What to get?

[bbradford71]

Hello All,

To start with I must be honest, until I found this site I did not know that there was such thing as a base for a scope and I did not know rings were a big deal. Until a few months ago I have been shooting the same rife since I was 13 with the same weaver scope. I just recently purchased a Savage 300 WSM and just received my new scope today. I have no clue about bases or rings so I have no clue as what to buy. I am looking for somehting that will last and will not fail as the 300 WSM does have some pop in it. I am not looking for anything that will breake the bank but do not mind paying for quality. What should I get, I need a quality base and rings?

Thanks

[keeki]

what kinda shooting ya gonna do? whats your limit?

[GaCop]

If money is an issue, but not quality, look at the Vortex line of scopes. I have four of them and they're great. The life time no BS warranty is great too. They have everything from 3X9 hunting scopes all the way up to benchrest models 8.5X32. Check out their web site where you can also order direct.

[bbradford71]

I just purchased a new scope and it came in, I just don't know anything about bases and rings which is what I need suggestions on. I will be mainly useing this gun for hunting out to about 500 yards, would like to get into more bench shooting so maybe further.

[Tim300wsm]

what kind of scope did you buy what model rifle i have a 12 in 300wsm i ude a bench source base and burris sinniture zee rings (high 30mm)
and a bushnell elite 6500 4.5-30x50 scope the rings are 50 + 10 for offset kit and the base is about 80 at sharp shooter supply

[bbradford71]

I have the savage model 16 300 WSM and just bought a Vortex 4 x 12 x 40 scope I beleive it has a 1 inch tube.

[Captain Finlander]

Burris one piece base with low mount rings. I use this combination on just about everything without failure.

http://swfa.com:80/Savage-C2049.aspx
http://swfa.com:80/Burris-Standard-1-Rings-P1261.aspx

[ajlandis]

+1, almost. I agree with the burris base(s) (one or two-piece would be fine), and burris rings, although I love the signature rings. If you have any warp in your action, the two piece base would mount more solidly, and the inserts in the rings would allow true alignment for your scope tube. With a one-piece, you may have to bed the base to provide a solid mount if you have any action warp. No big deal, just something else to mess with.

[tammons]

EGW or better yet Farrel picatinny base with Burris extreme rings.

The old standby leupold windage steel base and rings are good to go if your scope tube is long enough.

[big honkin jeep]

I'm a big fan of dual dovetail rings and bases. The most solid system I'm aware of. Currently Burris is the only company I'm aware of manufacturing them for Savage rifles. Leupold discontinued them but has actually done me a favor through through their customer service dept and sent me another dovetail base (free) after I bought standard bases (comes with one front dovetail base and a windage adjustable standard rear base) and dual dovetail rings and then requested another front dovetail base to complete the set. They give me plenty of clearance for the loading port and are darn near bombproof.
You're gonna get a lot of opinions on this question but my recommendation is as solid as a set of dual dovetails.

[ajlandis]

I wouldn't have seen much of a need for that over the standard base up until this fall. Since you mentioned that, I'm reminded of my brother-in-law losing zero on his mlII. Turns out one of the windage screws on the base did come loose. Never seen a dovetail come loose. May have to take that into consideration on future set-ups. The only concern I have with that is if you get an action where the screws don't line up with the bore. I've always liked being able to turn the scope to get it close to zero, but I guess a set of off-set ring inserts would help in a case like that.

[Captain Finlander]

+1, almost. I agree with the burris base(s) (one or two-piece would be fine), and burris rings, although I love the signature rings. If you have any warp in your action, the two piece base would mount more solidly, and the inserts in the rings would allow true alignment for your scope tube. With a one-piece, you may have to bed the base to provide a solid mount if you have any action warp. No big deal, just something else to mess with.


The two piece bases are not fine because with low mount rings some scope dial rings make contact with the rear base reducing eye relief. The one piece base uses only one rear retaining screw allowing for more vertical & horizontal clearance in the rear for shorter scopes.

If you have warpage in your action the one piece is still better because it provides positive alignment for the scope as apposed to the two pieces matching the action which puts the scope in a bind. Most actions are true so you will likely never see this issue.

If the action is true the two piece bases offer a wider bight on the scope which is beneficial with longer high powered scopes but this usually conflicts with the average 3-9 hunting scope.

[ajlandis]

+1, almost. I agree with the burris base(s) (one or two-piece would be fine), and burris rings, although I love the signature rings. If you have any warp in your action, the two piece base would mount more solidly, and the inserts in the rings would allow true alignment for your scope tube. With a one-piece, you may have to bed the base to provide a solid mount if you have any action warp. No big deal, just something else to mess with.


#1: The two piece bases are not fine because with low mount rings some scope dial rings make contact with the rear base reducing eye relief. #2: The one piece base uses only one rear retaining screw allowing for more vertical & horizontal clearance in the rear for shorter scopes.

#3: If you have warpage in your action the one piece is still better because it provides positive alignment for the scope #4: as apposed to the two pieces matching the action which puts the scope in a bind. #5: Most actions are true so you will likely never see this issue.

#6: If the action is true the two piece bases offer a wider bight on the scope which is beneficial with longer high powered scopes but this usually conflicts with the average 3-9 hunting scope.


#1: I'll agree that with certain scopes, that could be an issue. But, if it's an eye relief issue and it needs moved forward, they sell reversible bases. If it's an issue of the power ring hitting the base, turn the base around. The rings are darn near one edge of a two-piece base. Or you could get medium rings.
#2: I'm assuming you're saying that they use the screw hole that is the more forward of the two in the rear of the action. I went to the safe but the only one piece standard bases I could find were leupolds on short actions. They use the rear hole. But since we've mentioned burris, and I can't see for myself, I'll take your word for it.
#3: Putting a one-piece base on a warped action won't straighten the action. So you'd either have to bed it, or make the base flex to meet the action as it's torqued down. Or if it's not tightened enough to flex the base, then it will spend it's time not completely seated to the action. If it's tightened enough to conform to a warped action, then your scope would be in a bind in a set of regular rings.
#4: Hence, the mention of signature rings. Fully seated bases, and stress-free scope ring alignment.
#5: Are we still talking savages? I wish I had your luck/optimism.
#6: I disagree. I believe the two-piece options allow much more flexibility on how/where to mount any scope.

[Captain Finlander]

+1, almost. I agree with the burris base(s) (one or two-piece would be fine), and burris rings, although I love the signature rings. If you have any warp in your action, the two piece base would mount more solidly, and the inserts in the rings would allow true alignment for your scope tube. With a one-piece, you may have to bed the base to provide a solid mount if you have any action warp. No big deal, just something else to mess with.


#1: The two piece bases are not fine because with low mount rings some scope dial rings make contact with the rear base reducing eye relief. #2: The one piece base uses only one rear retaining screw allowing for more vertical & horizontal clearance in the rear for shorter scopes.

#3: If you have warpage in your action the one piece is still better because it provides positive alignment for the scope #4: as apposed to the two pieces matching the action which puts the scope in a bind. #5: Most actions are true so you will likely never see this issue.

#6: If the action is true the two piece bases offer a wider bight on the scope which is beneficial with longer high powered scopes but this usually conflicts with the average 3-9 hunting scope.


#1: If it's an issue of the power ring hitting the base, turn the base around. Doesn't solve the problem if the base is using both screw mounts.
The rings are darn near one edge of a two-piece base.You can rotate the rear base 180 degrees but I've always mounted the rear base with the windage screws forward in order to maximize eye relief .

#2: I'm assuming you're saying that they use the screw hole that is the more forward of the two in the rear of the action. I went to the safe but the only one piece standard bases I could find were leupolds on short actions. They use the rear hole. But since we've mentioned burris, and I can't see for myself, I'll take your word for it. Yes, Look at the picture at the top of the first link.

#3: Putting a one-piece base on a warped action won't straighten the action. Of course it wont, never said it would nor have I ever experienced it.

So you'd either have to bed it, or make the base flex to meet the action as it's torqued down. If the action is so flexible that you can force it to go I would be inclined to not use it.

Or if it's not tightened enough to flex the base, then it will spend it's time not completely seated to the action. If it's tightened enough to conform to a warped action, then your scope would be in a bind in a set of regular rings. The rear windage bore alignment allows you to shift the scope accordingly to offset any negative alignment. If it is so bad you can see it or the bases will not mount then I would send the action or gun back for a replacement.

#4: Hence, the mention of signature rings. Fully seated bases, and stress-free scope ring alignment. Yes and no, The rear windage screws should relieve any horizontal pressure but not vertical and the inserts are available with offsets to correct the vertical.

#5: Are we still talking savages? I wish I had your luck/optimism. I have owned several different Savages over 30 years along with many other non Savage rifles and still have two of them which never exhibited any of your experiences.

#6: I disagree. I believe the two-piece options allow much more flexibility on how/where to mount any scope. They provide for less forward or back eye relief adjustment so how does that make em more flexible? Scopes have been getting shorter for years making it more difficult to mount them without some sort of length issue.



All of my savages are custom made single shots now including an older model J 25-06 so the warped action is not likely to show itself with any of these but I can see how the long magnum action with a blind magazine could exhibit this problem. I would send any warped action back to Savage rather than continue to use it.

Sorry to be so contrary but my experiences are clearly different than yours.

[ajlandis]

Not trying to stoke an arguement, just for clarification...
About subject 1 & 2: I've always assumed the burris one-piece bases would use the rear screw hole. I looked at the picture, and it looks almost identical to my leupold bases, having two front holes and one rear. But the leupolds mount onto the action using the rearward of the two rear holes on the action. Essentially, my leupold bases are just as far back as my burris two piece's are, making no difference in how much eye relief can be attained. If a bit more is needed, the rear two-piece can turn around, giving a bit more clearance. That will move the (now rear) edge of the base forward in relation to the desired mounting location of the scope, giving more power ring clearance. But at the same time, it moves the ring back a bit which could be an issue with hitting the power ring, as you mentioned, if trying to get more eye relief. So that is why I mentioned using reversible bases. That would put the ring as far forward as needed, although it wouldn't help with the power ring clearance. Therefore, medium rings. I don't like to mount scopes any higher than I have to, so if the burris one-piece really does use the forward hole instead of the rear, it would give more eye relief, while allowing for a lower ring. However, I'm not sold on burris' using the front hole instead of the rear. If that was the case, there wouldn't be much base to action contact behind the port at all. I tend to feel that the burris' would mount just like my leupolds, using the rear-most hole behind the port, esentially locating it in the same place that a two-piece would go when using all four holes.

Can someone please post a picture of a burris one-piece base mounted onto an action so I can see for myself?

#3: Wasn't saying the action would flex. Was saying that either the base would have to, or you'd never have solid contact with the action without bedding it. I've seen that some of my actions were warped by using a straight-edge square along the top of the action.

"The rear windage bore alignment allows you to shift the scope accordingly to offset any negative alignment"

Who's statement is that? It shows as mine, but I never said that, and it's not accurate. I suppose if the action is warped just slightly side to side, that would work to align the rings. I've seen more issues of actions being warped up-down in which case the only ways I know of to get true alignment are to lap the rings or, simply use signature rings.
#4: Yes and yes. Unless the action is really bad, the standard inserts will conform to the scope and automatically align the rings.
#6: The two-piece options include reversible bases. One-piece bases can only put the rings in one place. The right two-piece base set-up can place rings in more locations, including moving the rear ring forward. The only way I see a standard one-piece being better is if you want low rings, have a scope that has a large power dial that would hit the base, and you need it mounted forward to get more eye relief. And that is based on you saying that a burris one-piece only covers the forward of the two holes behind the port, whereas my leupolds use the rear hole instead. Again, hopefully someone can post a picture of one mounted so I can convince myself.
But to the point, certainly someone here has experience with the vortex 4-12x40. I don't. If we had some input on how that scope is built we would be able to help Bradford get the right mounting set-up for his rifle. Who's got one?

[Captain Finlander]

http://i1109.photobucket.com/albums/h423/Finlandercharters/DSC_0046.jpg

http://i1109.photobucket.com/albums/h423/Finlandercharters/DSC_0037.jpg"

These two pictures illustrate my dislike of standard two piece bases. As you can see the rear base conflicted with the dial ring using low mounts rings so I had to use an offset ring in the front to relieve the problem. Just reversing the rear ring wouldn't have worked because the scope wasn't long enough to fit that span. Now the set up clears but crowds my eye relief a small amount.

"http://i1109.photobucket.com/albums/h423/Finlandercharters/DSC_0013-1.jpg"

This is a Redfield JR one piece base on a long action M70 and you can see how much more versatile it is compared to the Redfield SR two piece bases on the Weatherby Vanguard. You can also see how the new Burris FFII 3-9x40 has shortened as compared to an 18 year old Burris Signature series 3-9x40. Scopes have gotten much shorter today leading to many mounting issues such as the ones we've been discussing.

To my knowledge the Burris bases are the same formate but have rounded ends.

If your talking about rotating bases to get more room then your not talking about standard rings and bases. The picture above is representative of 99% of all standard rings and bases with a twist in front and windage rear.

Yes, it is difficult to disagree without sounding argumentative and even more difficult to express your point without drawing a picture.

[ajlandis]

If your talking about rotating bases to get more room then your not talking about standard rings and bases. The picture above is representative of 99% of all standard rings and bases with a twist in front and windage rear.

Yeah, I am. Burris makes 'trumount universal bases' (regular mounting location), and trumount universal reversible bases (offers much more flexibility in moving ring location). Both of these are "standard" bases. They also offer 'double dovetail bases' and 'double dovetail reversible bases'. These offer the most options for moving rings, (short of a rail, of course). And you can put whichever base wherever you need it. The windage base doesn't have to go in the rear, although I'd agree that it certainly looks better.

Looking at your pictures, I see exactly where you're coming from. A burris rear base on a savage doesn't stick that far back. But, even if you used the reversible options to extend eye relief, you could still have an issue with height, requiring higher rings. I'm with you there.

I'd still like to see a picture of a burris one-piece base on a savage action. I've seen pictures of unknown bases on actions before that were mounted like your redfield jr, but I assumed they had a short-action base on a long-action. I wonder if the manufacturers use the same base for long and short actions, and they just mount into different holes?? Most of my one-piece bases are rails, but the standard one-pieces I do have are leupolds. They use the rear holes, but now that I'm thinking about it, they're all short-actions. Surely someone can chime in here and clear this up for me??? If burris uses the rear hole on it's long-action base, mounting a scope would put it in the same situation as a normal two piece base, with the same potential problems of eye-relief and power ring/base clearance. But if they do, in fact use the same length base as they do for the short actions, and just screw into the front hole, then that would, indeed, put the rear of the base farther forward than a two-piece, giving more available eye relief and power ring clearance. I would be glad to consider myself educated and, and happily concede the point. Will someone confirm this info, one way or the other, please?