EGW standard base vs the HD base

[efm77]

No I haven't looked at those. I'm working out of town right now and have limited internet access so I can't look at it right now. However, I have looked at other Ken Ferrells and while they are excellent bases, they cost more than I am willing to spend for a base.

[helotaxi]

Do all Weavers have the lug in them? Specifically this one? http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=266352

That is the exact version that I have, complete with recoil lug.

[Varget 7-08]

Do all Weavers have the lug in them? Specifically this one? http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=266352

That is the exact version that I have, complete with recoil lug.


Thanks Helo!

[efm77]

Ok now another twist to the question. Do you have a preference of steel or aluminum for the material?

[helotaxi]

No preference personally. The only place where I could see there being a real difference (other than in someone's mind) is if you were to get the receiver really hot. At that point, the different expansion rates of the aluminum of the base and the steel of the receiver might come into play. Of course unless you had perfect contact, bedded the base with thermal paste, got the scope in on the joke and all players were heating and expanding uniformly (IOW were watching reality in the rear-view), all bets are off anyway. Not to mention that by the time you got the receiver that hot, the barrel would be glowing, drooping and a smoothbore.

The difference in strength is moot since the Al base is more than strong enough.

[efm77]

"The difference in strength is moot since the Al base is more than strong enough."

Really? Even on the big boomers?

[helotaxi]

With a recoil lug, yes. Even without, the screws will take all the force of the recoil, not the base itself. All the steel base really adds is weight.

Ever seen a .50BMG rifle built on an aluminum receiver? I know that I have. The strength of Al is not an issue.

[efm77]

True but I think on rifles that have AL receivers, the locking lugs actually lock into recesses in the back of the barrel so the receiver doesn't really house the rearward thrust of the cartridge during firing. Also true about the screws taking the recoil but the base is what holds the rings in place. As the gun recoils the ring wants to slide forward. The ring is slid up against the front of the slot to prevent it from sliding. This is what I question, whether the Al base's slots will stand up to the rings wanting to push forward under heavy recoil. I guess since a lot of the guys on here use them on 338 Edges the answer would be yes.

[helotaxi]

True but I think on rifles that have AL receivers, the locking lugs actually lock into recesses in the back of the barrel so the receiver doesn't really house the rearward thrust of the cartridge during firing.

But the Al receiver still has to handle all the recoil. Bolt thrust isn't the issue. On the .50 that I have shot, the entire recoil load was essentially borne by the take-down pins and the aluminum surrounding them (built on an AR-15 lower).


Also true about the screws taking the recoil but the base is what holds the rings in place. As the gun recoils the ring wants to slide forward. The ring is slid up against the front of the slot to prevent it from sliding. This is what I question, whether the Al base's slots will stand up to the rings wanting to push forward under heavy recoil. I guess since a lot of the guys on here use them on 338 Edges the answer would be yes.


If the rings are installed all the way forward in the slot, they can't get up a head of steam before hitting the front of the slot. They really aren't going anywhere. My concern would be tall rings that aren't very long. They could create a pretty hefty torquing moment and could bend the rail. The EGW is a little thick for a reason. Just this reason. You'll notice that most of the steel bases are thinner.

[efm77]

"On the .50 that I have shot, the entire recoil load was essentially borne by the take-down pins and the aluminum surrounding them (built on an AR-15 lower)."

Good point.


"They could create a pretty hefty torquing moment and could bend the rail."

I should have worded it that way, that's what I was thinking about.

[helotaxi]

If the rings are long and/or are over the spots where the base screws to the action, it isn't even kind of an issue. Again the EGW base is pretty thick, I wouldn't worry about bending it unless you're using something like 1" extra-high Burris Signature Zee rings (which are really narrow).

[efm77]

I think I'm going to switch to a steel base on this one because I am using Burris Signature Zee rings 30mm with a pretty hefty scope on a 300 win mag. If they only made an HD for the flat rear receiver I'd use one of those and probably not have anything to worry about.

[helotaxi]

I honestly think you'd have the same problems with the steel base. I simply wouldn't use those rings under those conditions. I love them for most uses, but that is one of the exceptions.

[efm77]

Well if that's the case then I'm SOL. This rifle is a flat rear receiver made in about 2003 and the holes aren't exactly straight so I need the offset inserts to get the windage and elevation close. The thing that may be a silver lining though is that I've rebarreled and restocked it to where it weighs about 12-13lbs. so that soaks up a lot of the recoil. I guess we'll see what happens or maybe I'll switch to a smaller scope.

[helotaxi]

I've got a set of Leupold style Burris bases with Signature rings to go with them for a flat rear. If you want them they're yours for postage. The rear base is windage adjustable and the Signature rings make sure that using the windage doesn't bind up the scope.

ETA: you have a 30mm scope, don't you. The setup I have has 1" rings, but you're still welcome to it.

[efm77]

Thanks, that's very kind of you. But I'm not sure I'll have enough clearance with that type of base which is why I'm switching to a tactical style base because they're thicker which will give me a little more clearance over the barrel. My barrel has a pretty big profile and if I cant the scope downard at all with the bases on there now the objective bell contacts the barrel. I've also always been afraid of that rear ring juming out of the windage screws under recoil on bigger calibers. Heard of that happening before since there's very little gripping the rear ring.

[pdog06]

I think you are really over thinking this decision. The aluminum EGW base will work for what you are shooting...So will a steel Ken Farrell base.... So will a steel Warne base....

You guys are comparing a 300Wm to a 50bmg.. Not really a comparison in recoil if you ask me. Yes the 300wm has a good bit of recoil, but it isnt that bad that one of these bases are gonna bend or break...atleast I have never seen or heard of one doing it...

MANY members here and elsewhere use these bases on calibers that large and much larger and have no troubles at all.

[efm77]

I wasn't comparing it to a 50 at all. My initial conern was the very small tabs for the slots on the standard base when using a rifle with considerable recoil. FWIW I have a Winchester model 70 in 300 win mag with very cheap weaver aluminum bases and aluminum rings on it and they have never failed. Albeit I've heard of people saying they've had aluminum bases/rings fail on magnum calibers. However, their slots (the weavers I have) have much more meat to them that the standard EGW base which is why I was concerned. If EGW made a HD for the flat rear I would use it and not worry but since they don't I am going to switch to steel. I have an HD base for my round rear receiver in 338 win mag that I'm going to use and it shouldn't have any trouble but I may also end up putting a steel base on it just because. It basically boils down to I've decided I'd rather have a base with solid slots than with a big channel down the middle and little tabs to hold the rings in place. I'd rather have a solid slot in order to have more surface area to displace the force of the recoil against the cross bolt in the ring.