Reply With QuoteWhat is you objective diameter? You could get too low.
Does anyone know the base heights for an EGW and Warne scope base for a round back 10 SA? 20 moa in both, if you have it. I need the lowest possible base and rings 34mm tube. Was thinking Warne & Seekins would be about the lowest I could get, open to other ideas as well, including 0 moa rails or one piece scope mounts (don't think any are offered in 34mm?).
Thanks!
What is you objective diameter? You could get too low.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
50mm - Bushnell XRS 4.5-30x50mm
currently the rifle has a 0 MOA EGW base on it. Bottom says 'EGW SAVAGE SA' '0 MOA C2414'. I would think it's just the generic 0 MOA savage roundback short action. This is a bottom bolt release short action btw.
Currently just setting the scope on the above listed base results in ~.150" of clearance from the 1.06" portion of the barrel. Hence the desire for a lower base, as a set of rings will be ~.150" taller than that at a minimum (assuming seekins .920").
I have the EGW 20 moa base on the 10 FCP-SR with a NF 50mm objective in Seekins low rings and fits perfectly and that includes using the Tenabrex ARD. Have about an eighth of an inch clearance. Hope that helps with your decision making.
Get Harry to put some calipers on his objective and check that against yours. Work from there.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
Robin,Originally Posted by Robinhood
Out of town presently and won't be back to the heat of the desert until Tuesday. Will get the info you requested posted shortly there after. Don't know how to post pics otherwise I would include one showing the clearance. If I use the NF shade which is longer than the Tenabrex I still have clearance.
Thanks buddy. The OP will appreciate it. I can help with the pics or you can follow the tutorial on the forum here.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
Went ahead and purchased the Warne. I'll provide measurements when it gets in.
Thanks fellas
My Warne rail had a little gap between the action and rail on the rear side , while mounting on the frontside:
I did bedding the rail on the action with bedding compound. I pull out the action from the stock, put some compound on the action and start with tightening the screws on the front, just put screws in the back for position linining. Later, then the bedding compound get stiff, I tightening the screws at the back. So I mount the rail without stress to the action. Ok, bad English
Hope your rail fits better.
Robin,
Well back to the heat of not only the desert but work after being away. Finally caught up and back to forum reading and it appears the OP has made his decision on a scope base. The Warne rail is a good product and it all boils down to what the OP likes best and feel will fit the needs. If pictures are still needed I will be glad to usher some up by at this point it may be a mute subject. I can appreciate the OP's inquiries as I went through the same ordeal when setting mine up. Who wants to buy all of the trinkets to conjure up the different configurations when it is so much easier to ask the members for their input and then work up your accessory short list from there and be done with it. For me, read is the need to answers so I am happy to share.
As for the picture of the rail from Wicasa, me personally I would have been on the phone to Warne and asked why it didn't lay flat to the action from the get go. One has to remember that during production quality control is a numerical spot check for compliance after a second article inspection is conducted during R&D production. Sometimes a few products slip though the QC process that were never intended to be released and that should not to be taken as a negative reflection of a/the company's quality by any means. My initial question would be if there are mounting/fitment elevation concerns could/would there possibly be unknown windage concerns as well. So for me the long and short of it is if it doesn't look right ask why.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks