Importance of scope base?

[TurtlePhish]

How important is the quality of a scope base? Not talking rings, but the rail/mounting area that the rings attach to. I'm considering replacing the stock Weaver bases on my Savage 93 with a one-piece Picatinny rail from EGW, but don't know if it's worth the money.

 

[TonyAngel]

Why do you want to change bases? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I bought a rifle a while back that had one of those little $20 weaver bases on it. I threw my scope on top and it shot great. Still, the rifle's intended purpose was for kind of rugged duty, so I want a more rugged scope base. I put a Nightforce scope base on. $100, if I remember right. The rifle doesn't shoot any better, but I just take comfort in knowing that I have a heavier duty rig.

If you are looking for pride of ownership, then go for it. EGW makes nice stuff, as do Seekins, Badger, Nightforce, Warne, etc.; but none of them are going to make your rifle shoot better, unless there's something wrong with what you have now.

 

[Haxby]

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it... none of them are going to make your rifle shoot better, unless there's something wrong with what you have now." Well said.

I have a real good '06, with a real good scope, Warne rings, and Weaver bases.

 

[USSR]

With a short range rifle such as yours, the only thing it will buy you is multiple ways to position your scope fore and aft to get proper eye relief. With a long range precision rifle, the availability of a 20MOA picatinny can be critical to having enough elevation to reach your target.

Don

 

[TurtlePhish]

Part of the reason is that the bases are just barely undersized for most scope rings. The other is, as USSR said, to get an extra 20 MOA elevation. I wanna get this rig out to 400 just for the hell of it.

Also simply curious about the receiver fit/alignment characteristics of a higher quality base vs. a cheaper one.

 

[Coltdriver]

I think its all about the package.

You have a good scope, you get the best bases and rings you can afford.

Weaver stuff is ok but I would swap any aluminum Weaver piece out for a steel base in a heartbeat.

I have found most of the Picatinny bases raise the scope up a good quarter inch so you may need to experiment with ring height in order to keep your scope low. But a good, solid steel base will let you use quick detach rings and remount and be zeroed.

 

[TurtlePhish]

Weaver stuff is ok but I would swap any aluminum Weaver piece out for a steel base in a heartbeat.

What I meant by Weaver bases was a Weaver rail, not made by Weaver per se. Apologies for the poor wording.

 

[gamestalker]

I did the El Cheapo alluminum bases and rings on one of my 7 mags a few years back simply because I was in a hurry to get the Leupold glass mounted up, and the supplier was out of stock on the good steel ones. Lesson learned, I'll never waste my time or money again on El Cheapo rings and bases. That scope wouldn't hold zero for 5 shot groups, and I really didn't think that the cheap mounting system was that weak until I finally got my steel system mounted up. 1/2" 200 yd. groups v.s. 2" - 3" groups convinced me to never substitute for anything less than quality mountng systems, especially on high recoil rifles.

GS

 

[TonyAngel]

Turtle, needing extra elevation is a whole different matter. What scope are you running? What caliber are you shooting? Getting out to 400 shouldn't be much of a problem if you are shooting something like a .308 (or better) and have a decent scope. I'd need to double check my dope chart, but if memory serves, I only need to dial in about 8 minutes of elevation at 400 yards, assuming a 100 yard zero.

I'm not familiar with the particular models of Savages, but if you're talking about shooting rimfire out to those distances, then forget everything I said. You just have to watch putting so much rail elevation on the scope that you can't get back to a 100 yard zero.

If I remember right, shooting .22lr with a 100 yard zero worked out to something around 20 minutes of elevation for every 100 yards. That's a rough estimate, but you get the idea. Again, if I remember right, I'm running a 20MOA base and a Vortex PST scope, so I have roughly 70 minutes of up elevation from a 100 yard zero and that has done me pretty well for what I've wanted to do with a rimfire.

If you're talking HMR or WMR, I can't comment. I don't shoot those much for target purposes.

 

[TurtlePhish]

It's a .17HMR with cheapo Bushnell that came with it, soon to be replaced by a 10x42 SWFA SS. These have huge adjustment range, but I'd like to keep the erector assembly as centered as possible in the tube. My ballistic calculator shows about 25 MOA drop at 400, so this base is gonna keep the scope pretty close to factory centered. It'll theoretically get me out to a few hundred yards more at the limits of the scope's range, but with even a light breeze I'll probably end up having to compensate for a few dozen yards of windage. But hey, I can dream, can't I?

This base is only thirty bucks, I think I'll pull the trigger. It couldn't hurt to have a precision-machined one-piece base.

 

[TonyAngel]

Man, shooting rimfire out to those distances is a kick in the butt. At what distance is it that .17 HMR goes transonic, if you know?

I stick with .22lr because I figure that if I start out with a sub sonic round, I don't need to worry about the transonic transition so it will maintain better accuracy at longer distances. It's just what the rocks in my head told me, anyway. Be sure to let us know how it goes.

 

[jmr40]

There is nothing wrong with quality aluminum. The old Weaver's,(the real thing, not the cheap knock off's) work as well as any other mounting system. Just not the best looking and they do require a bit of care to keep the scope crosshairs verticle.

I'd actually prefer either DNZ or Talley Lightweight aluminum over all but the most expensive steel mounts. And since the really good steel mounts are much heavier and more expensive than I need on a hunting rifle I don't use them.

 

[ball3006]

Been using Weaver bases for 50 years. Never a problem with them......Too many guys are looking for that magic bullet to improve their poor shooting skills....chris3

 

[H&Hhunter]

Weaver bases are made out of aluminum and they are soft no two ways around it. They are also prone to bending and moving because they are soft, steel bases don't do that. I've known guys who've used them without issue. I've also seen some serious problems with them especially on rifles that have some recoil. I've seen countless Weaver bases that after some years of use are gouged out where the ring bar attaches to the base. This creates play and slop. Slop is not your friend in a scope mounting system.

It's a simple matter of taking one more variable out of the equation. Spend the extra money on the front end and avoid one of those "mysterious" accuracy problems in the long run. My absolute favorite bases are Leupold QRW (Quick Release Weaver) bases. Any Weaver style mounting system will work with them, Weaver, Zee Rings, Warns, ETC ETC, they are thin and low in fact the lowest and strongest base I've found.

The WORST mounting system available IMO are the Leupold style dove tail front and double set screw rears. I hate those POS's and have seen countless failures with them generally from being installed incorrectly because they are very poorly designed and inherently prone to issues.

The most solid no BS easy system is a steel Weaver style base or picitiny rail, same difference, mounted with steel rings that are as low as your chosen scope will allow.

No magic bullets with a system like this just plain ole common sense. Why build a solid house on a weak foundation?

 

[jmr40]

The WORST mounting system available IMO are the Leupold style dove tail front and double set screw rears. I hate those POS's and have seen countless failures with them generally from being installed incorrectly because they are very poorly designed and inherently prone to issues.

On this I'm 100% in agreement, yet many seemt to think that this is the preferred system. You will NEVER see such a mounting system on a srious target rifle. They sere designed years ago to only be used on guns with base mounting holes that were not drilled correctly and needed extra windage adjustment to get your rifle zeroed.

 

[Art Eatman]

I had no choice but to use one of those Leupold windage-adjustable bases on, of all surprising things, a pre-1954 Model 70 Super Grade in .220 Swift. But it worked.

The Weaver bases on my pet '06 were installed around 1970. Maybe they used harder aluminum then? I dunno. But no problems in some 4,000 rounds.