One piece or two piece scope mounts?

M

Michael64

New member
Have seen all kinds of scope mounts for Remington long action and was wondering the advantages/disadvantages between the various one piece versions and the two piece versions?
 
I was about to ask the exact same question except for a Rem. short action with a Leupold 4.5-14X40. Is one more stable than the other?
 
There may be some who will debate this but.. most precision rifles Ive seen had one piece mounts. Rings that are brazed on a base and line bored are very hard to beat.
 
I have a one piece mount on a model 700 7mag and have had no problems with it. Also have two piece mounts on a Sako .270, and a Ruger. I was just commenting to a buddy of mine that I had not touched the scope on the Sako for over 5 years. The only thing I can see is the two piece allows for easier cleaning. Of course probably the most important thing is to have those rings hanging on to something of quality. I have all my rifles topped with Leupolds, and just love em. :)
 
Unless you're going for the ultimate in accuracy where hundredths of an inch matter in the alignment of the bases, I think you can get away with quality two piece bases.

I like the way two piece bases look on a bolt gun and you also have more clearance to load the rifle...
 
I my opinion, the one piece steel mounts are the best. Here's why:


Two piece steel or aluminum (sp)seem to magnify the harmonics (vibrations) of firing the weapon. The harmonics radiate through the front ring, then radiate through the scope to the second ring before leaving the rifle. Aluminum is very porous and vibrations are greater than steel.

When a single mount of steel is used, the majority of the harmonics radiate through the base and is minimized through the rings and scope. I remember reading in this forum of someone having trouble keeping a zero on a rifle. This may ans the question.

hjn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top