.

JustC, Tailgunner, and other benchrest guys...

n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
I have a question for you regarding scope bases. I realize many of you probably use custom bases/rings...or high end stuff, but I was curious how many of you would trust the Leupold standard bases with the windage adjustment.?.?

I had these on many of my rifles, but it seems to me as if that windage adj is a weak link. I just mounted another scope on a Sendero and I ordered in the dual dovetail bases this time. It seems as if the dual dovetail will make for a much more solid mount.

I'd appreciate ya'lls thoughts on the matter...[:)]

Comments

  • nononsensenononsense Member, Moderator Posts: 10,575 ******
    edited November -1
    ECC,

    The other folks must be busier than I am right now...

    I have used the 'windage adjustable' bases/rings combination for a long time, or so it seems. They are moderately successful for the amateur to put on and get decent results without a lot fooling around. I haven't noted any failures in the records that I've kept for the last 20 years or so.

    On the other hand, the turn-in or dual dovetails have failed and continue to fail repeatedly because of the cam wearing and then loosening up. I've seen folks try to weld, solder and pin those rings/bases so they wouldn't fail, but fail they will.

    Honestly, I would suggest using the Burris system or any of the better Picatinny rail/ring systems. These will allow for correcting the ring spacing in smaller moves than the other will. Some are just downright affordable while others are ridiculously overpriced. If you need referrals, let me know.

    Best.
  • JustCJustC Member, Moderator Posts: 16,036 ******
    edited November -1
    get a picatinny rail and bases with cross-bars. For not a lot more than the leupy, you can get Warne rings and bases that are solid as a rock.
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,599
    edited November -1
    Farrell base (20 MOA for LR) and Burris "Z" rings. The Warnes are solid too.

    I know the trend is toward aluminum. Which I don't understand. It expands and contracts three times more than steel does. Which is why I prefer steel. Maybe I'm just old fashioned and can't change my ways.

    Also, bed the bases on the rifle. Unless you have, or know someone who has, the ability to machine them within .0001's

    As nononsense said the weak link on the Leupold style bases isn't the windage it's the front pivot. The pivot is designed to allow the front base to center to the rear base. But, in doing that there is nothing more than friction holding it. A lot of shooting in dirty environments will wear that connection prematurely. The picatinny, or weaver style, base has a mechanical hold as opposed to friction. You can get front and rear windage rings.

    You also need to lap in the rings where they are set or use inserts. The very slight offset of the rings causes side pressures within the scope. Adjustments within the scope can then be untrue (going L/R when you dial 'up') or unrepeatable.
  • JustCJustC Member, Moderator Posts: 16,036 ******
    edited November -1
    $250 will get you rings and bases within .0001"
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by JustC
    $250 will get you rings and bases within .0001"





    ...that's a LOT of $$$ for rings and bases. Thank you for the information Gentlemen! I just got another edumacation.

    Like I said, I had been using their standard bases with the windage adjustment. I just figured the dual dovetails would be more solid. I was wrong again. [:I]

    I will look into the Burris rings. I've never been a fan of the Weaver style "look"...but it is functionality that I'm looking for. NN, I would greatly appreciate your referrals of affordably priced rings and bases...that are a quality product.

    Thank you all for weighing in on this...there is still a wealth of information here on GB. [:)][8D]
  • FrancFFrancF Member, Moderator Posts: 35,278 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ECC
    quote:Originally posted by JustC
    $250 will get you rings and bases within .0001"





    ...that's a LOT of $$$ for rings and bases. Thank you for the information Gentlemen! I just got another edumacation.

    Like I said, I had been using their standard bases with the windage adjustment. I just figured the dual dovetails would be more solid. I was wrong again. [:I]

    I will look into the Burris rings. I've never been a fan of the Weaver style "look"...but it is functionality that I'm looking for. NN, I would greatly appreciate your referrals of affordably priced rings and bases...that are a quality product.

    Thank you all for weighing in on this...there is still a wealth of information here on GB. [:)][8D]


    That's about what I paid for my rings and a 20 MOA Base (NXS). Lapping was nil.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by FrancF
    quote:Originally posted by ECC
    quote:Originally posted by JustC
    $250 will get you rings and bases within .0001"





    ...that's a LOT of $$$ for rings and bases. Thank you for the information Gentlemen! I just got another edumacation.

    Like I said, I had been using their standard bases with the windage adjustment. I just figured the dual dovetails would be more solid. I was wrong again. [:I]

    I will look into the Burris rings. I've never been a fan of the Weaver style "look"...but it is functionality that I'm looking for. NN, I would greatly appreciate your referrals of affordably priced rings and bases...that are a quality product.

    Thank you all for weighing in on this...there is still a wealth of information here on GB. [:)][8D]


    That's about what I paid for my rings and a 20 MOA Base (NXS). Lapping was nil.



    I do lap my rings, but I've never lapped my bases.
  • JustCJustC Member, Moderator Posts: 16,036 ******
    edited November -1
    Warne and Farrell are cheaper than most tactical rings/bases, with almost as much "meat" to them.
Sign In or Register to comment.