Scope mounting: Please pardon my ignorance...

[Panhandler80]

Thinking about a new scope, and potentially a new rifle to go with it. As I toss around ideas, a question popped up:

So I set up the gun on the right a few years ago. At the time, I was convinced that there was something to be gained by using the rail over the breech, and then clamping rings to it. I went high dollar with Badger on both compenents. As I look back, I can't seem to figure out what made me think that anything was gained. Perhaps it was necessary? Seems unlikely considering they are Rem 700 LA parts and a 44m scope.

Anyway, is there anything to be gained by adding this additional weight / cost / height, or would I be just as well off with a system like on the left, using something like the second picture directly into the reciever?

Your's truly,

He who hunts a lot and does very little gun tinkering / collection / buying, etc.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

One-piece scope mounts are definitely, without question, the only way to go. Two-piece mounts suck, big time.

 

[Panhandler80]

One-piece scope mounts are definitely, without question, the only way to go. Two-piece mounts suck, big time.

You mean like truly ONE Piece... as in rings that are integrated (part of) the rail that spans front to back? Techinically, what I have pictures is THREE pieces; rail and two rings. Simply clamping rings onto a rail (like I did) just seems like more opportunity for variance / failure. I guess the rail could help ensure rigidity, but that seems like a stretch.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

You mean like truly ONE Piece... as in rings that are integrated (part of) the rail that spans front to back?

I mean as in Redfield JR one-piece base. Hard to knock that off target, compared to two-piece mounts.

 

[KurtR]

One-piece scope mounts are definitely, without question, the only way to go. Two-piece mounts suck, big time.

Odd when every person who shoots precision rifle is running a rail and rings.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

The only time I have used a rail was to gain more clearance between scope and barrel. The scope I bought left almost no clearance so I got the rail mount. I could have exchanged scope, but I liked the one I got, so I got the rail.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Odd when every person who shoots precision rifle is running a rail and rings.

Oh well. Good for them, I guess. I don't.

 

[stormthelab20]

First thing that comes to my mind is that the rail overs an additional 20 moa negative scope angle to allow for long range advantage.

 

[WCB]

I have 1 piece multi slots on all my rifles like the picture on the right. Main reason is I can get the proper eye relief with them and what I think proper ring spacing on the scope tube. A lot of that can depend on firearm, scope mounting area and size of shooter/fit of the firearm. Rifles like Savages have really wide screw spacing and many newer scopes have short mounting areas. Two piece bases with rings or the 1pc rings like your bottom picture of virtually ZERO ability to accommodate different mounting positions. Same with one piece dovetail bases...think Redfield or Leupold. Your scope can only move so far forward or back and space between rings stays the same.

Height wise I try to get mine as low as possible and again a lot of that depends on fit of the rifle and achieving proper cheek weld. I will go out on a limb and say well over 50% of guys have their scopes mounted too high imo. This can be fixed/helped by adjustable cheek pieces or add ons.

I used to work for an optics and mounting company and by far #1 mounting issues were due to the problems I described above. couldn't move scope far enough back and if they did there was no room on the optic to put the rings.

Also, in my opinion if properly mounted chance of losing zero is VERY low anyways so I don't think in most scenarios one is really better than the other in that aspect. Again, quality manufacturer and proper installation.

 

[KurtR]

Oh well. Good for them, I guess. I don't.

You tried to act like one piece are superior which isnt the case as proven by people who shoot way more and use and abuse the rifle way more than shooting minute of pie plate every fall. Only place a one piece may win is in weight savings

 

[Mykolaivka887]

One-piece are superior, bro.

 

[Panhandler80]

I have 1 piece multi slots on all my rifles like the picture on the right. Main reason is I can get the proper eye relief with them and what I think proper ring spacing on the scope tube. A lot of that can depend on firearm, scope mounting area and size of shooter/fit of the firearm. Rifles like Savages have really wide screw spacing and many newer scopes have short mounting areas. Two piece bases with rings or the 1pc rings like your bottom picture of virtually ZERO ability to accommodate different mounting positions. Same with one piece dovetail bases...think Redfield or Leupold. Your scope can only move so far forward or back and space between rings stays the same.

Height wise I try to get mine as low as possible and again a lot of that depends on fit of the rifle and achieving proper cheek weld. I will go out on a limb and say well over 50% of guys have their scopes mounted too high imo. This can be fixed/helped by adjustable cheek pieces or add ons.

I used to work for an optics and mounting company and by far #1 mounting issues were due to the problems I described above. couldn't move scope far enough back and if they did there was no room on the optic to put the rings.

Also, in my opinion if properly mounted chance of losing zero is VERY low anyways so I don't think in most scenarios one is really better than the other in that aspect. Again, quality manufacturer and proper installation.

Aside from the initial question, I guess I'm a bit confused with what sounds like might just be terminology.

In my mind My Picture On Right, isn't one-piece, at all It's three. Rail, and two rings. Is that what folks are calling "1-piece" or are they talking about something that's truly ONE PIECE... like some of those AR platform sights that you see?

Ahhh... I htink I'm traking. Your staement, "I have 1 piece multi slots on all my rifles like the picture on the right." VS your statement, "Two piece bases with rings or the 1pc rings like your bottom picture of virtually ZERO ability to accommodate different mounting positions." Tells me that when folks are saying "one-piece" vs "two-piece" they are talkign about the bases. ONE base, VS TWO bases. That makes sense.

To your point about scope positioning, you can see on the rifle to the left that those rings just barely accomodated that scope. It worked 20 years ago, fit me great, has been through hell, and never lost zero. But obviously that might not be the case next time.

Thanks.

 

[Panhandler80]

You tried to act like one piece are superior which isnt the case as proven by people who shoot way more and use and abuse the rifle way more than shooting minute of pie plate every fall. Only place a one piece may win is in weight savings

Seems like a one piece base would ADD weight not save it. There's metal going from front to back that woudl otherwise be absent in the case of independent bases w/integtrated rings.

?????

 

[intunegp]

OP, just do this:

Scope mounting to maintain zero

After multiple requests for an explanation of how to mount a scope in order to have the lowest possibility of loss of zero, a discussion of a scope mounting video, and the latest thread about scope bases and action screw coming loose, I took some pics of what I do with a rifle when I get it and...

rokslide.com

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Seems like a one piece base would ADD weight not save it.

We're talking merely grams here, in difference.

 

[WCB]

Aside from the initial question, I guess I'm a bit confused with what sounds like might just be terminology.

In my mind My Picture On Right, isn't one-piece, at all It's three. Rail, and two rings. Is that what folks are calling "1-piece" or are they talking about something that's truly ONE PIECE... like some of those AR platform sights that you see?

Ahhh... I htink I'm traking. Your staement, "I have 1 piece multi slots on all my rifles like the picture on the right." VS your statement, "Two piece bases with rings or the 1pc rings like your bottom picture of virtually ZERO ability to accommodate different mounting positions." Tells me that when folks are saying "one-piece" vs "two-piece" they are talkign about the bases. ONE base, VS TWO bases. That makes sense.

To your point about scope positioning, you can see on the rifle to the left that those rings just barely accomodated that scope. It worked 20 years ago, fit me great, has been through hell, and never lost zero. But obviously that might not be the case next time.

Thanks.

MOST of the time 1pc vs 2pc is just the base. Then you get a set of rings to match the type of base you put on, tube diameter and needed clearance. The picture on the left you have would be "integrated rings" where the base and ring are integrated into "1pc" but you would by a "pair" of integrated rings based on your rifle. So technically you have a 2pc "mounting system".

As far as scope positioning... yes it can and does work for a lot of people. But in the last 20years scopes have trended to shorter mounting area. And again with firearm make, model, action, length, etc. They are definitely not a guarantee. Where as the correct 1pc. multi slot for the rifle I can mount virtually any scope, objective size, mounting area etc because ring position is not pre determined.

 

[Stalker69]

The only time I have used a rail was to gain more clearance between scope and barrel. The scope I bought left almost no clearance so I got the rail mount. I could have exchanged scope, but I liked the one I got, so I got the rail.

Why not get taller rings. Most make various height rings.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Why not get taller rings. Most make various height rings.

Definitely taller rings, if it's a clearance problem.

 

[Panhandler80]

One thing about the two piece bases... that gap between scope tube and top of action makes for a great hand hold.

Just ordered a new scope for the A-Bolt. Will continue to contemplate which way to go for bases. It's a 30mm tube, so I've got to do something new. That ol' Leupold is 1".

 

[intunegp]

One thing about the two piece bases... that gap between scope tube and top of action makes for a great hand hold.

Just ordered a new scope for the A-Bolt. Will continue to contemplate which way to go for bases. It's a 30mm tube, so I've got to do something new. That ol' Leupold is 1".

Please tell me you're not talking about using your scope like a carry handle...even if not, seems like a weird way to carry a rifle and I definitely wouldn't prioritize that when choosing a mount setup.