1 piece or 2 piece scope bases?

D

dvdcrr

New member
I once bought a short action Rem 700 rifle. I casually asked the seller if a 1 piece or 2 piece scope base should be utilized. He quickly responded that I should use a 1 piece base because it stiffens the action, and he said this was very important. Do you think this has any merit?
 
Doubt it. That aluminum scope base I don't think actually stiffens the action in any meaningful way.

I still say one piece base. For the reasons that you can easily have elevation built into your base. Also the fact that it's easier to make one piece true than to make two separetlyachined bases true to each other. Also a single.pice base will in many cases, make it possible for you to use a wider variety of optics,
 
That idea has been around for years. Never seen any data to prove it. In fact there is a good argument that one piece mounts using old school dovetail and windage adjustable rear rings is less strong at least partly because they only utilize 3 mounting screws instead of 4.

Traditionally I've preferred using 2 piece mounts on most hunting rifles since it leaves a little more room on top of the action making loading and ejection a little easier. But most guys shooting target rifles anymore are going to a one piece rail with multiple slots for scope base mounting. I like the concept and it does have some advantages on a hunting rifle too.

Plus many newer rifle designs are using an enclosed action with just a small ejection port. That is proving to make for a stiffer action, and there are no negatives to using a rail type base on them.
 
kilotanker22 has it right, and right for good reason. It's not uncommon to get receivers that aren't totally flat on top for various reasons. Some, such as Savage, do a polishing job on the receiver after machining it and it can be a couple thou off from flat. Using two piece bases puts them on slightly different planes. You end up having the rings off a bit and then you have to get them aligned. Also, with one piece mount you have more opportunity to move some scopes forward or aft to get better eye relief. Turret spacing and length of scope are sometimes restrictive and you can end up with more room to locate the rings. You aren't going to "stiffen up" a steel receiver with a mount base.
 
I'm with Kilo, NoSecondBest on this one!

I shoot mostly Savage actions. Very open on top.
While i don't believe a one piece will actually help stiffen the action, i'm not seeing where they hurt either.

I also use a one piece on my Mauser actions.

As mentioned, better alignment, more options to set eye relief.

I do have an old round back Savage action that is WAAYYY more than a couple thousandths off! I'd have possably never realized it if it were not for the one piece base.
 
Prefer, one-piece

Do you think this has any merit?
Click to expand...
If given an option and will not interfere with fit or performance, I go with a one-piece. I have the tools to work with both, so it's really not a big problem. ..;)

Be Safe !!!
 
I've used both and don't really prefer either over the other. first time I used one piece was because I bought into the stiffer action idea. Yes or no I don't really know but seem's to me it would help some. For aligning the rings better, one piece probably does that. But just how important is that? I don't know that either has any advantage anymore and I don't lay awake night's worrying about it. Presently I have one set of one piece on a 700 Rem and no problem I can see. Have nine set's of two piece on the other rifles and no problem's I can see. I pretty much stick to two piece these days because they are less expensive. People that shoot a lot have an annoying habit of proclaiming what they use is the best. And what they don't is simply far lesser quality! Most are looking for the one hole group, no one has found it! Get the mount's you can afford and go for it, you'll sleep better!
 
I was asked the same question some years ago at work. Asked a mechanical engineer who used a Rem 700 long action about this issue. Next day, he told me after measuring the receiver with a one piece Weaver base attached then using 4th order vibration engineering formulas, it was only about 0.9% stiffer.

Winchester 70 receivers without the base are about 30% stiffer than Rem 700's.
 
Last edited:
The first shot fired makes a one hole group.

There's no universal shooting sports standard for what a one hole nor cloverleaf group is.

Sierra has shot several sub .010" 10-shot test groups in their 100-yard range at their California plant
 
Last edited:
I go for looks. If the rifle has a nice wood stock and isn't all tacticalled out- I like classier looking 2 piece Leupold or Redfield bases. If the metal is flat black, matte, parkerized looking, bull barrel, muzzle doo-dad, tactical looking stock- then I'll use a 1-piece.

To air some of my thoughts here... If an action is wiggly enough to need the stiffening of a 1-piece base, then- Why aren't more base screws broken or base holes wallered out? Also, why aren't scopes used in 2-piece bases dented, rubbed raw on the outside edges of the rings, or just plain trashed? I can't see where it matters enough to worry about much aside from aesthetics unless you're building and shooting something based off of a 20mm Vulcan case type earth shaker.
 
Don,
If you want to know if one piece is definitevly better than a 2 piece setup, go to a few matches.

I'd be almost willing to bet your gonna see either a separate one piece base, or the receiver have a machined base.

Why?
Because they work best. That simple.
If it doesn't work, you will not see it at a match, unless it's a newbie.

While i'm still a newbie at match shooting, even i can see the effectiveness of a one piece.

As for adding strength to the action, how much do you think those #6, or #8 screws are gonne do?
 
std7mag said:
Don,
If you want to know if one piece is definitevly better than a 2 piece setup, go to a few matches.

I'd be almost willing to bet your gonna see either a separate one piece base, or the receiver have a machined base.

Why?
Because they work best. That simple.
If it doesn't work, you will not see it at a match, unless it's a newbie.

While i'm still a newbie at match shooting, even i can see the effectiveness of a one piece.

As for adding strength to the action, how much do you think those #6, or #8 screws are gonne do?
Click to expand...

On a hunting rifle, 1 1/2" group at 100 yds is really all we need. In a match quarter inch group is nice but you won't win with it!
 
On a hunting rifle, 1 1/2" group at 100 yds is really all we need. In a match quarter inch group is nice but you won't win with it!
Click to expand...
Should read "all I need". It's not what many others settle for. Small critters require small groups. Mediocrity is, well mediocre. Also, the OP was asking about which mounts, one or two piece.
 
Don Fischer said:
On a hunting rifle, 1 1/2" group at 100 yds is really all we need. In a match quarter inch group is nice but you won't win with it!
Click to expand...
A purely arbitrary number. When I was a youth, the rhetoric was that a 3" group at 100 yards was all that was needed for deer hunting.
 
1.5" group at 100 yards doesn't cut it for me.
If one of my hunting rifles shoots 1.5", then i'm trying to figure out why it's shooting so poorly.

1/4" has me placing top 3 for factory rifle in my local UBR, Groundhog matches.

And i never said which match. F-Class, 1,000 yard benchrest, PRS. Your not gonna find 2 piece bases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top