I have a first Gen short action. it was actually called a 110E. It was chambered in 243 but I am going to go to a 308 at 20". Most people have no clue what this action even is. I am having a hard time fining bases for it. Any help????
Printable View
I have a first Gen short action. it was actually called a 110E. It was chambered in 243 but I am going to go to a 308 at 20". Most people have no clue what this action even is. I am having a hard time fining bases for it. Any help????
EGW has decent bases for a good price.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
You said "bases" - are you planning to use 2? I would consider a 1-piece instead.
If your rifle is an older 110 I think it would have the "flat rear" receiver, and there should be options for a reasonably priced 1-piece base.
Would this work? - https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1008906730?pid=480005
I'm very happy with Warne steel bases. I'd go two-piece but that's just me (looks better and less crowded wth cold piddies). Does yours have a flat receiver rear? This site has their fit cart.
https://warnescopemounts.com/product/m902936/
AlwY, always, ALWAYS....use a one piece base of either steel, or 7075 T6 Billet aluminum. And make certain it is Picatinney,(aka Mil-STD-1913 rail or PICADILLY! LOL!). Do not waste money on Weaver! PERIOD!
I have not personally seen a 1 piece scope base for a Gen 1. If I did it was a long time ago. Your action was something like an intermediate action. The ejection port was 1/2" shorter than the long action and 1/4 inch longer than the short action. I am betting the two piece flat back will be the ones you end up using.
This one works. It is a 2 piece.
https://www.talleymanufacturing.com/product/stainless-steel-base-for-savage-110-111-112-114-116/
Rings with no base
https://www.talleymanufacturing.com/product/savage-pre-accutrigger-w-flat-rear-receiver/
LOL! WHOOPS! Kinda read right past that little “First Gen” tidbit! I apologize... Disregard my words in this case. Thanks for correcting me my dumbness on that Robin.
Think I needs to call Hooked on Phonics about my reading comprehension. (Or maybe it’s just the brain damage & getting old! Oh well! :becky::becky:
Talley at Midway
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/17...ProductFinding
No worries. It happens to me thrice daily. Don't forget Picadillo. ("ll" pronounced like a "y")Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hoback
Yep, first gen 110E short action will be a flat back. If interested in a one piece picatinny rail, see this EGW video for flat back options in 0 and 20MOA. Skip to 7:38 to see chart with respective rail part numbers.
Good find Phil. 41300 for a zero MOA and 41302 for a 20 MOA
Oh that’s very cool. I didn’t know EGW made one for those older Actions either. Good stuff Phil! Thank you for sharing the info brother.
We all benefit. :-)
Don't remember HOW MANY mounts I got before I found/made one that fit "like it should". Not all the screw holes lined up. Covered part of the loading port. Too far forward or too far back.
Finally went with 2 piece mounts. Rear windage adjustment made up for any of the mount screw holes not drilled in the proper places that Savage was famous for at times..
Couldn't find one with the "proper fit" for my 110 V so, I shipped a couple of new ones off, had them cut in two, matched the front and rear pieces so ALL the mounting screw holes aligned then had them welded back together. Can't tell it from factory made.
You get what you pay for.:cool:
I put a 1-piece Leupold base on my new Model 10, and it fit perfectly.
Holes lined up fine and both ends of the base fit the receiver precisely.
I don't see the disadvantage of a 1-piece base.
They offer both kinds because different folks have different opinions, tastes and needs. (And the 110E of the original post has two different heights on the receiver and one-piece bases are scarce for that out-of-production model).
A steel one piece base may add some rigidity, especially with a long action, but it adds weight. Since I have a light sporter-weight barrel and a featherweight stock l I went with two-piece as I don't think receiver twist and flex is much of an issue on my short action; and the overall concept was lightness to carry afield (I walk to my hunting spot).
Depending on your fingers and scope height a two-piece may offer more access if you load from above or have a blind magazine (I don't fully trust the M11 plastic magazine tab and leave mine in place and load through the ejection port).
Two-piece also has a clearer ejection path - may or may not be an issue depending on scope height and ejector geometry.
Some folks find the looks of a two-piece more appealing.
I just think the Savage benefits from the clean lines of a two-piece. Personal aesthetics.
https://i.imgur.com/0ov0cjQ.jpg