Let's mount a scope!

P

presence

New member
Let's mount a scope on a long-action bolt action rifle!!

What are the pros and cons about using 2 piece weaver style bases?

How 'bout the pros and cons about using a long 1 piece weaver style base that extends over the ejection port?

Which is more preferred?

Are scope mounts that are already built into bases even better yet?

What about the difference between aluminum and steel for both bases and mounts?

Does any or all of this change for short-action rifles?

All input is greatly appreciated whether fact or opinion!

Thanks in advance!!
 
JMO....

I will never use anything other than a precision single piece base- and a down-angle one, at that. By precision, I don't necessarily mean a $100 Seekins...I mean not a $10 NC Star...

Eliminates alignment issues you can have with two piece bases. Not to say two piece bases can't work fine, I just see no reason for them since the advent of the rail mounts unless there's an issue with ejection where a rail is not practical. Ring placement is flexible, allowing in turn more flexibility in scope positioning.

I'm not a fan of the one piece mount/rings combos, but we do have a Warne RAMP on an AR and like it. If you go this route- don't go cheap. There's a LOT of precision machining required to get a combo like that precise. Again, NC Star isn't going to cut it...

Frankly, I've not understood the added value vs. cost for steel bases...maybe for a military application where the rifle might be abused, and the softness of the aluminum is a liability? Plenty of very accurate, long-range rifles with aluminum bases.

Yes- the long vs. short action DOES matter here- ring positioning, as I mentioned above.
With a long action, and two piece bases with rings, you cannot (obviously) shift the positions of the rings- and depending on your scope positioning, eye relief, etc.- you may not be able to get the scope where you want it due to the fixed rings, and the greater distance between them with the long action.
 
Are you working with a modern commercial bolt action or a milsurp sporter or an older rifle?

I ask because there are far more variables with the older stuff and milsurp sporters.

Some has to do with what scope you are putting on it,and what your priorities are.

For example,among the lowest,lightest,cheapest darned strong setups is the original Weaver low setup,it worked fine on a steel tube Weaver K-4.At home on a basic hunting rifle.Would not be my choice for a 50 mm objective scope.

Some outfits make a piece of picatinny rail for bolt guns,strong and practical.

The Leupold QRW's and PRW's I am happy with..a might heavy,but overall,good.

I do things a little different,most folks just can't afford as much time and trouble as I put into mounting a scope.Older days,bases were out of square,poorly machined sometimes.Receiver rings varied.

I use prussian blue to make sure the base matches the receiver.If it doesn't,it gets re machined.For 2 piece bases

I also screw the bases on,set the receiver up on parallels and run a dial indicator across the surfaces the rings set on.If I see more than .001,I remachine something.

Then,I put a drop of green cylindrical fit loc-tite under the base to bed it to the rifle.I dummy assembly it and let the loctite set.

Then I lap the rings.

All this takes time,and almost no one would pay to have all that done.I wouldn't!!But thats what I do for me.

When I'm done,its rock solid,and the scope is running in rings that will not distort the tube.

Keep that your goal.Whatever it takes,you pay $1200 for a scope to get precision tolerances ..less than .001,then put together a base/ring setup that warps the tube .020 and things like your scope adjustments will not work well.

Or,stuff like reticles and lenses set in adhesive pops loose..

Keep that in mind
 
I like the stories of all the persons mounting a scope, doing all the neccessary steps including lapping the rings, and forgetting to tighten the rail base to the rifle, thus causing all work to be re-done, usually during a competition match. Reference latest FCSA VHP publication.
 
I have a modern bolt gun, relatively speaking. It is a Savage 110 from the early 90's I'd guess, chambered in 22-250. It was my grandfather's varmint gun, that I so graciously acquired from him last year. Oddly enough --at lease to me-- it is a long-action bolt. My problem herein lies that the 2 piece weaver bases I got for it barely keeps the rings on the tube ends of the scope. The front is so to the extreme front and the rear to the extreme back. There is no room to adjust the scope forwards or backwards to accommodate comfortable eye relief. The scope I'm mounting is a new Nikon Prostaff 4x12x40.

I'm not even sure what lapping is and i don't know about the green loctite. I use blue loctite on my base screws and ring screws. I am anal about getting my crosshairs level, so I use a vise and levels. That is all the more extreme I get with it.

The only purpose of the rifle is for hunting, so if I can get my groups in the vitals of an animal, I'm pleased with the accuracy.

Thanks again! My wife can now stop hearing "honey, no one is replying to my post :( "
 
You need offset rings, available wherever you got the regular rings or order on line.

And BTW, back in the 90s there was only one action length for the Savage.
 
IIRC, Weaver refers the the "offset" rings as Extension rings - they effectively move the ring grasping surface either fwd or rearward about the width of the ring (a little over one inch), which would put the ring more towards the scope's center of mass (not necessarily a good thing).

I understand the need for mounting the scope for a proper eye relief & sight window, but it's also best for the scope if the rings are as far apart as possible, to avert any accidental side pressure moving the POI during a shot.


.
 
I would expect your Savage to have the receiver surfaces machined very true.That means all the ridiculous work I do is unnecessary.
The 22-250 is very modest in recoil,don't worry about the green loctite.

Are you going with a large objective lense scope,like 50 mm?If so,that influences how low you can mount the scope.In most situations,lower is better,but ultimately you want the scope so you can mount the rifle with your eyes closed,open them,and have a good,full field of view through the scope.

Look at Leupold and Warne Weaver type bases.You might check to see if Farrell is still making Weaver rail one piece bases.
 
It takes some skill to bed 2 piece mounts on a rifle so that they are co planar and parallel with the bore within 2 moa or 20 moa lower, if that is desired.

It takes much less skill and fixturing to mount a one piece to that quality, so that a scope with the reticule centered in the tube starts out on the paper.

But the one piece kinda gets in the way of the fingers in loading the magazine.

EGW makes great one piece mounts for reasonable money.
 
There is no room to adjust the scope forwards or backwards to accommodate comfortable eye relief.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I made in my first post...
Why mess with offsets and other junk to try to "make it" work...
Just get a one piece EGW rail, put the rings where you want them and be done with it.
 
Go with a one pc mount. There are reasons for using a one pc.
Eye relief adj are much easier to make
Makes sure your scope is aligned better
Makes for a more solid base for your scope to mount too
Steel would be better.

There is a reason the military uses one pc mounts and it's not because it's cost affective for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top