Yeah, I know there are rings that offer some windage adjustment by offset clamping systems using two little bitty screws in the front, and two little bitty screws in the back.
That's no good.
Those rings move left and right 90-degrees to the axis of the scope tube.
The more you work the adjustment the more you bugger your scope.
Here is an exaggerated sketch to demonstrate the reason why I won't use offset rings on my expensive (or even my cheap) scopes.
Viewing the scope from above, as it is mounted on the rifle, the scope tube gets pinched (and damaged) in four places, indicated by red arrows.
The dings from the pinching would only be driven deeper (and the scope would loosen in the rings) every time the heavy-caliber rifle is fired.
The only viable solution to ensure that the scope is not damaged is to use a cantilever system as is common, and present in the traditional one-piece mount I showed in my OP.
I am very surprised that with all the gee-whiz mounts that are out there now, and are intended for use with a Picatinny rail, that NONE of them offer any windage adjustment.
I've got my windage just about maxxed out on my Leupold VX-II, mounted with Warne QD rings, on my DSA top-cover mount on my FAL.
I'm thinking about mounting a one-piece base as shown in my OP on a simple riser block. Problem is, it would look weird if cobbled-together that way. Probably would work. But I'm not sure I could stand looking at it. Appearance counts, even on practical guns.
Mark Larue... are you listening?
.
.
.