EGW standard base vs the HD base

[efm77]

Which do you prefer and why? Is the HD any stronger by having the solid slots as opposed to the little valley in the standards?

[helotaxi]

It's probably stronger. The basic one is more than strong enough.

[pdog06]

I have both and they both are very good bases.

The HD may be a little stronger due to them being flat across the top and having more material in that area. Like mentioned above though the standard one is plenty strong.

The 2 main differneces in them is (1) the full slots instead of the open middle, and (2) the HD base is a lower profile than the standard base.

For a target action where the top of the action is closed off I prefer the HD base, as it sits very low and you see almost no gap between it and the action. For a standard action where you are using it as a blind mag I would rather use the standard version.

Heres a side view of my HD base on my target action:

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/pdog06_photos/oct2010060.jpg

And a standard EGW base on a standard action:

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/pdog06_photos/Feb2010011.jpg

[efm77]

Thanks for the info guys. How about on the heavy kickers? What if you need extra height even with high rings? How much lower is the HD over the standard?

[pdog06]

That top pick with the HD base is a 50mm scope with a set of medium rings. My 56mm 8-32 SIII will also fit on it with mediums but it is VERY close to the barrel(Too close for my liking). My 8-32x56 NF BR will fit with a set of high rings.

How much bigger a scope do you got than a Nightforce BR?

[helotaxi]

The base itself isn't going to fail under recoil with either version. The only problem with the EGW bases is that all the stress of recoil is borne by the mounting screws. The shear strength of the screws is the limiting factor. Contrast that with a base such as the Weaver tactical that has a recoil lug that locks into ejection port and bares the force of the recoil directly to the mount and keeps the screws from taking the brunt. Not an issue unless the recoil is pretty extreme.

[efm77]

I have a Swift Premier 6-24x50 that was mounted in Burris high signature zee rings and Burris two piece steel mounts which are pretty thin. I have a large shank varmint contour barrel that tapers straight off of the shank (no step down). It was so close I couldn't use the offset inserts for the rings without the objective touching the barrel. That's why I bought an EGW base to put on it because it's a good bit thicker than the bases on there now. I just haven't had a chance to switch it out to see how much clearance I will have. Since I bought it though I've been thinking I would like the HD instead, just didn't know how much lower it would be. I guess the only way is to get one and try them both.

[helotaxi]

The Weaver base looks to be about the same height as the EGW HD, has a recoil lug, full profile rail and costs less than half what the HD does.

[efm77]

Yeah I'm thinking about getting that one for my accutrigger model but they don't make it for the old flat rear receivers. In fact I can't find any except EGW and Warne for the flat rears.

[efm77]

Does anybody know one that's made for the flat rear receivers other than Warne?

[pdog06]

uhhh, an EGW......also a Ken Farrell......

[efm77]

I knew EGW. I should have clarified. I meant one piece bases with solid slots. The EGW has the channel in the middle, I don't see where they make an HD model for the flat rears. I'll check out Ken Ferrell though. Thanks.

[efm77]

"Not an issue unless the recoil is pretty extreme."

How extreme? One I am working on is a 338 win mag.

[Don - LongRangeSupply]

"Not an issue unless the recoil is pretty extreme."

How extreme? One I am working on is a 338 win mag.


I would go steel if you plan on using Burris Signature Zee rings or any ring that has a tiny screw in the cross slot.
I have had those rings move forward on aluminum bases, even full picatinny like the HD, deforming the corner of the top edge of the cross slot with 338 Lapua, 50 BMG and the like in rifles, and the same thing in hand guns like the 454 Casull.

If the ring has a beefy cross bolt, preferabely with a FLAT surface up front then either base should be fine. I only use Nightforce, Badger, Burris Signature Zee and IOR Valdada rings so I can't say from experience if any other rings are going to deform the base like the Zee rings do, but on my own rifle, I go with a steel base on any magnum that I plan on shooting heavy bullets with regardless of the ring type.

[efm77]

Sounds like if your rings have slid then you didn't slide them all the way to the front of the slot in the first place when you mounted your scope. If the ring is slid all the way to the front of the slot I don't see that being an issue. What concerns me is the little tabs on the base breaking off under recoil on the bases that have the channel down the middle.

[efm77]

It appears the options for a solid slot base for the flat rear receivers are much more limited than for the round rear receiver. I may get the Warne for my flat rear (300 win mag) or just take my chances and stick with the EGW with the channel in the center that I already have and hope that it holds up to the large scope that will be on it (I think it will but just like knowing that a part is more than strong enough). On my round rear receiver (338 win mag) I have the standard EGW base but will likely switch it to either the HD or the Weaver tactical as the steel bases (Warren, Ken Ferrel etc.) are nice but I can't afford to put them on all of my rifles. I would be scope base poor! That would be a ton of money just in bases if I were to put them on every one of my rifles. I've heard others on here though say that they have the standard EGW bases on 338 Edges without any problems so maybe I'm just being too paranoid. ;)

[helotaxi]

As long as the crossbolts are pushed all the way forward and can't get up a head of steam before hitting the front of the slot there is no difference between steel and aluminum. The channel down the middle is a total non-issue. The difference in strength is completely negligible. If you're concerned about recoil, the only upgrade I would bother with on the EGW base would be to have a 'smith bore out the receiver to accept 8-40 mounting screws. With the Weaver base nothing else would be required. The lug takes all the force.

[Varget 7-08]

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

[efm77]

"With the Weaver base nothing else would be required."

Yeah I'm probably going to try it on my round rear receiver but like I said before Weaver doesn't make one for the flat rear receiver. At least I can't find one (the Weaver tactical model that is). So I guess I'll just stick to the regular EGW base on my flat rear model.

[dmack]

Have you looked at Ken Farrell FG-Force?

http://www.kenfarrell.com/FGF-SAV-NS-A-1-0.html

I've never felt the need for it but if you're worried about the mount shifting, this might bring peace of mind.

you could have a local machine shop bore and tap a hole in a standard mount to accomplish the same effect.