Scope Bases: 1-piece vs 2-piece

[Longrifle2506]

I was looking into Ken Farrell bases for my next rifle; and was wondering if that 1-piece base of his, would allow much room for loading. Most 1-piece bases I've ever used had a section cut out of them so they would not interfere with loading/extracting. But the Farrell base does not have a cut out. So I might just get 2-piece. Then that made me think about "which is best?"

Do you think two-piece bases will provide just as much strength and accuracy as a 1-piece base?

Also, is anyone familiar with the older Tasco World Class mounts? They have recoil studs and the rings set on the studs and two screws tighten to the stud; one from each side; providing windage adjustment as well. I have one of these Tasco WC one-piece systems already; and thankfully, it has a cut-out so loading and extracting would be just fine. Now, these Tasco world class mounts are identical to the B-square lynx mounts, and Nikon Ultra-Lok mounts. And my question for anyone who knows about these kind of mounts is: ARE THEY GOOD MOUNTS? A few years ago I read that they were preferred by many dangerous game hunters because they are very strong and recoil-proof. I was wondering if anyone else could share their thoughts and opinions on these mounts: Tasco World Class, B-square Lynx, or Nikon Ultra-Lok.

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

i love DNZ products 1-piece bases with integral rings. they hold zero very well for me. then again, i don't make a habit of dropping my rifles, so maybe i'm not the best judge of that.

they have a notch or offset over the ejection port for loading and i have not had them interfere whatsoever.

 

[Longrifle2506]

I have never owned a DNZ mount; but I am impressed with their design. I wonder what height would allow my Burris Signature(made in 1994) with a 50mm objective. It's one of the older Burris Signature's with the daylight/twilight setting.

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

http://www.dnzproducts.com/tube-heights-info

it's not the best website, but the explanation of what height you need for what objective size is there. you probably need a medium height to fit that 50mm.

 

[CMC]

I prefer the Leupold 2 piece weaver/picatinny mounts , available in aluminum or steel, with high quality rings.
None of them increase the stiffness or strength of the receiver.
Either one if not installed correctly will give bad results.
Ensure your scope rings are perfectly aligned and lap if needed.
The one piece may require bedding if you receiver is not perfect

 

[Sniper66]

I have several center fire rifles with scopes on all of them. I have a one-piece on my .204 and 2-piece sets on everything else. I have had no problems with any of them. They all hold zero after hundreds of shots. Just buy good ones. I have mostly Leupold mounts.

 

[HKGuns]

If mounted correctly either will work and I have used both with success. What I won't use, unless there is absolutely no other option, is a Weaver style mount. (AR with rail would be an obvious exception to this rule.)

 

[Longrifle2506]

HK Guns, I'm curious to why a weaver rail does not satisfy you? I don't like the aluminum ones that Weaver makes; but I was always led to believe that a good steel weaver rail base is OK. I don't know though. I tell ya, those guys over on sniper's hide forum know a lot about bases and mounts and stuff; They bed their bases with Marine-Tex; Some of them do anyway. I'm not a member over there though. I didn't even realize it was ever necessary to bed a base to the receiver. My Dad used that Marine Tex to make a grippy surface on one of his rifles; that stuff is hard as rock.

 

[Maverick223]

2-pc. bases generally have an extra screw attaching them, so they are arguably stronger than the 1-pc. and have a more appealing, streamlined appearance. That said, if you are planning to shoot long range, a 1-pc. mount will allow you to shim for elevation.

I am familiar with the aforementioned mounts and while they work fine IME, my preference (where a strong/non-detachable mount system is desired) is either Burris/Leupold dual-dovetails or a DNZ mount. They afford more than adequate strength and look better IMO. If I want a mount for a dangerous game rifle (or perhaps for an important/expensive hunt) I use a QD mount system (in which case I prefer the Leupold QR rings & bases over the Weaver/QRW type) for easy access to express sights (or even a back-up scope already mounted to the same rings and sighted in).

 

[HKGuns]

I'll only tell you that the double locking or even the single locking Leupold bases I've used seem a TON more stable than any Weaver mount. To me, the Weaver mount is basically a clamp on that can be subject to being knocked around with the correct application of torque. I'll go for locked into place over clamped into place any day of the week for stability and reliability.

That is just me though........I'm no sniper, just a hunter who has missed a couple shots due to a misaligned scope.

 

[mljdeckard]

I was going to answer this one way, until I read the responses and changed my mind a little.

First, I think you pretty much get what you pay for with mounts and bases. Any of the good, solid brand names with have precise machining, and good fit between the rifle and the tube, and not give at all under use. For my Remington rifles, I'm switching to Badger Ordnance.

I think you guys just solved a bit of a mystery to me. My dad, who was a bit of a cheapskate, (rest his soul,) got a Remington 700 VSSF in 22-250 for coyotes. And then he put on a Walmart scope and rings. I went out to shoot it with him once, across the hood of the truck, and the bullets were hitting the dirt at about 40 yards. He was thinking I was having a Special Ed moment, so he took the rifle from me and shot it, and.....they were hitting the dirt at 40 yards. We took it home and looked at it, and the tube was warped. He tried to imagine how such a thing was possible, he had never dropped it or anything. Now I think this is what happened, he used a cheap scope and mounts and torqued them in tight, and eventually the tube bent.

Learning moment.

 

[JDGray]

The one piece Ken Farrell base I have is milled out for clearance, for left or right port. I have all kinds of room to load.

Bad thing is the Farrell bases are tall

 

[mljdeckard]

This is what I am putting on that rifle:

http://badgerordnance.com/base/

 

[Maverick223]

Forgot to mention, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Ken Farrell mounts, but I wouldn't put them on the average hunting rifle due to the cost prohibitive price.

 

[lightman]

I have a few Ken Ferrell bases and they are great.Any one piece base covers the port a little,but I have no problem with them.They are also cheaper than most of the big names.I have Badger,Leupold MK 4,Night Force,and the Ken Farrell are as good or better. Lightman
Edit to add,they are heavy.They are thicker than most,so sometimes a shorter ring will work.The extra weight may be a factor on a hunting rifle,where as not a factor on a varmint rifle.