The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Optics Question about scope mounting????Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Question about scope mounting???? | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Ok, I bought a savage 22-250 last year and used weaver bases and burris sigature zee rings. The scope was way off and couldn't even be sighted in without using a 20+ offset insert on the front ring. I passed this off as bad luck. Now, I just purchased another savage 223 FP and using the same setup. Guess what, had to use a 10+ offset in front ring and another 5+ offset in rear ring. Both of the rifles were shooting way left. So, what's my problem here. Are savage rifles tapped that far off center or is it the cheap weaver bases? What type of weaver bases do you guys use? Thanks in advance for the help. | ||
|
| One of Us |
Without seeing your set up I can only make guesses...but the bases are only going to be as true as the mounting holes in the receiver. I suppose it’s possible to have a base[s] that is machined crooked but I don’t recall ever seeing one. Not to say they aren’t out there, I’ve just never seen one myself. If you want to check the alignment of your mounting holes find a way to stand your rifle up vertically and run a plumb line (using the thinnest thread you can find)that cuts through the exact center-line of your bore and see where it cuts through the mounting holes. Just keep in mind that as little as .001†can throw a scope way off. Your rings could also be cockeyed. | |||
|
| one of us |
I'm going to order some steel Warne bases or Weaver Grand Slams and trash the aluminum ones. If that doesn't fix it, I'll have better bases anyway. Then I'll have to order some 20+ offsets. | |||
|
| One of Us |
First, get a 12" stainless machinist's ruler. Second, take everything off the top of the action. Third, place the ruler on top of the action and see if the two halves are even. Mine were not and the rear part needed .007" of shims to even out. Fourth, install the bases. Check them for squareness with the ruler. Check on top and on the sides. If they ain't square, your rings whon't be either. | |||
|
| one of us |
Super duper bases aren't going to fix anything. You may as well be throwing your money out the window. Do as Ralph says, he is very infromed on these things. -Spencer | |||
|
| one of us |
Thanks, I'll do the ruler thing and see how it works out. It doesn't have to be perfect, just close enough that I don't have to use all my windage to get it zeroed in. I'll probably get some better bases anyway, I had these laying around and allowed me to start shooting while I order some steel ones. Not that much money, less than $20 for a one-time investment. I don't know why I didn't think of the ruler test anyway. I was just wondering if this type of thing was common or do I just have bad luck. | |||
|
| one of us |
Not very common at all on factory rifles. I've seen it on sporterized military guns, you hold a ruler through the rear two holes and they are 3/8" off to one side on the front holes. Sometimes you might try, if a 2-piece set up, reversing one of the bases, works sometimes. -Spencer | |||
|
| One of Us |
So how well does this ruler-gag work if the holes are in line with each other but not in line with the bore?  | |||
|
| One of Us |
The ruler is used to determine whether the bases are square with eachother, so the rings can align with eachother, so the scope does not get torqued. If the scope gets torqued, it will not zero properly, and you will have to use more windage and elevation than necessary. Bases have holes. The holes are generous to compensate for receiver holes that are not perfectly in-line with the bore. Onced you have the base height square, with or without shims, you place the ruler on the sides of the bases to square them horizontally. There should be enough hole in the bases to do this even if the receiver holes are off. Torque everything down, check for squareness again, and proceed to the rings. If your receiver holes are so much off, that your scope points away from your muzzle, it is time to upgrade to a larger hole, like the 8-40 size. This will require a trip to a decent gunsmith. | |||
|
| one of us |
I've never tried to square up the bases before, I didn't think there was enough play in the screw holes, but I'll sure give it a try. Thanks for all of the help for a novice. Pretty much everything I know, I learned it from someone here. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Perhaps I use better bases...but the heads on all of my base screws are a perfect fit for the recessed holes in the base[s] and do not allow movement once they are snugged up. | |||
|
| new member |
justin B, I shoot savages as well,with scopes.I take them to a friend of mine who is a gun smith.He checks the bases to make sure they are square,never had a problem with that so far.Then he makes sure they are level,sometimes you might have to use a shim on one end or the other.But what most people don:t know is that the scope rings usally have high spots ,which will make your gun shoot off.He uses a sanding paste in the saddles.rubs it in then uses a steel shaft with a handle the same size as your scope ,sits it in the saddles and goes back and forth.When you lift out the shaft you can see where the high spots are,then you just keep sanding until you get them level.The best rings we find to be consistant are simmons.Hes mounted every thing from weaver to leopoulds and they all usally have high spots. Big Coulee | |||
|
| One of Us |
You adjust the position of the bases prior to snugging them up. Talleys, for example, allow about +/- .010" of lateral movement. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You can move the base around all you want to when the screws aren’t tightened down but unless you have a sloppy fit of the screw head in its recess the base is going to automatically realign itself (or try to and get placed in a bind) when you tighten the screws down. Hey, if your methods work for you that’s great. | |||
|
| One of Us |
What bases are you referring to? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Unertl, Badger, Leupold. | |||
|
| One of Us |
There is enough slack to adjust the Leupold bases. The badgers are one-piece. | |||
|
| One of Us |
My Unertl base is also one piece but I fail to see how that fits the discussion about slop in the screw head recesses of bases, or moving a part with a radiused bottom sideways and still retaining a level flat top. If the mating surfaces between the receiver and the base[s] was flat I might buy your argument...but they aren’t. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You are assuming that the top surface of your rifle mates perfectly with the bottom surface of the base. It seldom does on factory rifles. I have three Remingtons and one Savage, Not one has a perfect mounting surface. I can wiggle the bases enough to square them. The Savage, for example, has a slight radius lengthwise from the recoil lug to the bolt. The redius is most pronounced between the two rear receiver holes. it goes from .002" to .007", requiring a two-step shim. It was caused by overly aggressive polishing. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ralph, I machine bases with a fly cutter to fit the individual receiver that they will be used on so your assumption is incorrect...at least for the way I install bases on rifles. If your bases have that much slop in them they they are not a good match for the rifle and should be fixed. Otherwise why have the radius there at all? My point was (and is) that if the base, with a radius cut on the mating surface, can be moved side to side you are going to end up with a less than stable and level base...which to me is a pretty silly way to mount a scope on a rifle. Just my opinion...use whatever works for you. | |||
|
one of us |
I just mounted Weaver bases on a Savage112, I used the Weaver rings. The first shot was off 3in to the right and 2in down, at 100 yds. I'm very happy. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I’ve just always viewed scope mounting as a procedure that requires a bit more precision than merely taking parts out of a box and screwing them onto the rifle and then sticking the scope in the rings and tightening down the caps. If the latter works for some people so be it...I’ll stick to the way I do it. | |||
|
| one of us |
I'll definitely post a response when my new bases come in this weekend. I was hoping that the burris zee rings would aleviate the ring lapping issue. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Rick, Being familiar with convex/concave surfaces, you must understand that even if you mate your bases perfectly to your receiver, if the receiver holes are not perfectly in line, your perfect surfaces will not mate correctly once torqued down, soooo there.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ralph, You have just confirmed my original premise...and contradicted your own! My point, from the start, was to first assure that the mounting holes in the receiver were in fact at TDC and in line with each other and the bore of the weapon. You then countered that by insinuating that this didn’t matter because you could use a “ruler†and the slop in the bases to compensate for it. Now you seem to be going the other way...make up your mind. | |||
|
one of us |
Justin, I think the easiest fix would be to buy some Leupie Bases w/ the windage adjustable rear base and ring. You can install the bases, install front ring, and then just lightly install the rear ring. Center your windage adjustment and use a bore sighter or look down the bore and adjust the rear ring until you are centered. Then, tighten everything up, sight her in, and you are good to go. Reloader | |||
|
| one of us |
After reading multiple posts about windage bases, I decided to not use them. As a matter of fact, I am in the process of removing them from my rifles and replacing with a weaver type setup. | |||
|
| One of Us |
No Rick, Please show where I said that mouning hole position "did not matter." YOU said that the holes in the bases were too tight to adjust. I disagreed. The fact of the matter is that the top of the receiver is seldom true. The bottom of the base is seldom true. AND, most bases have loose enough holes to adjust for squareness. Some people go as far as bedding the bases to compensate for the mismatch. It is better than spinning the receiver on a lathe. If you flycut the bottom of your bases to what you believe will match the top of your receiver, then you will still have a mismatch if the receiver holes are off. Receiver holes are always off. The degree of misalignment is what we want to compensate for. Now, if you pay enough money, you'll get better made stuff. Nothing comes for free. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ralph, Why don’t we just agree to disagree? I don’t “guess†at what the radius of the receiver is I true it if it needs it and then I make a pattern of it from wooden block and epoxy and use that pattern to index the fly cutter to cut the base[s]. Before I do this I have already checked and/or corrected the alignment of the holes with an indexing plate I made that attaches to my Forster Sight/scope mounting fixture. That fixture assures that the holes will be in alignment with each other and the bore. The holes are also indexed directly off of the holes in the base[s]. All my Remingtons are clip slotted and I use nothing but Unertl or Badger bottom lugged bases so there is absolutely no way for the base to move fore and aft or side to side...screws or no screws. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Then we were comparing apples to oranges. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Funny...I thought we were discussing the “proper†way to accurately attach scope bases to a rifle so as to provide a solid platform for the scope that places the centerline of the scope where it coincides with the centerline of the bore. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Most people are not going to blueprint their rifle. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ralph, I don’t disagree with that...but nonetheless, to get the best possible performance from optics I believe that it is worth the time and effort to make sure that the mounting platform for the scope be as close to a natural part of the rifle as I can make it...so that’s what I try to do with the tools, machinery, and skills that I have available to me. I occasionally mount scopes for other people also but since I don’t rely on gun work to pay my bills I can refuse jobs where the customer doesn’t share my views. That’s why they have chocolate and vanilla!  | |||
|
| one of us |
I don't know why they've recieved bad raps by a few folks, they are very fine bases. I've seen them on many target style rifles and personally prefer them over even steel weaver style bases. Steel Windage bases are very sturdy bases when installed properly, much more sturdy than just about all of the aluminum bases IMO. In your situation it would be a very inexpensive fix. Good Luck Reloader | |||
|
| one of us |
After doing the ruler test, it appears my bases were bad. I replaced them with a set of warne steel bases and everything seems to line-up better according to the ruler. I haven't had the chance to bore sight it yet, not enough room in the house since I use the old "look down the barrel" routine for boresighting. | |||
|
one of us |
On my Savage I use a one piece picatinny base from Ken Farrell. No problems, and multiple mounting positions. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Optics Question about scope mounting????
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia