So I need some help with my Savage 110, 7MM Rem Mag, Accutrigger, Long Action, with a muzzle break. I have pillar bedded, free floated, and bedded the stock after I noticed that I miss aligned my pillars when I crafted the laminate stock. So now I have the thing sitting nicely in the stock and lock it down.
Next comes the optics and mounts. I have a nice Nikon Monarch 4-16X50 SF in one inch I will be mounting. I already have a set of Leopold 55742 scope bases. The scope will fit, so I am thinking about bedding the mounts, then bedding the rings to the scope, as I am not going to move the scope to a different gun anyway. I want to make sure that the gun is not going to recoil back into the scope; mainly because the way it was previous the action was bucking up into the scope causing my last scope to poop out. All this and I have a muzzle break….LOL
Anyway, my main question is, will the Leopold 55742 steel mounts that I already have hold up and keep zeroed being an extended rear base and not allow recoil into the scope now that it will be completely bedded?
Or should I scrap the idea of using the Leopold 55742 that I already have and go for a solid Piccadilly 1 piece scope base and a good set of quad rings? I like the idea of Warne 1 piece, but I already have so much into this gun and another $200 bucks, well my wife might just finish me off!
Mainly I want this gun to shoot 0-600 yards for Elk, and I’m using Berger Trophy Gold 168 gr. Berger Hunting VLD bullets. http://store.iqmetals.com/trophygold...untingvld.aspx
Thanks!
Your rifle is going to "recoil into your scope" no matter what you do. If a scope fails from recoil its not how you bed your rifle, it's probably a faulty scope. Yes a 7 mag has a bit of recoil but most quality scopes are built to withstand much more recoil than that.
One piece bases are going to be stiffer but a two piece base and your leupold rings will not ruin a scope unless you tighten the rings too far down on the scope.
I understand that it recoils into the scope, and that I cannot change that. But what happened is the pillars where high on each outer side and caused the inside to flex downward during recoil so that the entire recoil went into the scope. The scope was perfectly fine before as I shot 200 yards covering the first 2 shots with a Nickle completely. The problem happened mainly after I changed from a swap cooler to central air and the pillars went south after that. This rifle is one of the best rifles out of the box I've ever seen shooting factory bullets though bullet holes at 100 yards in the machine, but I had to customize it to me because I have a handicap shoulder now.
I always tighten bolts to the inch-lbs torque ratings specified, so I don't think that created the issue, but a very valid point made well.
I really like having a 2 piece mount as it gives me a lot of room to clean and service the chamber. But, I do like the solid fit of the 1 piece mount, yet not the look. My main question is a 0-600 yard shot and I want to place those shots to count when needed. I also like the steel option mounts but I've sunk a few thousand into rifles this year not to mention new hunting supplies, I don't have a cushion for a while and don't want a divorce over it....LOL
Thanks redman
Well I desided to go a head and bed my Leopold 55742 scope bases at the reciever last night and I'll finish bedding to the scope today. Hopefully I'll have some range reports soon, but with the snow we got looks like it will be a few months before time tells.
Is anyone using the Weaver extended tactical base 1 piece and bedded it? Any differences in bedded verses non-bedded?
The weaver tactical picatinny is a really nice base for 40 bucks. It has a recoil lug built in to it to take some of the force 0ff the scope,
I agree that a steel one piece picatinny / tactical base is a good add on to most rifles. More flexibility on scope placement and with the steel base it probably adds some strength to the action. http://www.eabco.com/store/riflescop...catinny-style/ Eabco has the Warne steel base for $81 compared to most places at $125. I also use the Warne Maxima steel split rings. In My opinion, Warne tends to be seriously underrated by most people. I have not had the slightest trouble with a single one of their components.
I always blue loctite the base to the action. Just be sure to use 1 screw to get it in the correct axial position when you put it together, the first time the adhesive locked up before I even had time to try to put a screw in and of course it was NOT in the correct position. On the surface area involved, the loctite is much stronger than the fasteners. The only way I could get that base off to correct it was by heating it with a blowtorch to soften the loctite and start over again. With the Maxima rings, they are so strong (steel) that there is no need to use any loctite on them. Just make sure the key is biased forward in the groove in the picatinny rail so there is full contact to transmit force.
I know you already bedded your scope, but here is step-by-step instructions on how to bed a scope base.
I got it all put together and I put the scope on, and the new scope has a longer tube then the old one, so I don't need the extended rear base. Showed the basic new setup to the wife and she really liked the look and gave me the go ahead to get a new base/ring. I want to use a flip up scope cover as well so I think I need High rings as my Leopuld Medium didn't have enough height, but I guess that depends on the base?
So heres my scope, http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/Prod...-Nikoplex.html
So seeing that the tube is longer I want a good base, but also want to make sure I get the rings far enough apart for accuracy, so I need that base to do that. Looks like the Warne is shortened verses like the Weaver 20 MOA with the recoil lug. Also should I get a 20 MOA or just stay standard 0 MOA with the scope that I linked to? I will be bedding either.
Thanks
~Rustin~
Last edited by hydrashocker; 01-07-2013 at 01:25 PM.
@0 MOA is a beautiful thing for people going long.
You shouldn't need a 20 MOA base unless you really want one. That scope has 40 minutes of internal adjustment (+/- 20 from dead center). With a 7mag zeroed at 200 yards, you should be +/- 60 inches low at 600. That works out to 10 MOA (I know, not exact, don't flame me) which is less than half of your adjustment range. Now, if you have to use up some of the adjustment to get zeroed it may impact that a little, but on the face of it, it doesn't look to me like you'll need a 20 MOA base.
Elkbane
I'd get an EGW base and medium Xtreme Burris tactical rings if it were me. That's the "best value" combo I've found. They worked on a friend's 30-378 Wby that I worked over for him. That monster snapped a Leupold rear extension ring. It's not moving now.......but I did put loctite under the base as Wescliffe suggested....
http://www.burrisoptics.com/xtrrings.html
Last edited by Elkbane; 01-08-2013 at 04:17 PM.
I think your right, or close enough. I was looking at that same mount as well as it was in the running.
As for the rings, well those look like they would be a nice set to bed as there would be a lot of surface area. But which height would I need using the EGW base? Do you think Medium will work or should I step up to High?
Thanks
~Rustin~
Last edited by hydrashocker; 01-09-2013 at 11:08 AM.
"The weaver tactical picatinny is a really nice base for 40 bucks. It has a recoil lug built in to it to take some of the force 0ff the scope"
I think you mean the lug takes some of the force off of the base screws. Someone fill me in because I just don't see how you reduce the amount of recoil that the scope is going to take unless you have a muzzle break which reduces the amount the rifle is going to recoil. Regardless of what mount setup you use, the scope is basically attached directly to the receiver through the rings and base and under recoil it will want to stay in place as the rifle recoils. If your rings are too loose it will slide forward in them. But it they're tight enough it's going to take the recoil and ride backwards right along with the rest of the rifle.
Hydrashocker, sent you a PM...
Elkbane
Thats strange, never got it?Hydrashocker, sent you a PM...
Elkbane
Anyway, yea efm77 I already have a muzzle break on it. Now that the receiver is bedded so it shouldn't be flexing "bucking" into the scope like it was. Now I just want to mount this puppy up right and take out what ever recoil on the mount out. The bed job should have done that like I said, on the other side this is a large scope with plenty of weight so anything I can do to bring recoil down and keep things rock solid and zero'ed is what I'm looking for. The only issue I can see is the Weaver only comes in 20 MOA, and I don't think I need it as once I zero at 200 I don't adjust my scope, I just hold over while hunting. This gun is going to be for limited range time and mostly hunting.
I think a recoil lug on the base would help keep recoil down on the screws and recoil from the weight of the scope, but is it needed for my use?
I want to keep the rings out as far as I can on the tube so an extended base I think is the way to go, which cuts options from steel base options to aluminum from what I can see.
The Weaver is available in 0 MOA, I used to have one. I still don't understand what you're saying about the recoil. It doesn't matter if the action is bedded or not, when it fires, the entire rig is going to recoil and the scope is going to have to absorb it. Your break or the weight of the rifle is the only thing that will reduce the amount of recoil. Whether it's bedded or not, it is going to "buck" as you say. Forgive me but I'm just not following you. Bedding an action isn't going to reduce the recoil force you feel or the force applied to the scope. It will of course have better harmonics and help keep the action from shifting in the stock which is conducive to better accuracy.
Members who have read this thread in the last 1 days: 0
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks