Missing elevation adjustment on a Savage 12LRP

**SoCal326** · 11-17-2014, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by yobuck

The 40 minit base will help the elevation but might well cause another issue, that being windage zero. We had elevation issues with the same scope
. . .
I swapped scopes to an 8x25 leupold and found the same problem but in the opposite direction.
. . .
Bottom line is that although these are nice scopes and especially when cost is considered,
they don't measure up when trying to shoot the longer distances.

It's good to know about other possible issues involved in using a 40MOA base. Was the first scope you used a Vortex Viper PST FFP 6-24X50?

I'm trying to conceptualize how a 40 MOA base could cause windage issues. The only guess I would have would be that elevation is at such an extreme that the range of windage is restricted, as explained by reshp1 in post #23. That doesn't help me understand how two different scopes would have the same windage issues but in opposite directions. I'll have to think on that one.

I was going to buy the 40 MOA base but I though I'd call Savage first to see what they had to say. They offered to take a look at the rifle and sent me a shipping label. I should have the rifle back in 5 weeks and I'll know if I can eliminate the alignment of the action/barrel as the issue.

**SoCal326** · 12-11-2014, 03:53 PM

I sent the rifle to Savage about 2 weeks ago. I had purchased a cheap rifle case from BIG-5 to ship it in and I never expected it to be sent back to me. It showed up in the mail yesterday and I was happy to see that. They still have the rifle though. I'll update after I get it back.

**SoCal326** · 01-15-2015, 11:54 AM

I got my rifle back from Savage yesterday Jan 14, 2015 after about 6 weeks and it seems that they replaced the barrel. I called and asked what the problem was but apparently they don’t give out that info. They test fire with the 140gr A-Max and those never grouped well for me. After the new barrel was installed they got 0.7" groups at 100 yards. I never got that that kind of accuracy with the factory rounds before so I guess it’s an improvement. I’ll dial that in with hand-loads.

I hope that they replaced the barrel because it was out of alignment and not because of grouping issues. I'll find out when I take it to the range.

I'm going to skip the barrel break in process this time though. Savage says it isn't necessary, it's time consuming and costly.

**SoCal326** · 02-14-2015, 07:01 PM

I took the 12LRP back to the range and zeroed at 100 yards. I now 12Mil of up elevation gain so it looks like the new barrel corrected my elevation issue.

Before new barrel 7Mil.
After new barrel 12 Mil.

A few of my loads during devolupment ran through the same hole. I was happy.

Thanks Savage for making things right! I may be looking for a .308 Soon.

JW74 · 04-08-2015, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by memilanuk

Interesting to come across this... I have a 12 LRP in 6.5 CM, also currently wearing a Viper PST 6-24x SFP mil/mil scope. It's mounted on an EGW 20 moa 'F-Class' rail (the one with the long cantilever out front) using Warne Tactical rings. I hadn't really thought about how much 'up' I had available until some friends were shooting at some long range targets in prep for an upcoming field/tactical match. Longest one was @ 1350, and my ballistics app called for 14.7 mils of 'up' from my 100yd zero. I ran out @ ~12.4 mils, which was an unpleasant surprise. Guess I need to spend some time figuring where my 'lost' elevation went also...

I am running this same setup as well with my 12 LRP 6.5 CM, but I have a 20 moa Warne tactical base with Warne tactical rings. The base is a true 20 moa (checked with calipers) and facing the correct direction. At a 100 yard zero I am basically mechanically centered still. I only have 9.5 Mils of up adjustment with the 20 moa base. Is there any fix or should this rifle be sent back to Savage as well?

**Jamie** · 04-11-2015, 07:41 AM

.....

**MS50** · 05-08-2015, 07:27 AM

My setup is a 10FP 308 with a Bushnell 6x24x50. EGW 20MOA rail and rings. Zeroed at 100yds. I had it out last week shooting out to 1000yds. The Bushnell worked fine until 900-1000 adjustments. My program called for 10.7mil elevation for 1000yds. The turret started to get tight after 9.5 and was tight at 10mil. I didn't attempt to over travel to 10.7mil. According to the Bushnell website, this scope features 24mil total travel. This would imply 12 up and 12 down. I know the down travel can't be true, but should I expect 12 up? I understand that 10mils is about 36MOA, which is adequate for my needs. I am concerned about the tightness as I reach the limits of up travel. Before I head off in multiple directions to solve this problem, where should I start? If I change zero to 200yds, will that increase the elevation travel enough to eliminate the tightness at the upper limits? When at 100yds zero, the base of the turret sits on the bottom line of the three revolution indicator lines. Should the turret base be closer to the index line when at 100yds zero? This would make the bottom indicator line the first 5mil elevation location, rather than the zero line. I appreciate any feedback.

**earl39** · 05-08-2015, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by MS50

My setup is a 10FP 308 with a Bushnell 6x24x50. EGW 20MOA rail and rings. Zeroed at 100yds. I had it out last week shooting out to 1000yds. The Bushnell worked fine until 900-1000 adjustments. My program called for 10.7mil elevation for 1000yds. The turret started to get tight after 9.5 and was tight at 10mil. I didn't attempt to over travel to 10.7mil. According to the Bushnell website, this scope features 24mil total travel. This would imply 12 up and 12 down. I know the down travel can't be true, but should I expect 12 up? I understand that 10mils is about 36MOA, which is adequate for my needs. I am concerned about the tightness as I reach the limits of up travel. Before I head off in multiple directions to solve this problem, where should I start? If I change zero to 200yds, will that increase the elevation travel enough to eliminate the tightness at the upper limits? When at 100yds zero, the base of the turret sits on the bottom line of the three revolution indicator lines. Should the turret base be closer to the index line when at 100yds zero? This would make the bottom indicator line the first 5mil elevation location, rather than the zero line. I appreciate any feedback.

Anytime you are working near the max adjustments of a scope you stand a good chance of being surprised. Your surprise was not enough elevation. This would be evident with your angled base and still needing a small amount of up adjustment from center to zero at 100. That or your scope does not have the advertised amount of adjustment. Get a 30 MOA rail or a set of Sig-Z rings for your current rail.

**MS50** · 05-08-2015, 04:17 PM

Earl39. The total travel on this scope is 10mils up and 9mils down. It looks like I'm about at mechanical zero as the scope is now. Is there a way to use some of the down adjustment range to establish 100yd zero, rather than shimming or installing a 30-40MOA rail? For example, is there a way to back down 5mils and start there for zeroing? Thereby giving me another 5 mils of elevation without reaching the limits of elevation? How about a 300yd zero? This would only give me an additional 1.5mils of elevation, but it would keep me away from the max adjustment.

**earl39** · 05-08-2015, 10:23 PM

You have two choices. Work up a faster load or increase the angle your scope sits at. Sig-z rings will be the easiest way to change things. Changing your sightin range without changing the mount will not change where the turret is when you adjust for say 1000 yards.

**MS50** · 05-09-2015, 04:38 AM

Thanks. I'm at 2710fps with the 175SMK, and I'm getting .3MOA so I'm not going to mess with that. Looks like it's a ring change. Or work on my holdover skills.

**earl39** · 05-09-2015, 10:44 PM

You could also change scopes and get one with more adjustment but that would be the expensive way

**Robinhood** · 05-10-2015, 09:35 AM

Cut a shim out of a coke can with scissors and place it under the rear of the base. When you get tired of that you could get a scope with more adjustment.

**SoCal326** · 05-10-2015, 04:20 PM

Me50. You should have 17.8 mil up but you only have about 10. Can you post a picture of your setup. I want to see your 20 moa rail.

**MS50** · 05-10-2015, 06:10 PM

I'll try. Not sure how it's done. In the mean time, here's some numbers. Rear base is .287" high, front is .255". I talked to Bushnell yesterday. Rep recommended higher MOA rail or Sig Zee rings. I asked what the 24mil advertised total travel meant, and did not get an answer. Should it be 17.8mil up and 6.2 down? Regardless, I can't do it.

**MS50** · 05-10-2015, 07:18 PM

[IMG]file:///home/chronos/u-3e6734ae3ba95f3e9560dd91c89a5d5de176eab6/Downloads/IMG_20150510_174703_984.jpg[/IMG]

Pic of 20MOA rail on Mod10FP

**MS50** · 05-10-2015, 07:21 PM

Pic didn't download. I don't know how to do it. Sorry.

**SoCal326** · 05-11-2015, 01:41 AM

That's fine. Your measurments answer my questions. I'd push harder against Bushnell. Your scope should have 24Mil of adjustment but you are getting 19Mil. That's 5Mil less than advertised. If you got half of that for up elevation then you would have an extra 2.5 Mil which should be enough to get you where you need to be. You have 20% less than you expected.