Single rail vs. 2 piece mounts

[SageRat Shooter]

So, I've been wondering about this particular question as of late.

Is there any other benefits to running a single piece rail instead of 2 piece bases???? I know the primary purpose is so there are many more positions to put your rings on and mount the scope, but is there any other benefit such as increased accuracy? increased rigidity of the action? Does it reduce the recoil forces applied to the Optic over the 2 piece bases?

The reason I wonder about this is because all of the videos I watch of our newer optics being tested and demoed; they are all mounted using single piece bases (99% anyway). Makes me wonder if my question has any validity to it?? as maybe our new age scopes are just designed to be run on a single piece rail? Seems strange that the recoil of a 7MM mag could have enough force to mess up a new scope,(we had it mounted using 2-piece weaver bases and Warne rings). It just blows my mind that an Optic could be Soooo inferior that it can't handle the recoil of a 7 Mag...

Maybe this is just a dumb question and way off base, but wondering if anyone knows any facts to support the theory?

[jpx2rk]

Probably just another new trend. I do use the DNZ mounts but can't speak about any improvement in accuracy as they are what I mounted when I bought the gun. I've used the DNZ on about 4 rifles with no issues.

[DesertDug]

Just my dumb thought:
I shoot though a one piece, but I got it with the thought of easier to set up without lapping, but I am sure this is just some stupid idea in my head., as I do not have scope mount lapping tools.

[sharpshooter]

It's easier to make a 20 moa base in one piece.

[Stumpkiller]

I've never seen a study where that was the only thing changed in a set-up to see if it impacted accuracy.

I imagine the main reason is that it must stiffen the receiver vs. separate bases. Though how much that changes what the cartridge is doing up in the chamber I cannot say. So I further imagine it is in the repeated flexing of the firing process having some impact on the scope-to-receiver alignment over time and repeated firings.

Good point from Sharpshooter about the offset bases as well. With separate bases they would only be 20 MOA at one specific distance apart.

[hafejd30]

It adds stiffness to the action. I use 1 piece primarily for the ability to swap scope from gun to gun without pulling the scope from the rings, as you would need to do with a Leupold Mount etc. I can mount certain scopes for load testing, others for hunting etc. Can also do a barrel change by pulling up he scope and base without the need to relevel the scope. You also get more adjustment in eye relief by simply moving down the rail as needed.

Most people you see testing scopes are probably using whatever the manufacturer sent them or rings from a sponsor who gave them to them to promote the product.

Either way will work fine. I prefer the one piece for ease of removing and adjustability

For a hunting setup where you want a sturdy mount a Leupold steel 2 piece mount would be my choice, and can be had for less money, then say a cheapy rail and ring combo. I’ve seen bent scope tubes and rails that are so far off left and right that you can’t sight in. For tactical/long range setups, especially where I want a 20 MOA rail then I go with 1 piece picatinny rail and rings. But buy quality. Which usually is much more expensive than say a Leupold setup for $50

[Frontier Gear]

I pick whichever one fits my needs. If I want to load single shot style or have a blind mag, then I want a two piece mount so I have more room for my fingers. The Warne steel bases are nice for that. If I'm mounting a red dot, then I want a one piece picatinny rail for the most options of where to position the red dot. As Fred mentioned, if you want a 20moa rail it will almost always be one piece.

[Nor Cal Mikie]

On some of the older actions, trying to get a one piece mount "that fit" was a real problem. Not all of the screw holes would match the action holes. Maybe 70% match? Port cut out was in the wrong place. Too far forward or too short. Two piece mounts takes care of fit and alignment problem. Also, some of the earlier scope mount holes were cut in the wrong place so the mount wouldn't line up with the barrel. A two piece rear mount with a windage adjustment solves lots of problems.:cool:

[olddav]

It’s my belief that a one piece rail makes an action stiffer, how much stiffer depends on the material and thickness of the rail. As I am writing this I question the validity of my assertion when I consider the process of torque tuning a Savage action.
In conclusion I guess I don’t have any useful information on this topic.

[big honkin jeep]

Maybe not "facts" to support a theory but I have formed a couple of opinions and theory's of my own.
One of the problems I've had with the one piece "tactical" style rails is the newer scopes seem to have shorter tubes than those from days gone by. The bell always seems to hit the rail before I can get the scope far enough back to where I need it. Just because all those fancy slots are milled into the base doesn't mean the average guy will or can ever use more than a couple of the slots.
The only thing I'm aware of that would affect accuracy or recoil transfer to the scope of a proper setup would be some movement which in my experience is a bad thing in an optics mounting system.
I have also noticed that the "tactical style always seem to be too thick between the action and the rings and set the scope up too high for me.
As far as the rigidity of the action I really wouldn't think there would be enough force exerted on that small area between the mounts over the loading port on the action to make a difference. Especially with the recoil lug transferring the recoil to the stock ahead of the action and the locking lugs snugging the bolthead in such close proximity to the barrel. Most of the force it would seem would be applied in a near linear fashion well ahead of the loading port and transferred to the stock. I would think if the "rigidity" of the action was a problem it would require a much thicker recoil lug since there is much more steel in the action than in the recoil lug and the way the energy is transferred at an 90 degrees to the lug and stock rather than in linear fashion of straight back as would seem to be the case with the action. In my opinion trying to solve a rigidity issue I dont think exists (unless you plan on using your rifle as a bridge across a gully for your truck) by using a scope mount is an answer in search of a problem.
As far as recoil damaging a scope, new scopes crap all the time with far less recoil than a 7 mag regardless of mounts.
Just another $.02

[JeepsAndGuns]

I like the one piece rails because it make it easier to fix/correct slightly uneven receiver rings. I have bedded all my once piece mounts to correct any unevenness. Install the screws then tighten down just one end, then using feeler gauges, see if there is a gap at the other end. All mine have been off a hair. I bedded them with jb weld and now when I tighten them down, there is no flexing of the rail.
With two piece mounts, you need a special tool to make sure they are even and parallel, then shims or lap the rings to correct it.

[Orr89rocz]

One of the problems I've had with the one piece "tactical" style rails is the newer scopes seem to have shorter tubes than those from days gone by. The bell always seems to hit the rail before I can get the scope far enough back to where I need it.

yup happened to me with a simple nikon 40mm on lower mounts. I simply cut off the overhang on the rail

on long actions and smaller scopes you need the one piece multislot to mount the scope. Most scopes dont seem have enough mounting Surface available to use two piece bases

also i never had a scope go bad due to recoil, even the trophy hunter package scopes on my slug gun and 458 win mag lol