Bases & rails

[fgw_in_fla]

Something I've wondered about.

Does it really make that much difference with different manufacturers & types of bases?

I never really paid any attention to the bases. Rings are another story. I hate it when the scope slides from recoil due to cheapo, junk rings.

Is there that much difference in quality and / or strength with different bases?

Someone enlighten me. I thirst for knowledge......

Frank in Fla

[rjtfroggy]

Frank I have an assortment of styles and until my EGW rail went bad ( I think it was a bad burris tactical ring that did it)I thought the rails were the best thing since ice cream now I am not so sure.Replaced the rail and rings to standard Leupolds and now everything that went belly up is back to normal.

[fgw_in_fla]

Hey Froggy - Interesting.....

On rare occasion I've given thought to buying & trying a rail but I just can't justify the cost in my mind. I suppose they have a "cool" factor of somewhere around 6 to 8 cu. (cool units) but I'm kinda sorta conventional in the sense that simpler is easier is better. I think the acronym is K.I.S.S. or Keep It Simple Stoopid.

As for regular bases, is there any noteable difference in the different suppliers. I guess what I'm asking - Is one better than another?

Frank in FLa

[rjtfroggy]

I use both Leupold (windage) or the Burris weaver/pic. flat base like them both.I may lean towards the Leupolds alittle more but only for the adj. so I don't use up much of the scope adjustments.

[nsaqam]

The best scope mounting system I've used are the S&K Projectionless system, the similar but more complicated Conetrol system, or for ultimate simple and super strong, the Talley Lightweight ringmounts.
The Burris Signature Zee rings are also very nice when mounted to steel Weaver Grand Slam bases or an EGW Picatinny rail.

The S&K's remain my favorites however.

[Admin]

Well, lets see...I have the following here that I've used:

OEM Weaver Aluminum 2pc.
Weaver Steel 2pc.
Weaver Steel 1pc
Weaver Aluminum 1pc
Bench Source Aluminum 1pc
Ken Farrell Aluminum 1pc
EGW Steel 1pc Picatinny
DNZ Aluminum Game Reaper 1pc
TPS Steel 1pc Picatinny

As you can tell I don't waste my time with the twist-in Burris/Leupold style mounts as I just don't care for them. Of all those listed I've never had a single problem with their quality or workmanship, nor have I ever had a failure of any kind. In fact, aside from a material defect (i.e. a microscopic crack) I can't see how any base would fail under normal use.

[fgw_in_fla]

I see y'all listing different names & types of bases that you use & I have to ask, what's the reason you use the particular base or rail? I mean, is there something unique or special about a certain type of base that make you want to use it over another brand?

I'm just curious about the subject. I always see guys specifying a certain type of scope ring & the only time a base is mentioned is if it's a rail or provides additional MOA.

I got to thinking about bases while re-assembling my Edge with it's new barrel. I can't ever recall seeing anything "special" about one base over another however, I considered replacing them. Then, I got to thinking - with what? The bases on my Edge looked & felt just like all the others I have on my other rifles.

One more thing...... Anyone use a brand of ring or base made by "Kwik Site"? I believe that's the correct spelling. I see they're listed in a Natchez catalog I have. The set on my oldest '06 are Kwik Site rings w/ 4 holes. I like them even though they are an inexpensive brand. They seem to be pretty strong as the scope has never moved & they came w/ the rifle. I never hear anyone say anything about them...
Frank in Fla

[Admin]

I never really put much through into brand/style preference unless I need something specific to mount a specific scope on a specific gun. I always use Burris Signature Zee rings when possible, but their High rings aren't always high enough to allow clearance for larger objective lenses. As such sometimes I'll need a thicker/taller base to get that extra clearance. Similarly, the Sig-Zee rings are only offered in one height in 30mm so base height/thickness becomes even more of a critical factor.

Likewise, for some weight may be an issue - particularly those trying to make weight in a specific class of competition. Naturally they are going to want as light a setup as possible to stay under the class weight limit. Conversely, those in unlimited classes may want the heaviest hardware they can find to help tame recoil and prevent the rifle from shifting as much in the bags when fired.

[nsaqam]

Frank, most of the scope bases and rings I mentioned are unique in some way.

The S&K's are windage adjustable front and rear and they have a screwless one piece ring system that is elegant, simple, strong, and lightweight.

The Conetrol's are similar to the S&K's but they have a three piece screwless ring system.

The Talley LW's are a two piece (front and rear) ringmount but the bases and the rings are one piece each with the bases integral to the rings.

The Burris Sig Zee's use any type of Weaver base but the rings have polymer inserts which can be used to provide cant and windage adjustment.

[skypilot]

My brands are similar to Jim's choices. Also not interested in twist ins though I have a special setup on my .375 H&H that allows me to "dump" rings, mounts, base and scope instantly. It has a twist in ring set.

[Xaved]

My main reason for using railed bases is that I can swap scopes between my three rifles on the fly (I use QD rings). I guess it's a carry-over from when I used to shoot the AR platform - I had a red dot for cqb drills and then I would swap it for a magnified scope if I ever wanted to try to shoot precision at longer ranges. Nowadays it's more just so my rifles can share one of my more powerful scopes - that way I don't really have to buy separate high dollar scopes for all my guns. Just mount, rezero, and proceed to grouping.

[fgw_in_fla]

OK.... Good information from everyone & it seems the common denomonator is twist - ins suck sand fleas. We're all in agreement.

I 'spose as long as the scope stays where you'd like it to stay whilst pulling the trigger, it's a good base. It sounds to me like the Boss is the ring. I have rings that came with package rifles & they always get tossed in the spare ring box. I have it labeled "emergency use only"...
My favorites have officially become the Weaver Slotted 4 & 6 screw. I believe they're called "Skeleton" on the package. Good grip, easy install & have a cool factor of 6 - 7. Above average & not too awfully flashy.
Thank guys.

Frank in Fla

[Blue Avenger]

My only complaint on weaver is the high gloss finish. never had one fail. Twist ins look good, but repeated R&R will wear them. Leupold QR can also suffer wear from frequent R&R. The long savage spacing can be an exercise in patience to find a combination that will take a short scope tube. For this reason one piece twist ins or multi slot weaver / picitiney are common. I like to hit something that looks good but I see no advantage to spending lots of money. Even on a 7mm Rem Mat striker that jumps through the air I have had no recoil problems in any base. I like and use a lot of Burris Sig Zs but I do dislike the small cross screw. no fails, just looks to small. EGW and Zs are on the majority of mine.

[efm77]

I'll use aluminum bases on regular calibers but prefer steel bases on the heavy kickers. Never seen one fail but I've heard stories about the slots in aluminum bases getting buggered after taking some pounding on the heavy kickers. I too like to use the Sig. Zee rings and since the steel screw is kinda small I feel like it's a better combination with a steel base.

[Westcliffe01]

I have installed steel one piece bases on all my longer range rifles. But a good 1 piece steel rail does add $100+ to the cost of the optics. For rings, I don't use any quick detach systems, so I always buy Warne Maxima steel rings. They are about $30/pair and you should never have to worry about stripped threads in aluminum, and I also like the way the rings are split vertically. When assembled they are a lot more compact that the "old fashioned" horizontally split rings. Admittedly, there is really no way to lap them, but I have never had more than 1.5min of misalignment when the scope is installed, nor have they ever shifted zero on any of my rifles.

On my shorter range rifles, I go with a 2 piece steel rail, and the same Warne Maxima rings. The 2 piece rail is only $25. I always use blue loctite between rail and receiver and on the rail fasteners. I'm pretty sure I could take the rail screws out and shoot the gun and the scope would stay attached until the barrel started smoking (it does soften when hot) but then again, I don't own any machine guns. 1 shot a day on a hunt is considered a good day. No prairie dog towns in these parts... I have never seen the need to use any loctite on the screws in the rings. There are 4 screws per ring for starters, often more than holds the rail on the rifle...

I should add at this point that my TC Icon has the rail machined directly into the receiver. In my opinion, this is the most accurate and robust type of rail and I am sure it costs TC less than $130 in additional receiver cost (which I would otherwise have to spend immediately after getting the rifle). Unfortunately, my TC has a lousy barrel and I have not found anyone who makes aftermarket barrels (it is the absolute worst fouling barrel I have ever owned, even compared to my SKS and M24/47 made in wartime conditions). I bought the rifle used, so no warranty.