Reply With QuoteI used 1 piece leupold bases and rings on my two and haven't had any issues.
Within the last 12 months, I have purchased two new Savage rifles (308 and 300 WM). I had real trouble with each of the guns getting them onto paper. I finally purchased Burris Signature Zee rings and two packages of offset inserts. On my 300 WM, I had to use the +/- 20 from each package to get within about 2 inches from center at 100 yards. On the 308, I had to use a +/- 10 and a +/- 5 to get it within about 3 inches of center at 100 yards.
Is this common? I am looking to purchase another 308 for my youngest son to use. I am wondering if I should go ahead and purchase the Burris Signature Zee rings and hope the remaining offset inserts that I have are sufficient to correct any issue I have. I am assuming this is fairly common since both of the guns required significant adjustment. I tried everything I know before I purchased the Burris product. If anyone has a trick for mounting the scopes, I am all ears.
I am extremely happy with the two guns. They both shoot Remington Core-Lokt ammunition very well for off-the-shelf ammo.
A special Thanksgiving thank you to all our troops that have sacrificed much for this country that I love.
I used 1 piece leupold bases and rings on my two and haven't had any issues.
What kind of scopes? I've never had that kind of trouble either.
I'm not going to be much help here either. I too use a piece base. But those two, you have, are way way way out of alignment. Or something else is going on.
One scope is an Alpen with a cheap two-piece base. The other is a
Leopold VX3 over a two-piece Warne base. The Alpen over the cheap base was actually the closer of the two.
Maybe I"ll try a one piece on the next one.
You're setting the scopes at optical zero first, or they're just however they were set from the last rifle?
KeS
Buy Warne 1 piece steel rails and Maxima permanent rings. It sounds like these are new rifles ? So they are both accutrigger round receivers with the same curvature front and back ? If you were to use 2 piece bases from earlier non accutrigger receivers then things could be way off because the back of those receivers had a different curvature to the front (Remington style). I always wonder why things have to be made so hard... It costs less money to keep the receiver cylindrical in the first place and it is cheaper to machine the matching scope rails too. Yet someone thought it was a better "styling" solution to make the back different to the front...
I wish more manufacturers would machine their scope rails directly into the receiver in the first place like on my TC Icon. That saves $90-$150 on buying a rail when it comes time to mount optics and it is much more rigid and better damped too.
I use NightForce one piece rails and rings, I have never had a problem with any Savage action.
I own a Remmy short action and the rail mount holes were not drilled in the action correctly. I understand this is an issue with Remington's.
Another new guy trying to learn here.Originally Posted by kevin_stevens
What is meant by "optical zero" ? I had trouble hitting paper at 100 yds today too. Is there some basic "starting point" to start from when trying to zero in a rifle scope?
Having the scope adjustments set to their center position. My point was only that if he's moving the scope from rifle to rifle, and they're off in opposite directions, it may not be a scope problem that he has to crank the settings way over each time.
Some people contend that for absolute best scope performance, you shouldn't use the scope adjustments at all; rather leave them in the centered position and move the physical mounts around to zero the scope. I'm not one of those people.
KeS
Last edited by kevin_stevens; 11-24-2012 at 07:42 PM.
Good points. Well, I fired my Marlin XL7 .30-06 first time today and couldn't even hit paper at 100 yds. It came factory with a cheap but seemingly decent Bushnell 3x9x40mm scope.
I tried making all kinds of adjustments with no luck at all. I know I'll need to sight in a closer distance next time. A guy let me shoot his Ruger American .30-06 and I was hitting bullseyes at 100 yds.
The scopes you get on any package gun are the cheapest thing they can put on the gun. The best investment is good mounts and good rings and a quality scope new or used.
Willing to give back for what the sport has done for me!
But what about the Savage 11 Trophy Hunter XP. It comes with a Nikon 3x9-40mm BDC!
That surprised me to see that! That scope is $160.00 at Optics Planet
The Savage package rifle is $460
Do you think they'll use crappy mounts and rings on this package deal?
Ive had several rifles over the years that I had issues with scope mounts, only a couple Savages. Thats why Leupold standard bases and rings have been my go to mounts for several years. I set the scope to optical zero (where you set the crosshairs in the center of their adjustments) then bore sight it (I use the old fashioned bore sighter that looks like a little scope stuck in the end of the barrel, I hate the new laser bore sighters Ive never had one that worked worth a crap) I use the adjustable rear base to set the scope left and right, lock it down on center and go shoot it at 25yrds first to get it zeroed, then back it out to 100yrds to fine tune it.
OK, the OP has bolt guns. OP, take all the weird offset crap out of there, re-mount the scope. Now go to the 25 yard line (assuming you go to a range) or else set up a target that is close to that distance. You want a white sheet with a black dot about 1" in diameter. Not the big black targets like get sold nowadays. Now put your gun in its rest/vice and completely remove the bolt. Now sight through the bore and get it centered on that 1" black target @25yds. Now without disturbing the rifle, look through the scope without touching anything. See where the cross hairs are pointing and try to dial the scope so that the image through the bore matches the image through the scope.
Note: when you do this and have the target centered on the bore and the cross hairs are LEFT of the target, you need to make a LEFT adjustment on the scope ! The reason is that if you were to shoot the gun, you would center the cross hairs, so now the bore would be right of the aiming point and to correct that you need the Point of Impact to move LEFT. Comprende ? If you were to dial the scope right instead, you would be able to observe that the cross hairs would move further and further off the target so it helps to understand why you do something in stead of just blindly doing it. Same deal for up and down. If the cross hairs are low with the target centered on the bore, you need to dial down. This process is called BORE SiGHTING. The goal is to get you on paper without firing a shot.
Now you should have the scope set up so that the cross hairs are centered when you have the target point centered in the bore. Now shoot a round, aiming for the center. Here the direction that corrections are applied is changed. Since you are now using the cross hairs as defining the aiming point you judge whether the point of impact needs to move up/down left/right based on what you see on the target. If you are hitting to the left, you want the impact to move RIGHT, so you dial to the RIGHT. Depending on the scope (if 1/4MOA clicks) at 25 yards you need 4 clicks or 1MOA to move the point of impact 1/4". When you get out to 100 yards, 1 click (1/4MOA) will give you 1/4" on the target.
I suggest that for a 25 yard and 50 yard target, you get the point of impact centered. If you have it high, you may hit above the target at 100 yards. So keep it centered at the shorter ranges, then make final correction at 100 yards.
If you can't get the scope bore sighted, take the whole thing off and figure out what is wrong because something is ridiculously mismatched. I have put some scopes on that only needed 4-6 clicks of correction - total to get sighted in at 100 yards.
If everything is right, there won't be any problems. Here is an example from this morning. Bought a new Model 10 FCP yesterday without scope rings or a bipod. Went to Academy and bought a plus 20 MOA Burris Picatinny rail adapter and installed it on the new gun. Took the Nikon M-223 2-8x scope with Nikon M-223 one piece mount off the AR and installed it on the Savage. Turned the elevation 20 MOA down to compensate for the 20 MOA slope already built in to the Nikon rings. Went to the range and fired one shot at 25 yards and elevation was close, made a 6 MOA correction to the right and fired the next round on a 100 yard target. Made another 2 MOA correction on both elevation and windage and the scope was close. Fired 4 more rounds without changing anything and had my first 1-1/2" group at 100 yards with a .308. Changed ammo and did it again. Basically 2 rounds to get it close using pretty inexpensive hardware, new shooter, and the "wrong scope" and rings. I am pretty darn happy with the new gun.
Joe
Really glad I just joined this forum. Newbie learning alot from these great posts.
Roger SS--Check my post count. I'm not exactly a founding member here myself, LOL. I joined yesterday at the suggestion of a fellow over on SigForum after posting I had bought a Savage bolt gun. I'm really a pistol shooter, but had to have a .308 bolt gun to go with my AR. I have a 1911 pistol but shoot SIG P226s mainly.
Joe
Well, I'm the real newbie here. To high powered scoped bolt action rifles.
I'm trying to learn just how to buy the correct rings and bases, correctly mount and boresight a scope. Based on your first posting, you're one he11 of a quick study. lol
I think some time with a .223 AR out to 300 yards helped.
Joe
I will say that the best way is always to use a one piece picatinny rail. There will be no confusion whether or not it fits right, because if you try to fit a pre-accutrigger rail onto a accutrigger action (cylindrical front and back) it will be really obvious that it does not fit. And it is without a doubt better aligned to the action and your scope should need less tweaking to get it on target (assuming you take it out the box with the adjustments centered). Yes, a one piece rail is slightly more expensive than a 2 piece base, but in my opinion it is worth it. The only gun I do not have a one piece base on is my 220 slug gun and that is because the rail can get in the way of ejecting those big shotgun shells.
If you are cash strapped, EABCO.com will probably be the lowest charge on bases and they have several that they have contract made that are 1/3 of the cost of for example a Warne rail. Here is a link http://www.eabco.com/store/riflescop...escope-mounts/
Last edited by Westcliffe01; 11-25-2012 at 05:20 PM.
More great info. for us beginners. Thanks! I just placed my order for EGW 1-Piece Picatinny-Style Base Savage 10 Through 16 Round Rear Short Action Matte from Midway USA. Also ordered the Leupold 1'' Detachable Rifleman Rings Weaver Style Medium Matte. I want to get a Savage 11 FCNS. Just haven't decided yet between .308 or 7mm-08.
I like using one-piece bases, but don't agree that a Picatinny rail is always the best choice. There are one-piece simple bases, one-piece mounts with integral rings, and one-piece rails.
KeS
Roger, seriously look at the Warne Maxima permanent rings. The dividing line is vertical, not horizontal. They are more compact than the leupold type rings and they are made from steel. I believe they are about $45 for a pair and they are available for 1" and 30mm tubes. I personally will not buy another aluminum ring or rail till the day I die. EGW is typically aluminum. Rails are often the weak point because they carry the weight of the scope + rings and there are often just 4 tiny screws holding it in place. I personally apply blue loctite to the receiver and rail and to the rail screws when I mount them. Once that loctite sets up, you can remove the rail screws and it will still hold the scope in place. The rings by comparison have 4 screws each and being steel, there is no way you will ever strip those threads with either the wrench you get with the rings or a crew driver type handle.
Would you also recommend these rings for my Marlin XL7 which came with a stock Picatinny rail already in place? Or should I replace it with a Warne base?
Last edited by Roger SS; 11-26-2012 at 01:01 AM.
Members who have read this thread in the last 1 days: 0
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks