Substituted one piece base for two piece scope base on Savage 10FP-Wow

[John_M]

Just finished installing a Weaver "Tactical" one piece base (Part #99495) on my Savage. This is a replacement for the highly regarded (manufacturer not important) two piece base I've had on the rifle since new.

I have three Sightron SIII and one Sightron SII Big Sky rifle scopes mounted on various rifles. Had a devil of a time getting all the scopes to align properly "level" and "plumb" on this Savage. They aligned properly on another Savage and one Remington 700 so I knew it wasn't the scopes.

After reading the very helpful posts by Thomae and others on this board I decided to go with the Weaver one piece Tactical base. Steven at Sightron was also most helpful with his very precise recommendations about a one piece base being a possible cure for for the alignment problems I described to him. Another member of Savage Shooters also recommended that prior to completing the installation of any front base one should first install the front screw so it is a teensy bit snug. Then try to move the base. Movement in the base will tell the installer if that screw is snug against the barrel threads and will therefore not secure the base properly. This screw could also seriously damage barrel threads if the barrel is removed with the base installed.

Installation was straight forward and I closely followed Weaver's very simple and intuitive instructions. My Warne QD rings fit the new base perfectly and the base is long enough to allow various scope positions and short enough that it does not interfere with the objective bell on the SIII scopes. In about 45 minutes I had one SIII and the SII installed level and plumb with perfect eye relief. At final installation I added a small drop of Blue LocTite to the base screws and torqued them to the 20 in/lbs recommended by Weaver.

This Weaver one piece base does not interfere with bolt lift, shell ejection, loading, or any other of the rifle's functions. This one piece base does elevate the scope about 1/16" higher than the two piece bases but that slight amount of elevation gives me a more comfortable cheek position.

My purpose in posting this thread is to give well deserved thanks to those who provided the help. Also, to suggest others with scope alignment problems might consider the one-piece base as a solution to the problem and a very worthwhile upgrade to the rifle's functionality.

Best wishes and good luck.

[kevin_stevens]

The Weaver rail is aluminum, right? I wish I could find a nice low-profile steel rail for my 110.

KeS

[1ShotKing]

I have the same rail on my Stevens 200. I had to cut mine off in order to get my scope back far enough for proper eye relief. I am using a Bushnell Elite Tactical 10x40 which is a fairly short scope. I initially had a Millett base which is around the same price but about half the quality. I put Gun-Tite (made by LocTite for Uncle Mike's) on the base and also torqued to 20 in/lbs. It really is a great base and unless you feel the need for a steel base, the weaver is the way to go IMO.

1ShotKing

[John_M]

kevin, You are correct: the Weaver rail is aluminum. However, it is very well made and I cannot imagine it wearing out during my lifetime.

Best wishes and good luck.

[kevin_stevens]

kevin, You are correct: the Weaver rail is aluminum. However, it is very well made and I cannot imagine it wearing out during my lifetime.

Best wishes and good luck.

Oh, I understand - it's just that I'm going to be firing a .375 with it - a lot. I just don't trust the QD setup with steel crossbars and aluminum rail in that scenario. I'd be fine with it with a fixed scope on my .30-06.

Tx for the info, I'll keep looking.

KeS

[John_M]

Kevin, Isn't the .375 a bit too much gun for woodchucks and prairie dogs? ;)

The steel rail does seem to be most appropriate for something as KICK HAPPY as a .375.

Good luck.

[kevin_stevens]

Kevin, Isn't the .375 a bit too much gun for woodchucks and prairie dogs? ;)

Good luck.

Indeed it is. That's why I need a QD setup in the first place. :)

KeS

[helotaxi]

The aluminum rail is plenty strong. Unless you've got a lot of play with the crossbolt in the rail slot and don't bother to seat the crossbolt tight against the front of the slot before tightening the rings, the aluminum isn't going to wear or get damaged by the recoil.

[John_M]

Knowing little or nothing about metallurgy, I am however inclined to agree with helotaxi's post. We all know movement and friction cause wear. When a scope ring is installed as he (and Warne) describe, there would be zero movement in the ring/base contact even with magnum caliber rounds. When there is zero movement in the ring/base contact there should be no wear at that interface. And, when properly installed, I cannot imagine a one piece heavy duty aluminum base fracturing from the jolt of even the heaviest shoulder fired weapons.

Intuitively though, If I was mounting the base on a large magnum rifle, I would probably look for a well machined steel base to provide the real or imagined peace-of-mind provided by the weight and mass of the steel. If unable to find the steel base I wanted, for the slight cost involved, I would use an aluminum base with complete confidence.

Good luck and best wishes to all. :nevreness:

[helotaxi]

If you want the strongest and truest base possible, the only way to roll is with an integral rail; but that takes you away from a Savage. The idea that aluminum is at a practical strength disadvantage to steel in this application is really kinda silly. Go with a 7075 alloy rail, like the EGW and it may as well be steel except that it weighs less.

[kevin_stevens]

If you want the strongest and truest base possible, the only way to roll is with an integral rail; but that takes you away from a Savage. The idea that aluminum is at a practical strength disadvantage to steel in this application is really kinda silly. Go with a 7075 alloy rail, like the EGW and it may as well be steel except that it weighs less.

Then why do they make steel rails? :)

It seems to be moot. Neither Weaver nor EGW makes their rail for a flat-back 110. :(

KeS

[helotaxi]

Then why do they make steel rails? :)

It seems to be moot. Neither Weaver nor EGW makes their rail for a flat-back 110. :(


They make them because people think that they *need* them and are willing to pay extra for them.

I have an EGW rail for a flat back receiver on my workbench, but it is the "inferior" 6061 aluminum version ;)

[kevin_stevens]

Sorry, should have been more specific. All they have for the flatback long action receiver is a 20 MOA rail.


http://www.egwguns.com/savage/savage-flat-back-picatinny-scope-mount/

KeS

[helotaxi]

I'll check the one that I have when I get home, but I'm pretty sure that it is a level base. If that's the case, I'd be willing to part with it if you need one.

[jsthntn247]

I also was about to purchase the EGW hd rail for my 300. Did some research and found that it doesn't have a recoil lug on it and the Weaver tactical rail does. I'm getting the Weaver for that reason, it's about 40$ cheaper also. All yiour high end rails come with a recoil lug, can't understand why EGW doesn't include one because it would cost the same to manufacture??

[txbdyguard]

Sorry I'm late to the party. Steel that can be had in black, but the penny is pretty. http://www.murphyprecision.com/Products/Item/1001

[helotaxi]

I also was about to purchase the EGW hd rail for my 300. Did some research and found that it doesn't have a recoil lug on it and the Weaver tactical rail does. I'm getting the Weaver for that reason, it's about 40$ cheaper also. All yiour high end rails come with a recoil lug, can't understand why EGW doesn't include one because it would cost the same to manufacture??

The EGW base isn't hardly alone in not having a recoil lug. The Nightforce base for the Savage doesn't either and I'm sure many of the others don't as well.