just made a low Picatinny base that I could put Hornady XTR Signature 30mm rings on, without adding all the height in the back. Similar to the Burris Extreme Tactical bases.

I know Big Stick (aka Boxer) is shooting the Hornady rings on the 20 MOA Talley base. Who else has experience with this set up? How's the cheek weld?

I'm not "stick", but from top down, those rifles seem to have ........

Top: Warn Maxima Rings
Middle: Burris XTR Sig Rings
Bottom: Talley Lightweight Rings

Hornady doesn't make any scope rings...........I'm sure you mean't Burris

In any event, these Barrett Fieldcrafts are intriguing. Seems like a clear friggin choice between them and the "sometimes troublesome" Kimber Montana's.

I'm excited to hear more about the Barrett's from those who'm have them.

Yes. Burris. I was multitasking, but not well.

I am running the Talley Picatinny and Burris XTR Signatures on a Fieldcraft in 6.5 Creedmoor, and I am quite happy with the overall package. I tend to tolerate a bit higher scope mount more than others, but nonetheless I think the setup is solid for most users, Picatinnys being what they are.

I'm using a Talley rail and Seekins lows on 3 Fieldcrafts. This setup is solid, gives the ease of changing scopes, and the option of spacing rings as needed to fit the scope, but I'm not sure if a ring combo can be found to mate with the Talley base that's going to come out as low as TLW's. Cheek-weld is ok but could be lower. I was on the verge of putting TLW's on the last one but had a scope already setup in rings so used the rail instead.

I WANT to use the TLW's for the lower mount and lighter weight.....but after having a couple of pairs crack, along with the fact that I'm using noticeably heavier scopes now, I haven't been able to talk myself into it.

Unfortunately there's no option for truly low scope mounting on a Barrett Fieldcraft at this time.

I've been very pleased with the strength of DNZ mounts on several rifles....don't always like the ring spacing but the 2 piece Huntmaster's with the Fieldcrafts multiple spacing options on the front of the reciever got me thinking. So I emailed DNZ asking about low 30mm Huntmasters for the Fieldcraft. Below is the final result from DNZ when I asked about making 3 pair of 30mm lows:




So there are options for low/strong Fieldcraft mounts.....but it'll cost ya!

It's Stick's fault. he always calls the Burris Sig rings "Horn" rings for some reason.

Talley Low:




Talley 0MOA pic rail and Burris XTR Sig Med rings (the rifle now has a stock pack to adjust cheek weld):

Jordan,

While I like the additional 40 MOA with the Burris and 20 MOA Talley option.

1. is it really needed? On the Ballistic software, the 6.5 Creedmoor 140 BTHP American gunner is only 31 MOA/9 MILs adjustment at 1,000 yards. It seems the regular Talley's would work with a 6x or 10x MQ.

2. If you have to add a cheek pad, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a very lightweight rifle? Or, even with the added weight, is it much less than a similar Montana, etc.?



Or, is that combo more about rugged than about extra elevation?

Well I'll be darned, that's interesting!

You're right about the ring spacing being less than ideal on DNZs, but they are quality mounts and do a good job of making low mounts that are actually low.

Needing a stock purse to achieve proper cheek weld indicates a design or setup flaw, generally seen as an issue in comb height or mount height. In the case of the Fieldcraft, the problem is mostly the latter. The pic rail is a nice strong mount, but for me the Talley rail is not worth it on a Fieldcraft, as it gives up too much in the way of ergonomics. I'm no fan of chin weld. Bottom of cheek bone hard against the comb with my eye lined up is where I want to be.

Pretty sure that rail comes in a "flat" version as well.

PSO252766

The 20MOA is PSM252766

Amazon has both.

The 0 MOA rail isn't much flatter in the rear than the 20 MOA.

The Burris Extreme Tactical Bases are about 1/2 as high off of the receiver.

I didn't realize Burris made a base fort he fieldcraft. I wish I could find a published height for it as well as the Talley base.

The lowest QD 30mm rings I have found are the Warnes which are .25" and Leupolds which are ~.23". Not much room to spare to exceed the .3" height of the Talley "low" rings.

Have to check those out.

Burris does not make a base for the Fieldcraft. I wish they did

I’m basing my observations on the height of the bases they make for the Rem 700.

Looks like Talley lows for me then. Got enough chin-weld rifles.

The concept of using high mounts to attain enough cant to shoot a mile on a rifle that weighs seven pounds just seems really bizarre, especially because in order to do so, you lose an important feature for everyday usage - decent cheek weld. It's the 2018 version of see-through mounts, but geared towards the opposite yardage extreme.

I like rugged and not having to worry about my scope/mounting system crapping the bed. That's why I swapped out the Talley LW's, and that's what the system is geared toward. I went with the 0 MOA rail on this rifle to try and get the rear of the scope down a little lower, and Talley told me that the difference between the 0 MOA and 20 MOA rail is mainly in the height of the rear of the base. That's what made that decision for me. I'd be happy if there were other, lower options with the ruggedness of a rail, but the selection is currently very limited.

The XTR Sig rings do several things that I like. They grip like the devil, they mitigate mis-aligned rings and having to lap (as sometimes happens with Talley LW's), and they allow me to add enough cant to bottom out the elevation in the erector assembly.

The twist rate, mag box latitude, throating, 5 screw holes for the scope base, and rugged scope/mount setup is the advantage of that rifle. I don't mind stock packs at all, and kind of like them for certain things like storing my DOPE card, an allen key for the turrets, etc.

It's obviously not a perfect setup as is, and if Burris or Warne come out with a low base that's compatible with the 1913 pic-spec rings, I'll be happy to make the switch from the overly tall Talley rail.

If Warne or Burris comes out with a low base I will be at the front of the line!

I've heard through The Grapevine,that the (5) 8x40's mated to a 20 MOMO rail,with 40 MOMO 'Horn's,prolly do an erector favors(EVERYTHING Below zero,is 100% fhuqking USELESS) and ring spacing "prolly" helps zero retention. Not that I don't enjoy a High Pitched Nasal Whine from a fhuqking Snowflake,who only "shoots" her mouth and Imagination. Hint. Laffin'!

Through The Grapevine RINK

Through The Grapevine Again RINK

1000 Words.






I VERY much enjoy,that a CLUELESS Drooling Dumbfhuqk cain't look through a scope and frets how it "looks",over how it performs. EPIC fhuqking humor!

A mile is a breeze,as configured and 147 ELD's shine a touch more,than just brightly. The parcel is handy/dandy,amazingly robust,holds zero amazingly,tracks like it has eyes and is simply THE fhuqking benchmark of relative evaluation...and simply has NO fhuqking peer. Hint.

Hell...one of these days,I might even take THE Safe Queen outta the house.

LAFFIN'!



I've also heard through The Grapevine(but have yet to see one),that LRF's will even tell a gent,how far way thangs is!?! Who'da' thunk it???



You STUPID fhuqks are a hoot!

Laffin'!

Looks like Leupold makes a 20 MOA base for $45 that fits the Fieldcraft

Hard to tell true height compared to the Talley base..... If the picture is a true picture of the Leupold base, it looks like it only has 4 holes.....if there's 5 holes on the action I'd rather use all 5 than only 4.

I'm a big fan of over engineering, but, have you been having problems with four-hole 8X40 bases coming loose? Damn near every Remington 700 and clones use 4 holes and smaller screws, and work fine.

Nope, I've not had a problem. I'd still rather have the hole filled with a screw than sitting empty.

Just received the Leupold mount.

It has five holes, and five screws.

and it was $25 less than the comparable Talley mount.

The intent of the extra hole in the front was to provide flexibility of the position of the front mount, not for added strength. Thats just a side benefit when using a rail.

Nice! Would you be so kind as to throw a caliper on the rear end of the base and measure the height? Would be interesting to see if the Leupold is any lower than the Talley.

Sure

Thanks David!

Timely topic. I too am interested in the lowest possible rail/ring combo for a Fieldcraft.

I’m getting 0.380” in the back and 0.345” in the front.

It looks like the Talley flat base is ~.46 in the rear. A Talley 20 MOA base is ~.485 in the rear. These are mounted so I couldn't get the front....and could be a touch off on the rear measurements but should be pretty close.

Nice to know that the Leupold base also has the 5 holes. Thanks David!

Just to confirm, that is the height from the top of the receiver to the top of the rail?

Not speaking for David but that is how I measured the Talley base. The receiver is rounded so I measured from the highest point of the rounded action to the top of the rail....it would measure higher across the lower edges (bottom of rounded edges) to the top.

Thanks, the rounded part is exactly what I was wondering about.

Those heights are pretty reasonable. Great find!

My Talley flat base measures about 0.360” at the rear. Also mounted on the rifle, so not exact.

I did it quickly and didn't write it down....there's a good chance that I didn't read my 1/10's correctly!

Either way, it's $25 less money while on sale at Midway.

Measured again and it is .360 and .385. I was rushing yesterday morning....sorry. At any rate, the Leupold will save some $.

I have one on the way to try out. I’d like to keep the weight down with the Talleys, but I’d like it to be robust too. The other day I was at the range, and to see what would happen in a fall or if the rifle fell over from leaning on a truck or tree, I slapped the side of the scope. Not too hard, anyway, the POI shifted ~1.1” on one rifle and 1.5” on another. Two different scopes. Hardly scientific, but I learned that something in the system shifted. I was surprised to see that given I really didn’t slap that hard. When I did it my expectation was neither would move and would be confident in the systems. Oh well. I’m going to bed the rings on one, replace the rings with a rail/rings on the other and try to repeat and see what happens.

Did you read Boxer's posts and the links within on Page 2 of this thread? He done the work for you.

You have to learn to speak his language or enlist the help of an interpreter, but there's always something to learn from him. Hint, laffin.

What scopes and rings/bases?

Both had Talley Lightweights. One had Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8 and the other a NF SHV 3-10. I wouldn’t read too much into the scopes or results beyond the fact that something shifted. My guess is a better base/ring or ring bedding will address it.

I have 2 rifles with Talley light weights mounted. I epoxy them on with no release agent, before torqueing the screws. I think that will help keep them from shifting. RJ

(FWIW) Warne MtTech Low/ Talley20

Exactly what I’m doing on one.

Gravymeister, I almost went with the Mtn Techs. Nice looking. All the rail/ring combos are too tall though. Can always go back if I don’t like it.

I've "only" broken (8) sets of LW's,aboard Killing Rifles and they'd be amongst THE last pieces of fhuqking schit I'd poke on a Barrett FC. Hint.

1" 3.5-10x Reupold LW puke here,on a Montucky 223. All were S/A failures,as an FYI...though actual fhuqking USE and round count was certainly OBSCENE. Though in fairness,I barely had more than (3) dozen sets in service aboard mainstays,at any one time. Hint.



Montucky Whizzum LW puke. Though I've broke most on 700's,in CM,S/S and Titanium,to be fair...if only because they were THE mainstays and absorbed the round count.



Epoxy is NO "aid" to Metallurgy,but be SURE To "convince" yourselfd",of that which you MOST need to hear. Pass the 20MOA(or better) 1913 rail(s),uszing ALL fhuqking (5) 8x40 fasteners and hold the Fluff.

Ring spacing is THE greatest advantage one can toss any/all 'scope's and EVERY fhuqking thing on the erector below zero,is 100% fhuqking USELESS.

Thank me later.

Hint....................

I won’t disagree the rail/rings is the most robust. However, I don’t throw my rifles and I know how to torque a screw properly, so I’m not that concerned about the LWs. Hint...

I've had two pair crack. Maybe I torque to much...don't know...I only use a thumb and two fingers to tighten with the included wrench (short end). I do know I've not had any other type of ring crack.