Adjustable Scope Bases/Rings for ELR

[jbone405]

I have been doing a lot research about adjustable scope bases/ rings. I have found a few different types and some input on these, and some that are pretty unknown. I just wanted to compile a list and any comment that might be applicable, or any that I might have overlooked, prices, available modifications, ect.

Ivey scope mounts
$700
175 moa
weight 2.5#
http://forum.accurateshooter.com/th...le-scope-mount-ring-set-now-shipping.3906792/

Era-tac
$500-625
70 moa
http://www.era-tac.de/attachments/article/124/10-11-era-tac_tactical-katalog4.pdf

Cold Shot MOAB
$400-500
150-300 moa
https://heritage-arms.com/product/m-o-a-b-300-minutes-of-angle-gen-4/

Aadland Aadmount 30mm select-A-Slope
$350
50 moa
http://shop.aadmount.com/30mm-Select-A-Slope-AADMOUNT-SAS30.htm

Warn AnglEye Rings
$290-350
90 moa
https://warnescopemounts.com/angleye-innovation-ends-long-range-shooting-conundrum/

Burris XTR Signature Zee rings
under $100
40 moa
https://www.burrisoptics.com/mounting-systems/rings/xtr-signature-rings

Barrett ExRings
$225
15-40 MOA
Not made anymore but available at optics planet.
https://www.opticsplanet.com/barret...-of-15-40-moa-30mm-1-6-inches-high-13319.html

Not really a base or rings.
Tacom Charlie Tarac
$1300
300 moa
https://www.tacomhq.com/products-charlie-tarac.html

 

[jbone405]

I forgot one I was going to add to the list, not really a base or ring but similar category.

Tacom Charlie Tarac
$1300
300 moa
https://www.tacomhq.com/products-charlie-tarac.html

 

[wi50]

Here's my take.
Adding this base adds room for play or tolerance to stack up. There's parts to come loose. The Ivy is good, but it's heavy and there's potential for failure. Friend had an issue, that's all I'm going to say, it was caught and corrected right away.

The rest of the adjustable bases I'd stay away from, they all seam to fail. The other problem is winding up looking at your barrel or brake after enough adjustment.

The Tacom is a good thing going, I hope. It's easily moved from one rifle to another. Once it's set and verified it is what it is weather it be 100 moa or 66 moa, whatever it is set at is what it is and where it's going to be. Nothing moving to fail. Don't adjust it, just leave it alone. If you adjust though it just takes time to verify what you set it at, it's not something that one would adjust without having the option to check, like adjusting during a match. It's downsides are weight, which may or may not be an issue. It has to be indexed, and now we are back to parts to come loose or fail. I'd take the tacom over an adjustable base.

Then there's the externally adjusted USO scopes. There's a few out there. The only downside is having to move your head more, custom cheek rest, and possiably having to mount higher to avoid looking at the barrel or brake when adjusted for your max range. However there just aren't many of these floating around. I've got one of these that I listed for sale. I like it. But I can do what I want to do without needing the adjustment range this thing has. Mine will do over 240 MOA of vertical and has 40 MOA of holdover in the reticle. The way it is built you can get a 100 yd zero if you are on an 80 moa base. Now the scope is zero'd and you have 240 moa of adjustment on the micrometer of elevation adjustment. Plus 40 moa in the reticle. The micrometer is 40 TPI so by setting the mount spacing you can get perfect 1/4 moa adjustments. If you were to change the distance between the mounts, you could get more elevation or less elevation, and the value of the click, or revolution would change.

I would buy an Ivy before any of the other bases. The Tacom, may be the answer to all the problems. The USO is a one stop solution. Figure out how much elevation you need and then come up with a plan.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

@AlloyTargets

 

[jbone405]

Here's my take.
Adding this base adds room for play or tolerance to stack up. The Tacom, may be the answer to all the problems. The USO is a one stop solution.

I don't disagree with you at all. Probably the best solution, in terms of rigidity, is to have scope bases made for the ranges you want to shoot. But more than anything I find this interesting and since I don't see anywhere else that has compiled a list comparing these and these things are used by some, I figured anybody with experience with any of them could comment.

I don't know why there can't be a base or rings that are as accurate and solid as scope turret adjustments. I guess the Ivey is probably close, but it is certainly not without its drawbacks.

I think an externally adjustable scope seems to be a good compromise, but I don't think I know of one currently produced unless USO still makes them.

 

[X-Caveman]

We’ll be making a 50moa Picatinny-to-Picatinny base very soon. If well received and there’s a market, we can add other angles (100MOA?). They will be machined from a single piece of billet (other than the clamps, of course).

I don’t have pricing yet, but I can safely say they’ll be a fraction of the price of the above listed options. Once I have something to show, i’ll create a thread here and we’ll ship a few out for field testing. Should be 4-5 weeks max.

Right now we are finishing up base plates for Sinclair competition rests and aluminum stock extensions for F-Open. These bases are next in line.

 

[LA50SHOOTER]

The old (now discontinued) Ivey Riser-Rail with the micrometer adjustment is / was a good option & I'm surprised Steve stopped making it.
0-150 moa - The down side is it's height if there is one. - Fits right on an existing Picatinny rail and has a precision adjustment to dial in additional elevation. - The cost was up there back when I purchased it ($650.00) but it provides a good solution & could be moved from gun to gun & it has a Picatinny top on it so moving scopes is also an option.



I look forward to your introduction of the 50moa Picatinny-to-Picatinny base at a fraction of the cost of some of the other options out there.

 

[jbone405]

We’ll be making a 50moa Picatinny-to-Picatinny base very soon. If well received and there’s a market, we can add other angles (100MOA?). They will be machined from a single piece of billet (other than the clamps, of course).

I saw that in the 2k elr match post,right after I posted this one. That really seems to be most economical, aka not over $1500, solutions out there. I would imagine the return to zero after mounting the rail and remounting the scope wouldn't be too far off. That sounds much better than making a 16ft tall target.

 

[jbone405]

The old (now discontinued0 Ivey Riser-Rail with the micrometer adjustment is / was a good option & I'm surprised Steve stopped making it.
0-150 moa - The down side is it's height if there is one.

Check the first link in the op.

 

[LA50SHOOTER]

Check the first link in the op.

Yeah - But Ivey doesn't sell the Riser Rail any more just the Rings...........

 

[wi50shooter]

The old (now discontinued) Ivey Riser-Rail with the micrometer adjustment is / was a good option & I'm surprised Steve stopped making it.
0-150 moa - The down side is it's height if there is one. - Fits right on an existing Picatinny rail and has a precision adjustment to dial in additional elevation. - The cost was up there back when I purchased it ($650.00) but it provides a good solution & could be moved from gun to gun & it has a Picatinny top on it so moving scopes is also an option.

View attachment 1036112

I look forward to your introduction of the 50moa Picatinny-to-Picatinny base at a fraction of the cost of some of the other options out there.

The reason Stephen quit making that base is because the two attachment points were independent from one another. That left quality control of other people's bases out of his control, at times certain bases would bind up the system. The new version of the Ivey has a solid bottom that is steel, this eliminates any freedom for binding, or twisting. His new system uses a adjustment knob to the side which is much more convenient to read and it also utilizes the extra lock knob/spring, which increases force in the pin/wedge to keep everything in place shot to shot. If you use some blue loctite on the front pin lock set screw and follow the instructions provided the Ivey is a great mount. Wi50 listed the downfalls spot on with the Ivey and any other mechanical base. Optical light bending is the only way to go from here on out. There is no room for error with elr and movable non rigid bases induce another variable of error to the equation.

I have and use the Ivey and the Charlie. The Ivey is on its way to a friend to use at this point. If that's worth any credit to the post...

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I will be waiting for the solid bases from alloy targets. Scope testing has made me run from anything with a point of possible movement. Even the charlie has moving parts. It may be the most convenient if you have to make changes. But the new ELR central record event and the E2K event we will plan to hold will be closer to fixed distance matches. For that I want a fixed base.

 

[jbone405]

While I think everyone would agree that fixed bases are the best currently availible, I would still like to have first hand experiences with any of these systems. I'm looking for more of a review based comments, exactly why you didn't like xyz product. Why something didn't live up to expectations and how means alot.

For example, someone commented on another post that the Cold Shot base was not repeatable, but it leaves me with the question "but is it accurate?" I assume that his problem was that when he dialed 137 moa and he got 134 one time and 147 the next time, but did it hold zero for every shot even though it was a different value every time he changed the dial? I'm a plinker, I go out on my lunch break just to see if my bullets will hit a sandy berm that day. It really doesn't matter if the first round is off if every consecutive one falls in the same group. Everybody has different needs.

I have seen more than a couple of these being used on various youtube video, but I don't think that tells the whole story and was interested in actual user feedback.

For all intents and purposes the Aadmount and Burris ring are really not much different than a fixed slope base. I have used Burris signature and for adding a little cant I don't feel like I am introducing much movement to the system. But I cannot say I have tested anything like you guys have.

Looking at it from a technical perspective, I just don't see why we can't make a base that tracks as well as a scope turret. Or externally adjustable rings, such as on a USO couldn't be made to be repeatable, accurate, and precise. Of course, other than the market segment is just too small to be profitable.

 

[wi50]

I'm looking for a solution for something here. The Barrett or the warne rings look to be it. They are not something to adjust during a course of fire and be repeated. But to adjust before an event and double check or re zero, they will work. However for the cost of them and the re check, hassle, I may as well just make or buy a custom base, it's done, there's no room for error. We've all got different needs/expectations.

 

[jbone405]

I'm looking for a solution for something here. The Barrett or the warne rings look to be it. They are not something to adjust during a course of fire and be repeated. But to adjust before an event and double check or re zero, they will work. However for the cost of them and the re check, hassle, I may as well just make or buy a custom base, it's done, there's no room for error. We've all got different needs/expectations.

I would think the Era-tac would be a good one too look at as well, if you didn't want to change bases. They seem to get a lot of good reports.

 

[craig429]

I have Era-tac on two rifles. I like them. They are very sturdy and well built. I haven't used them to change slopes between different ranges, so I can't comment on how repeatable they are after changing slopes. I use them so I can set my scopes to give me full MOA elevation gain. If I do the 2K elr match in the other post, I will most likely add more 30-40MOA slope and then recheck the zero. I am using them on 6.5 Creedmoor's so I don't have much recoil to deal that can shake the mounts apart.

 

[X-Caveman]

I just dropped off two of these at the Post Office to guys that agreed to test/ evaluate them. We should be no more than 3-4 weeks to going live with these. Zero, 50 & 100MOA will be the initial offerings.

 

[X-Caveman]

My Panda F-Class short now has a real Picatinny. Waiting on some low rings.

 

[jghoghunter]

The old (now discontinued) Ivey Riser-Rail with the micrometer adjustment is / was a good option & I'm surprised Steve stopped making it.
0-150 moa - The down side is it's height if there is one. - Fits right on an existing Picatinny rail and has a precision adjustment to dial in additional elevation. - The cost was up there back when I purchased it ($650.00) but it provides a good solution & could be moved from gun to gun & it has a Picatinny top on it so moving scopes is also an option.

View attachment 1036112

I look forward to your introduction of the 50moa Picatinny-to-Picatinny base at a fraction of the cost of some of the other options out there.

I used this mount to get to 3k yards prairie dog hunting. It worked great and returned to zero everytime. As long as I remembered to keep it tight it worked as advertised and it worked well. Quality was second to none.

 

[X-Caveman]

Alloy Rings,
You might want to forgo the low rings and move up to mediums or high. I am not sure the scope bell will clear the barrel with low rings.

Is this an adjustable mount or fixed 50/100moa? It appears to be a fixed mount. Also what is the reasoning for the height?

EJ

I just saw this post after we spoke, but in case others are interested...

Correct. These are fixed. The height is so the shooter can maintain the same posture/ head position when using any of the risers that i’m going to make. I envision (hope) some guys will have all of them and switch them out as required. I want the eye to be in about the same position with the zero as it will be with the 100. Draw it all out and they get pretty tall, zero being the tallest.