Pro's and Con's???
- Thread starter Thomass
- Start date
Spotcheck_Billy
I have a Stiller TAC300 action with one of Stillers aluminum 20MOA Picatinny bases. I've been using it since early spring and have swapped three different scopes with steel rings by three different manufacturers several times with no wear, scratches, etc. visible on the base. Always returned to zero when reinstalling scopes. This base was straight and true and when I checked the rings,the first set were Badger Ord.) no lapping was required. This one is definately good to go.
I recently visited with a friend who was mounting a Seekins aluminum Picatinny base on his M700 action when I arrived. This base is a work of art. Great fit and beautiful finish. I have no doubt that it'll do just as well as a high-end steel base. I originally had my doubts about using an aluminum base, but the quality ones are as good as anything on the market.
I recently visited with a friend who was mounting a Seekins aluminum Picatinny base on his M700 action when I arrived. This base is a work of art. Great fit and beautiful finish. I have no doubt that it'll do just as well as a high-end steel base. I originally had my doubts about using an aluminum base, but the quality ones are as good as anything on the market.
For a single shot action the alum base would be ok but unless you are trying to make weight I would go with the steel. For a magazine action I would go with steel and even better would be to upsize the mounting screws to the next bigger size. The steel base and stronger mounting screws would add considerable stiffness to a receiver with a magazine cutout.
I use the Farrell one piece steel bases on my Savage 112 single shots. They do need bedding to the action because the actions are polished by hand and therefore are inconsistent in their contours.
I use the Farrell one piece steel bases on my Savage 112 single shots. They do need bedding to the action because the actions are polished by hand and therefore are inconsistent in their contours.
Spotcheck_Billy
The concept of adding stiffness to a receiver by means of a bolt-on steel scope base is a myth!
The implication that someone will have any sound engineering knowledge about what they post on the internet is the only myth I see here.
Here is an article I found in a few minutes of searching. It will be surprising to some people how much clamping force 4 small screws are capable of exerting. The finer threads used in scope base mounting would increase this clamping force even more. Also, I would not be surprised to find that the material used in scope base screws has a higher PSI rating than the screws used in the study below.
http://facstaffwebs.umes.edu/eyilmaz/torase2k.pdf
Here is an article I found in a few minutes of searching. It will be surprising to some people how much clamping force 4 small screws are capable of exerting. The finer threads used in scope base mounting would increase this clamping force even more. Also, I would not be surprised to find that the material used in scope base screws has a higher PSI rating than the screws used in the study below.
http://facstaffwebs.umes.edu/eyilmaz/torase2k.pdf
Spotcheck_Billy
rayjay said:
Oh, and just where did you get your "sound engineering knowledge"? Could it be the internet article that you referenced? Are you an engineer or a rifle builder with actual knowledge of what you claim, or are you so egocentric that you must defend your poorly reasoned post by reaching for whatever drivel you can find that might vaguely support your hypothesis?
The installation of a one-piece scope base does not make an action any stiffer.
rayjay said:
Please post your support data please...
I didn't make any claims I just supplied some engineering data to back up the facts I stated. It's unfortunate that you know everything already and therefore have no need to read the supplied data. It basically says that four 6-32 screws provide a minimum of 1200 lbs of clamping force. Depending on the variables this force could be as high as 2000 lbs.
This amount of clamping force applied to a mount as stout and as tall as the steel Farrell cannot do anything but act as a brace for the receiver. The total rifle weight is only in the range of 10 to 20 lbs but the weight of the bbl hung off the end of the receiver has a significant cantilever effect on the receiver. This is one reason why a single shot, solid bottom receiver is desirable on a target rifle.
On a magazine receiver the only connection between the two receiver rings are the sidewalls of the receiver with the rh sidewall being of quite small cross section. This means that the leverage effect of the bbl on the front receiver ring will have a tendency to bend the front rec ring downward in relation to the rear rec ring. Since the sidewalls are not symmetrical there could also be a sideways vector in the deflection.
Adding a stout steel bridge across the top of the rec would be the natural means to minimize any deflections. An integral bridge would be the ideal solution but a bridge attached with threaded fasteners will still add significant stiffness.
This amount of clamping force applied to a mount as stout and as tall as the steel Farrell cannot do anything but act as a brace for the receiver. The total rifle weight is only in the range of 10 to 20 lbs but the weight of the bbl hung off the end of the receiver has a significant cantilever effect on the receiver. This is one reason why a single shot, solid bottom receiver is desirable on a target rifle.
On a magazine receiver the only connection between the two receiver rings are the sidewalls of the receiver with the rh sidewall being of quite small cross section. This means that the leverage effect of the bbl on the front receiver ring will have a tendency to bend the front rec ring downward in relation to the rear rec ring. Since the sidewalls are not symmetrical there could also be a sideways vector in the deflection.
Adding a stout steel bridge across the top of the rec would be the natural means to minimize any deflections. An integral bridge would be the ideal solution but a bridge attached with threaded fasteners will still add significant stiffness.
Spotcheck_Billy
rayjay said:
You seem to be quoting a whole lot of internet wisdom! Got any personal experience?
If the base and fastening screws will "twist a warped action" tell me why attaching a perfectly straight base to an action with an out of spec receiver ring and bridge will always bend the scope base,making it necessary to lap the rings) instead of pulling the action in line with the straight base?
Hint - don't believe everything you read on the net.
Spotcheck_Billy said:
Make the scope base stout enough and I am sure you could bend the rec to fit. Also there is the factor of the 4 mounting screws and the way they bear against the base. Usually one rec ring is higher or lower than the other. Due to the distance between the pairs of mounting screws being larger than the distance between one pair at either end it is natural for the base to be warped MORE than the amount that the reciever could be warped.
When you start mounting the scope it becomes apparent that the base is no longer true. Very few people would start checking the rec to see if it is also being twisted by the base.
You are the perfect example of your last statement. The only statement you have made that does not require any second thought to comply with.
This thread has lead me to create a new sig line.
Spotcheck_Billy
rayjay,
Why won't you answer the questions that I asked?
To repeat -
Are you an engineer or a rifle builder with actual knowledge of what you claim?
Why won't you do what Slowpoke requested and supply your support data?
Was I the one who posted links to websites in an attempt to prove his theory? That's your game, rajay. Not mine!
It appears that you are the one who is using what you read on the internet as the sole basis for defending what you've posted and when called on it you resort to the age-old tactic of attempting to deflect criticism back to me instead of providing a rational argument. I won't fall into your trap. If you won't answer my questions or provide the data that Slowpoke requested please consider our correspondence over and done. I've no more time for posers.
Why won't you answer the questions that I asked?
To repeat -
Are you an engineer or a rifle builder with actual knowledge of what you claim?
Why won't you do what Slowpoke requested and supply your support data?
Was I the one who posted links to websites in an attempt to prove his theory? That's your game, rajay. Not mine!
It appears that you are the one who is using what you read on the internet as the sole basis for defending what you've posted and when called on it you resort to the age-old tactic of attempting to deflect criticism back to me instead of providing a rational argument. I won't fall into your trap. If you won't answer my questions or provide the data that Slowpoke requested please consider our correspondence over and done. I've no more time for posers.
Umm, on post 7 I have a link to a University of Maryland study of the strength of small fasteners. Anyone with a lick of brains could read this data and come up with some sort of conclusion about the clamping force supplied by the small fasteners.
You on the other hand have posted nothing to support your position. You think you should just be able to post a statement and have it accepted as fact. It's funny you attack me personally instead of posting something constructive to prove your position. That is all you are capable of doing because your 'position' is an opinion that you probably read somewhere 50 years ago before something like a Farrell or Badger scope mount was even conceived of.
I would agree that something like a Leupold or Redfield 3 screw scope base would not add much strength to a receiver.
Here's some pics of the rifles I have built to shoot in BR events this year.
You on the other hand have posted nothing to support your position. You think you should just be able to post a statement and have it accepted as fact. It's funny you attack me personally instead of posting something constructive to prove your position. That is all you are capable of doing because your 'position' is an opinion that you probably read somewhere 50 years ago before something like a Farrell or Badger scope mount was even conceived of.
I would agree that something like a Leupold or Redfield 3 screw scope base would not add much strength to a receiver.
Here's some pics of the rifles I have built to shoot in BR events this year.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.