Hey guys...its been a while. I just bought a new rifle from our very own Biebs (Weatherby Mark V DGR in .458 Win)...and I'm waiting for it to arrive.

I intend to put a low power scope with QD mount on the gun and I have a question. Currently I have a Trijicon Accupoint 1-4x24 on an AR-15 in an awesome QD mount made by Bobro Engineering...and I'm contemplating getting a picatinny rail base and using it on the 458. Here is a link to the mount specs: http://www.bobroengineering.com/view/product/7/

The main concern I have is that this mount only has one "purchase point" instead of two....(meaning it only has one picatinny/weaver style clamp on the rail)...and I'm wondering if that will be strong enough to hold zero with a heavy recoiling rifle.

What are yall's thoughts?

What does the manufacturer say? If they say it is ok, I might give it a try. $235.00 is pricy for a system that won't work though.

Wade, Weatherby Mark V rifles use Remington bases as I recall, so the options are wide open.

The heavier the scope, the greater the inertia under recoil.

That said, that Bobro mount has a LOT of contact with the base. Oddly, it doesn't state how many slots it engages (or how long it is so you can estimate that).

If it engages three or more slots, I think it will stay on the rail.

George

I always have guns 375 and up base screws opened up to 8/40. If it was my gun, I would use Talley bases opened to 8/40 with Talley detachable rings and have about $150 total invested.

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
Wade, Weatherby Mark V rifles use Remington bases as I recall, so the options are wide open.

That was the case but not since they were made back in the US of A...about mid 90s.

The contour and hole spacing is the same but the Rem 700 rear base is about 20 thou low. In other words the rear base needs a shim under it. I believe the reason is there was a fuck up with the Japanese translation and as a result the rear receiver ring is thinner than before.

Also the rear screws are quite ab bit longer as the rear receiver ring on the Mark V is a fair bit thinner than the Rem 700 because of the full diameter bolt.

However, if you look up companies like Leupold, Tallet etc. this list bases specifically for the Mark V.

I have always been told that one piece bridge mount type bases are stronger than two piece bases.
I have two piece Tally's on my 458 Browning Safari that have given me no issues and I load up heavy charges. The Browning is a light factory 458 so there is some steam in the recoil.
A reason I like the two piece bases is that when walking in the front of a team or by myself I sometimes use the scope as a carry handle. Cannot do that with a bridge mount.

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
I have always been told that one piece bridge mount type bases are stronger than two piece bases.

That premise is arguable if the mount uses all four receiver screw holes. Many of the older bridge mounts only used three holes. However, the main points of failure are sheared screws, not the base itself.

George

quote:

Originally posted by LJS:
I always have guns 375 and up base screws opened up to 8/40. If it was my gun, I would use Talley bases opened to 8/40 with Talley detachable rings and have about $150 total invested.

This is what I too would advise.
and-
I use the Bobros on most of my tactical rifles.

IF you are going to be switching back and forth to nightvision that is rail (picatinny)mounted, or perhaps a red-dot then - yes the bobro will be faster.
Not necessarily better

A 458 win is usually considered a DGR. I want all the room I can get when trying to re-load a DGR in a hurry. I would be concerned with the picatinny rail impeding stuffing of rounds into the magazine when the going gets hot.

I would not try it. One cross slot cannot possibly have the strength and repeatability of a double locking cross slot.
Sort of like the early shootaway use of one Ruger ring on his RSM .458 Lott.

I believe I proved what Mike is saying about the need to shim the rear bridge by 20-thou if you want to use the Rem 700 bases.
I used 3 thicknesses of 0.007" and that worked well.
The bases are Leupold Mark 4 for Rem 700, wonderful, and made to do on the Weatherby Mark V.
They use 8x40 screws and are glued-on with JB Weld epoxy also, for a .510/.338 Lapua Magnum Improved:













BTW, I have a set of Talley QD Lever rings and bases for the above rifle, but prefer the "no-name" rings above, 4 of them, with tops held on by 16 screws,
and 4 coin-slotted nuts holding the rings to the now virtually integral bases,
since the rifle is for the .510/.338LMI cartridge below, a "500 Bateleur":



If you want a one-piece Picatinny rail, I ken there are plenty of those available.
I am really impressed with the Warne steel rails:

XXX

If a picture is worth a thousand words, an equation is surely worth a hundred.

Riflecrank Internationale Permanente
Pet Wildcat Certifying Authority
NRA Life Benefactor and Beneficiary
https://home.nra.org/

This:

quote:

Originally posted by LJS:
I always have guns 375 and up base screws opened up to 8/40. If it was my gun, I would use Talley bases opened to 8/40 with Talley detachable rings and have about $150 total invested.

and this:

quote:

Originally posted by Zephyr:
A 458 win is usually considered a DGR. I want all the room I can get when trying to re-load a DGR in a hurry. I would be concerned with the picatinny rail impeding stuffing of rounds into the magazine when the going gets hot.

That's how I would go.

Here is a Warne 20-MOA steel Picatinny rail, on a Weatherby Vanguard 6.5 Creedmoor (Howa short action):



Besides obstructing the loading port on a DGR from the top, a rail also adds height compared to most other bases.
The AR15-type QD lever base is usually pretty high in addition to the rail height issue.

Happily, I was able to use low 30 mm Burris Xtreme Tactical rings here. The bottom of the scope tube is only 0.250" above the top of the rail in this configuration.
Hard to get any lower with this particular scope.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, an equation is surely worth a hundred.

Riflecrank Internationale Permanente
Pet Wildcat Certifying Authority
NRA Life Benefactor and Beneficiary
https://home.nra.org/

I have a 460 Weatherby Magnum on which I use a Warne base (not a bridge mount) and Warne QD rings. Thus far the setup has worked fine.

This Griffin & Howe mount has been on my .458 for 56 years now, and is still solid as a rock:

Xausa:
Who stocked your rifle?
Years ago I had a .375 stocked by Shellhammer and it looked identical to yours. Also had a G&H mount on it.
Very nice looking rifle, yours.
Cal

Cal,

Thanks for the compliment. My rifle was stocked by Hal Hartley of Lenoir, NC. He stocked four bolt guns for me in all, three of which were DHT Springfields in 7mm Remington Magnum and .375/.338 (which is what we called the cartridge back then, having never heard of Chatfield-Taylor).

The fore end is too long for modern taste, but it looked fine to me in 1960. The 22" barrel emphasizes the length, I think. The 7mm RM has a 24" barrel, but the .375 is a 22" as well..

The long for end at first made me think of Shellhammer. Also, the comb and grip.
Cal

Something to bear in mind with opinions on mounts (and scopes) is one owner of a given rifle, scope and mounts might report that all is fine and has been that way for years and trouble free.

But give that same rifle to another shooter who might be very accuracy minded, perhaps he beds (or rebeds) and rebarrels or whatever and he takes it to the bench a lot and on paper. That shooters might find the scope/mounts have problems that were not apparent to the other owner.

Ive never had any problems with Talley or better yet an old set of Lynn Brownells QDs if you can find them..

I don't like the looks of Weaver type mounts and bases, and its hard to make them stay square in the rings or get them square in the rings, they seem turn with rough use is my experience..I use them on lighter rifles and they suit me fine there.