EGW hunter series......finally!!

[Nathan gravitt]

Looks like EGW finally listened to us. There new hunter series Picatinny/weaver base does not have the extension on the front! It’s about time! You boys can put your band saws and grinders away now

[J.Baker]

:rockon: :amen: :peace: :cheer2:

[wbm]

Finally! Yes!

[Robinhood]

I never let it bother me.

[JeepsAndGuns]

I must not be in the know.
Why does this matter? What does the extension hurt? Just trying to learn here.
I have two egw bases that have the extension on the front and it has not caused any issues with anything.

[Robinhood]

I must not be in the know.
Why does this matter? What does the extension hurt? Just trying to learn here.
I have two egw bases that have the extension on the front and it has not caused any issues with anything.

You can change barrels without removing the mount?
I recommend using an action wrench anyway so off comes the base.

[Nathan gravitt]

My main reason is a lot of the newer scopes have much shorter tubes than the older ones. The extension will not allow you to mount the scope far enough back for proper eye relief. A lot of guys have cut the extension off of the base to solve the problem. Even if you don’t run into the problem, why is the extension even there to begin with? No one will ever mount a scope that far forward

[J.Baker]

I must not be in the know.
Why does this matter? What does the extension hurt? Just trying to learn here.
I have two egw bases that have the extension on the front and it has not caused any issues with anything.


My main reason is a lot of the newer scopes have much shorter tubes than the older ones. The extension will not allow you to mount the scope far enough back for proper eye relief. A lot of guys have cut the extension off of the base to solve the problem. Even if you don’t run into the problem, why is the extension even there to begin with? No one will ever mount a scope that far forward

What Nathan said. A lot of the higher end newer scopes are extremely short like the Bushnell Tactic al DPMS II 3.5-21x50mm shown below. The compactness comes from the much shorter objective bell (cone) resulting in a steeper angle in the transition from the main tube to the objective diameter.

Here's an example of what you can run into with an extended rail from a scope review I did awhile back. In this case I couldn't get the scope adjusted for ideal eye relief because the ocular bell of the scope would hit the front of the extended rail before I could slide it that far back. As a result I had to stretch my neck out to get my head a little more forward on the stock to get a full field of view (no outer black shadowy ring) through the scope at maximum magnification.

6852

Of course, Mr. Murphy and his Law had to pay me a visit with the last scope I purchased (Athlon Ares ETR) and mounted on my ARC Nucleus action. The Ares ETR has a very consistent 3.9" eye relief which meant I had to mount it further forward than most other scopes I've ever owned, and it's not exactly a short/compact scope as you can see. The ARC's rail isn't extended, and with the front ring as far forward as it can go on the rail the turret saddle of the scope is right up to it and for proper eye relief it really needs to go a bit further forward.

6851

[wbm]

Why does this matter?

Looking at the pictures above demonstrates why "no extension" is just better for some of us. Why are five fingers better than six? I don't know but I do know I don't need six.

So now I don't have to cut the extension off my EGW's anymore. Works for me.

[JeepsAndGuns]

Interesting. I guess none of my scopes have this issue. However only 2 of my 4 savage's have the extended type base on them.
Two are the EGW extended style, one is a ken farrel, and the last is a nightforce aluminum. it looks like with the scopes I have, even if they did have the extended bases, it would not be a issue.

I guess EGW must have gotten enough requests for the shorter mount to start making one.

[wbm]

Mr. Murphy and his Law had to pay me a visit with the last scope

That Murphy guy was an optimist.


I guess EGW must have gotten enough requests for the shorter mount

Guess they did...got one from me anyway.

Example: I have a Leupold scope with 3-9x50. These scopes are short to begin with and if I want to put it on a Savage long action I am going to need a one piece rail (or extension rings) for proper eye relief. If I go with the EGW, the forward extension limits how far I can pull the scope back for proper eye relief...I could go with higher rings but that just creates another problem...too high rings!...I don't want too high rings! So! Solution? Cut the damn extension off that never shoulda been on there to start with! I'm happy, my Leupold happy, everybody happy! Happy, Happy Happy.
6873

[GaCop]

My main reason is a lot of the newer scopes have much shorter tubes than the older ones. The extension will not allow you to mount the scope far enough back for proper eye relief. A lot of guys have cut the extension off of the base to solve the problem. Even if you don’t run into the problem, why is the extension even there to begin with? No one will ever mount a scope that far forward

You nailed it!

[GaCop]

:tea:
That Murphy guy was an optimist.



Guess they did...got one from me anyway.

Example: I have a Leupold scope with 3-9x50. These scopes are short to begin with and if I want to put it on a Savage long action I am going to need a one piece rail (or extension rings) for proper eye relief. If I go with the EGW, the forward extension limits how far I can pull the scope back for proper eye relief...I could go with higher rings but that just creates another problem...too high rings!...I don't want too high rings! So! Solution? Cut the damn extension off that never shoulda been on there to start with! I'm happy, my Leupold happy, everybody happy! Happy, Happy Happy.
6873:tea::thumb: