116 shooting low.

I bought a 116 stainless, composite stock, used from Cabelas. Looked close to new, sticker still on. I had them put on a VX2, 2-7. Used that for a couple years. This year I buy VX3i 3.5-10, and put it on Remington pump, both 30-06. Sighted in, but decided to put it on the 116. Batteries dead in my bore sighter, I am at camp.

So I set up big sheet of paper. 3 feet low.

When I took the scope off the 116, I noticed what I know believe are metal shims. After shooting so low, I put inside rear scope ring. Turn scope all the up until it runs out of adjustment. Still about 2.5" low at 50 yards.

Rings are Leopold, and base is two piece standard Leopold.

Cabelas never mention anything to me after they mounted it, which ticks me off. I suppose go back to the 2-7, for some reason it worked. But I do have this brand new scope I just bought.

Suggestions? Start adding shims to the base? I though you were supposed to shim base, not inside of rings. But I don't know. Different rings to raise it?


What causes this in a gun? Does savage use different bases? Is this something I should know when putting scopes on them? I have another, that still has package Nikon on it.

Either way, not sure if I will get to shoot again before deer season. Went through 60 30-06s, between 3 guns today. I saved one, just in case I forgot to get more.


I was at camp and did ot have alignment tools when mounting. But I don't think that would make this big of difference on elevation.


Thanks for help.

The rear base extends over the magazine, which makes loading it a PIA. Blind magazine. Savages has long magazines, so they go in cockeyed sometimes. Cabelas said I was stuck with the bases cause I bought a Savage. Also limits me on sliding scope back.

Thinking back, why did they sell me Leupold rings and bases. It came with a scope. 1" tube is a 1" tube right?? Other them scope is black and old ones were silver, but I don't care.

Are you using the same rings on both scopes ??

Maybe switch the rings, front to back and see what happens.

YA same rings. I just took the top part off and swapped them out. So rings stayed with rifle.

I am not sure how Cabelas had the shims. I thought they had them on front and back rings At first I thought they were to prevent scratching or movement. I tried without, one bottom of each ring, both in rear. Both in rear got me the closest.


Since it was sighted on 30-06 22" barrel, I thought I would atleast be sorta close. I had to go 15 yards to find my bullet. First shot at 50, was 3 feet or so low.

Can't say I've ever heard of anyone putting shims in the rings. Rings are machined very exacting to size (1", 30mm, etc) so inserting a shim would create a LOT more problems than it would solve. I'd definitely get some calipers and see if the main tube is out of round where the shimmed ring was.

Is your 116 a round back?
You are not stuck with the Leupold base and rings, EGW and Weaver sell a one piece base for a Savage long action. EGW's base is higher allowing easier loading of the rifle but will raise the scope. The Weaver base is lower making it harder to load rifle but keeps the scope closer to centerline of barrel. Others can suggest rings.

DNZ GameReaper as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFurious

Can't say I've ever heard of anyone putting shims in the rings. Rings are machined very exacting to size (1", 30mm, etc) so inserting a shim would create a LOT more problems than it would solve. I'd definitely get some calipers and see if the main tube is out of round where the shimmed ring was.

---

It is a new scope. Today I had it mounted on another gun, sighted in.

I have love and hate relationship with this gun. I think it is clumsy and crude, but it groups nice. So I took the scope off the other gun, and put it on 116. 116 was doing good with Vx2 2-7 and other gun waa ok with VX3 3.5-10.

I don't think scope is problem. This may be why the gun was sold in near new condition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by olddav

Is your 116 a round back?
You are not stuck with the Leupold base and rings, EGW and Weaver sell a one piece base for a Savage long action. EGW's base is higher allowing easier loading of the rifle but will raise the scope. The Weaver base is lower making it harder to load rifle but keeps the scope closer to centerline of barrel. Others can suggest rings.

---

It ticks me off, to have to think about this. I haven't bought a lot of rifles, so maybe I am wrong, but it seems savage makes some problem childs.

***edit. Not the rifles fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berserker

It ticks me off, to have to think about this. I haven't bought a lot of rifles, so maybe I am wrong, but it seems savage makes some problem childs.

---

It would seem like it sometimes. You have to be a Savage smith to work on em. My question, If one scope works and the other doesn't, is it the rifle?

Is your base the type that you can adjust for horizontal at the rear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zero333

Are you using the same rings on both scopes ??

Maybe switch the rings, front to back and see what happens.

---

I used rings that were on rifle. Just switched scopes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinhood

It would seem like it sometimes. You have to be a Savage smith to work on em. My question, If one scope works and the other doesn't, is it the rifle?

Is your base the type that you can adjust for horizontal at the rear?

---

The 116 was working with the 2-7 I had on it, that Cabelas mounted, and shimmed the rings. I put a 3.5-10 on there, that was working on a different rifle, and it doesn't work.

I never noticed before, but by shimming the rings, there is a quite a gap. Worry about length of screws.

I don't see a way to attach pictures, when I go to advanced page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by olddav

Is your 116 a round back?
You are not stuck with the Leupold base and rings, EGW and Weaver sell a one piece base for a Savage long action. EGW's base is higher allowing easier loading of the rifle but will raise the scope. The Weaver base is lower making it harder to load rifle but keeps the scope closer to centerline of barrel. Others can suggest rings.

---

Raising both front and back of scope, lowered shot. I had to raise only the rear.

It is my belief that the wrong base was installed on the rifle. By installing a one piece base you will be able to correct (by bedding the base) any differance in elevation of the action/base attachment points. Once the base is installed and bedded, if required, then you should not need a shim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by olddav

Is your 116 a round back?
You are not stuck with the Leupold base and rings, EGW and Weaver sell a one piece base for a Savage long action. EGW's base is higher allowing easier loading of the rifle but will raise the scope. The Weaver base is lower making it harder to load rifle but keeps the scope closer to centerline of barrel. Others can suggest rings.

---

Not sure what a round back is. But you are talking about this? The 10 MOA should raise me up. They say it is for making long shots over 600 yards. I still wonder why I need this?

http://www.egwguns.com/scope-mounts/...-mount-10-moa/

Edit. I see the top of my rifle is round, so must be a round back. I see that scope mount is curved to fit that.

Sounds to me like a screwed up mounting job.
I'm guessing somebody mismatched the rings, bases, or both.
Maybe someone looking at them in the store and mixed up 2 packages of different heights and put them back on the shelf. New factory Leupold rings and bases should not need shimming, period.
I'm with Mr. F that I 'd be darn sure they didn't kink the tube with the what should have been unnecessary shimming or mismatched rings/bases. (I'd be mad enough about the shims but absolutely furious about that)
If they sold you Leopold standard rings and bases they were in my opinion trying to do you a big favor as they are far superior to the package gun stuff (provided the right parts are in the package and the right bases are chosen) and rock solid. I prefer the two piece even if they do hang over the action a little because they by far provide the best access with the most room to the loading/ejection port.
As far as bore sighting you don't need a "Boresighter" or other special apparatus. Just pull the bolt, place the rifle in a cradle or some bags so it wont move, and then look down the bore at a distant object centering it in the bore. (you can usually see rings of light reflecting down the bore so you know you're looking straight down the center) then adjust the scope so that the distant object/ target is centered in the crosshairs. Look back and forth down the bore and down the scope a couple of times to confirm and... Bam you're bore sighted.
I wish you the best of luck sorting it out and would bet dollars against donuts after hearing your description, it's the rings and bases, Or some yahoo mounted round action bases on a Savage with a flat at the rear of the receiver because they didn't know the difference in them and just went with a package marked Savage "110" bases. Round bases wont work on a flat receiver.
Flat Receiver http://picturearchive.gunauction.com...humbnail09.jpg
Wouldn't be the first time I had seen that either. Bought one from a pawn shop with bases intended for a round receiver screwed down on a flat rear. It would certainly do what you describe.
Let me know if I owe you a dollar, if not I like Krispy Kreme glazed :)
BHJ

Here's the round receiver
http://longrangeshooter.com/wp-conte.../03/10fcp5.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berserker

Not sure what a round back is. But you are talking about this? The 10 MOA should raise me up. They say it is for making long shots over 600 yards. I still wonder why I need this?

http://www.egwguns.com/scope-mounts/...-mount-10-moa/

---

You may not need a new base (just an option) but you have got to start somewhere. Try checking the rings (as good a place to start as any), they could be mismatched. If you feel they are OK then the base is the next thing to check. You may also want to remove the base and lay a straight edge across the front and rear mounting surfaces and see if there is a gap under one or the other.

All good suggestions. I will look closer at the rings and bases used.

I am pissed at myself for not noticing, and pissed at Cabelas for the job they did. Either the guy didn't know what they were doing, or just wanted to make the sale. The rectile wasn't level, so maybe the former or both.

The front base is around 3/32" high, pushing an 1/8. I just got in the mail Wheeler alignment rods, but noticed it before I even got them one. Ya I know I don't need them for my ranges, I just like to play gunsmith.

Pissed at all the ammo I wasted trying to site the new scope in. Even more so wondering what this did to the tube on the old VX2 or my new VX3i.

Now I need to figure out what to buy to match the front, or match the rear.

You may want to just replace the bases-s-s-s all together with a new set.
Glad you found the problem, and hoping it did not damage either scope!

Call Leupold customer service and they will probably send you the one you need for free if you explain what happened.
I'm a big fan of dual dovetail scope mounts. They don't have the windage adjustments like the standard mounts with nothing to come loose or get knocked out of whack.
I called Leupold customer service and explained that I love the dual dovetail mounts and they no longer catalog them, and that I hate to spend the cash on 2 sets only to throw the rears away. I also explained that I had already purchased one of the standard sets because that's what I could find. They sent me another dovetail front base free that I installed on the rear and I wound up with a dual dovetail set. (These are pretty far apart so will only work on a scope with a fairly long tube) They were perfect for mounting a Bushnell elite 3200 onto my model 110FP long action and are rock solid.
They gave me great customer service and I'm sure they would do the same for you.

I saw on leopold website front and rear dovetail.

They had discontinued the dual dovetails for Savages for quite a while. Since the newer round receiver models are the same front and rear and not different like the flatbacks it was easy on em, since they were parts being made anyway as the front part of a standard set. Nice to see them as a catalog item again :)

My call to Leupold customer service has been a few years, but the service I received was outstanding.

I had to use windage screws on rear screw. But I also don't know for sure I was aligned properly. I alternated screws when installing. Like to see what my new alignment pins show.

If you use both front and rear alignments, and have them both aligned perfectly, I would think you would be less likely to need crude adjustments. I suspect mine were because I was off when installing, but that is a guess.

This is not a cheap fix but take a look at Burris Signature Xtreme rings. With the inserts, they will give you +/-40 and you can fine tune from there. You were shooting at 50 yards. Your results were bizarre. I have had that 4 foot and more drop at 100 yards but not 50. Problem was solved with the Burris Signature Extreme rings. You can get a way with less expensive Burris Signature rings if you have 1" tube. Were the mounts duplicates of each other? There may have been a mix and match somewhere in the rifle's history.

i feel bad for ya. that is unfortunate. the "experts" at these shops should be qualified. However, the more interaction I have with them, the more I realize they know very little. I wouldn't allow any retail employee to install anything on a firearm I own or am purchasing. the store that botched it up should fix any and all problems, but I am betting they blame the consumer....good luck.

I bought it 2 years ago, so probably not worth it. Though I know they count on it.

Take a straight edge across each end of the receiver. If you have an older round rear 116 its possible that the receiver was machined incorrectly. i.e. both front and rear of the receiver will be out of plane. Straight edge across should show discrepancy if one exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RustyShackle

Take a straight edge across each end of the receiver. If you have an older round rear 116 its possible that the receiver was machined incorrectly. i.e. both front and rear of the receiver will be out of plane. Straight edge across should show discrepancy if one exists.

---

Something about this seems incorrect, "If you have an older flat back...." maybe?

Thanks. But already figured out the front and rear bases are different heights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinhood

Something about this seems incorrect, "If you have an older flat back...." maybe?

---

Nope, there were a batch of 'older' 116's that had the receivers machined out of plane(round front and rear). I had a scope failure on a 116 and then put its replacement in burris sig rings. Later I was going to install a single piece base and that's when I noticed the issue. Savage took good care of me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinhood

Something about this seems incorrect, "If you have an older flat back...." maybe?

---

It is either 06 or 09, bought used, but looked up serial number. Both front and rear are round.

well the time frame is correct to be in the run that had issues. If I could post pics here I would post pics of what mine looked like. Easiest way to determine if there are any issues is to place a flat edge on the rear portion of the receiver. See if it aligns with the front or if the is a gap, or possibly it intersects the front of the receiver.

do you have to use a url to post pics here, or can I embed them?

Can you explain "out of plain" ? I invision out of concentricity where the axis of the barrel threads and bolt raceway are not aligned with the OD axis when I read that but I'm not sure.

I bought new bases today. After I mount I will use alignment rods to see if there is an issue. The bases Cabelas used did not match. Then shimmed inside rings. Possible gn has issues, and they were trying to work through them. Pissed me off they didn't tell me they used shims. Even if they didn't realize mix matched bases, they should have told me.

The guy didn't like savages, maybe he just figured that is the way they are. Not overly happy myself the way a Leupold fits on them, no room to slide scope back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinhood

Can you explain "out of plain" ? I invision out of concentricity where the axis of the barrel threads and bolt raceway are not aligned with the OD axis when I read that but I'm not sure.

---

So each of the respective receiver ends(front and rear) were not in the same geometrical plane. They were however parallel with each other, just a couple degrees ‘off’.

The link below I believe was a similar issue to what I had going on.

http://www.thehighroad.org/index.php...tinues.559442/

https://www.shootersforum.com/gunsmi...nt-issues.html

Hopefully linking this isn't taboo...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berserker

Not overly happy myself the way a Leupold fits on them, no room to slide scope back.

---

That is why I mentioned a one piece base. It lets you move the scope further back. I have also cut the stock to help me get closer to the scope.

Rusty The only time I have seen anything similar is when a junior Savagesmith try's to remove the barrel by holding the action through the loading and ejection ports. That would cause a twist as well. Fred and a couple of others have posted on this. I am sure one gets by the inspectors every now and then

Seems to me the stock would pull much of this out when tightening. There would probably be a "spring" feeling as you tighten the action. One end would be more prominent. This would be the litmus a test to confirm the issue being described. If you look at a lot of savage actions you often see where the actions where run through something like a centerless grinder/polisher/sander to clean up the OD. The marks I have seen remind me of the part dwelling for whatever reason and the abrasive gouging spots in the OD.

New bases on. Checked with alignment rods, and everything looks good.

Holding the front bases against each other, they look the same. But the new one has deeper concave, causing it to it to sit lower on the rifle.

I am going to email Leupold, the numbers and ask what they should be for, explain what happened. Maybe get them to send me correct match. Would have saved $25 if I did this in the summer, instead of 2 weeks before hunting season. But I start thinking about new scopes right before hunting season.

First time using alignment rods. Will set rectile up with plum bob. Be interesting to see close it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinhood

Rusty The only time I have seen anything similar is when a junior Savagesmith try's to remove the barrel by holding the action through the loading and ejection ports. That would cause a twist as well. Fred and a couple of others have posted on this. I am sure one gets by the inspectors every now and then

Seems to me the stock would pull much of this out when tightening. There would probably be a "spring" feeling as you tighten the action. One end would be more prominent. This would be the litmus a test to confirm the issue being described. If you look at a lot of savage actions you often see where the actions where run through something like a centerless grinder/polisher/sander to clean up the OD. The marks I have seen remind me of the part dwelling for whatever reason and the abrasive gouging spots in the OD.

---

Yes, it was a bizarre find. The odd part is that the straight edge was perfect along the bottom of the receiver so somebody got a little overly ambitious or something when machining. Savage replaced the rifle and was more than fair about the whole thing. It did take them a considerable amount of time to get it replaced, but I’m sure they are made in batches and I was just in between runs.

Berserker, glad to hear things were figured out!

I've got the original scope back on. The new one is sighted, and ready for deer hunting. Not touching it. But if I don't add the shims, the last guy did, and it works, out, then I know I am good. Plus looking at the alignment rods makes me feel better. Hopefully I had them balanced good last time. Just got them this week. I did noticed they can tilt a little. But they are heavy, and tip if you go to fire.

I miked the bases too. The fronts are different.

I wanted to go to one piece, but they only had one in short action, locally.