Question for all of the gun builders

[bowhunter1661]

For your builds, do you choose aluminum or steel rings and bases? Also can you explain why you make the decision to use one or the other. I am currently building my first 700 SML (first rifle all together as well) and am having a difficult time deciding between steel and aluminum. Obviously alum will save Weight, but is steel really that much stronger to justify? I don't really want a heavy gun because I will be using it for tree stand hunting here in IL and out west in NM. Also I would like to try some Stiffer loads. Like 75-78 gr IMR4198. This is the setup I have so far on my gun.

Rem 700 ML ACTION
26"pacnor with savage mod. Breach plug
B&C A1 varmint stock with bedding block
6.5-20x44 vortex viper

I was thinking,

TPS 20 MOA aluminum picatini base bedded
TPS "SL" 30mm aluminum rings

I do currently have in my possession a warne 1 piece steel 20 MOA picatini base and one vortex 30mm tactical ring. (Only one in stock at midway). Just not sure if I want to use them or return them

[fishhawk]

For tree stand hunting you might want a lower power (lighter) scope. The 6.5-20 is way more than needed there but should be fine for open country shots. The only way I would use aluminum is with tactical width rings that spread out the force. All my ml's have steel or titanium bases and rings. You would only need 20moa bases if you expect shots over 500yds.

[10ga]

Aug 21, 2014 14:35:45 GMT -5 bowhunter1661 said:

Also I would like to try some Stiffer loads. Like 75-78 gr IMR4198.

This calls for steel all the way. Even ordinary loads in SML can test bases/rings/scopes. 10 ga

[Deleted]

I'm not a builder but my zeiss 6.5x20 instruction manual highly suggested to use a 20 MOA base.....On lower power scopes it suggested 0 moa base...From other post ...most say steel on steel ...steel base aluminum rings ...or aluminum on aluminum....Mainly stay away from aluminum base with steel rings because the steel will cut into the aluminum.....

[hankinsrfls]

Use the Warne base you have. (Steel)... The week link is in the metal that is left at the bottom of the counter bore hole that holds the base to the action. This amount on most bases is .050 to .075 thick and if you get your rifle and scope in a bind or constant pounding from recoil can and will cause your base to come loose. I just weighed an Warne long action base 4.4 OZ. and a Weaver Long action aluminum weight is 2.2 so the steel is twice as heavy but what's two ounces on a 10 pound rifle.
Rings.. Use Vortex Precision matched rings 30mm Medium. You will not have any problems with this set up. Stay away from cheap rings with the little 1/8 cross bolt. These type rings will not hold up to what you will be subjection them too. Jeff.

[linebaugh]

I use aluminum Talley one piece on nearly everything I own and build. I don't build for money, only friends, so just a few builds a year. I epoxy bed my mounts regardless and I lap my rings also. Never a failure. I like the one piece talleys because they eliminate one more point of movement and failure at the mount/ring interface.
I think they are made of 7075 aluminum (could be wrong) which is about the same strength as mild steel.

The warne rings you have will work. I have a set of those on something? and a second set in the plastic clam. They are heavy duty.

[Deleted]

for a really light gun, (around 8 lbs naked) use a good quality aluminum, by good quality I mean 7075 and cnc machined but if you go aluminum do good aluminum rings as well, TPS, nightforce etc. do not use a base that has a groove machined down the center of the base as this weakens the base considerably. Farrell also makes a good alum base as well as Talley (likely the cheapest). I have 7075 base and rings on a gun or two and they do fine as long as torque gets checked from time to time and they don't get loose. the key is to use quality stuff If you go with aluminum.

for the average gun steel is the way to go, either Murphy SS, Farrell etc, again cnc machined and full cross slots. always bed a good base to the action, If its really good quality along with the rings there is no need to lap the rings. I think as far as function goes Farrell is my favorite BUT they are heavy and will rust if not oiled regularly. normally I have mine Teflon coated when I send stuff out.

normally I use leupold QRW and PRW rings and for the money I think they are hard to beat. they hold good, look good and don't break the bank. I have used just about everything out there in the base and ring world including some very high end stuff, Near, Badger Ordinance, NightForce and so on but there is no need to break the bank to get good quality stuff..

[rambler]

Aug 21, 2014 16:17:42 GMT -5 @hillbill said:

for a really light gun, (around 8 lbs naked) use a good quality aluminum, by good quality I mean 7075 and cnc machined but if you go aluminum do good aluminum rings as well, TPS, nightforce etc. do not use a base that has a groove machined down the center of the base as this weakens the base considerably. Farrell also makes a good alum base as well as Talley (likely the cheapest). I have 7075 base and rings on a gun or two and they do fine as long as torque gets checked from time to time and they don't get loose. the key is to use quality stuff If you go with aluminum.

for the average gun steel is the way to go, either Murphy SS, Farrell etc, again cnc machined and full cross slots. always bed a good base to the action, If its really good quality along with the rings there is no need to lap the rings. I think as far as function goes Farrell is my favorite BUT they are heavy and will rust if not oiled regularly. normally I have mine Teflon coated when I send stuff out.

normally I use leupold QRW and PRW rings and for the money I think they are hard to beat. they hold good, look good and don't break the bank. I have used just about everything out there in the base and ring world including some very high end stuff, Near, Badger Ordinance, NightForce and so on but there is no need to break the bank to get good quality stuff..

Would you consider Warne steel scope mounts to be quality?

[Deleted]

They have been used by many here in the past....

[12ptdroptine]

I have used Warne for years bases and rings, heavy but have never failed me. I bought the Leupold QRW this time and like them as well...less bulky and lighter. But as others have said. These guns produce destructive recoil so IMO the sturdier the better. I have used aluminum rings and bases on other guns in the past and seen shiny spots as I removed them for one reason or another....after that I shy away from them when possible

[rambler]

Aug 21, 2014 18:26:57 GMT -5 12ptdroptine said:

I have used Warne for years bases and rings, heavy but have never failed me. I bought the Leupold QRW this time and like them as well...less bulky and lighter. But as others have said. These guns produce destructive recoil so IMO the sturdier the better. I have used aluminum rings and bases on other guns in the past and seen shiny spots as I removed them for one reason or another....after that I shy away from them when possible

Thanks for the advice drop.... got me a one piece Warne steel scope mount shipping my way.    

[bowhunter1661]

Thank you everyone for the advice! I am going to stay with my warne tactical picatini base. However I am considering using the TPS steel rings. I have been told that the Super low work up to 44 mm pdjective. Anyone have any experience? I like to have my lense as close to the barrel as possible.

[12ptdroptine]

You're very welcome. Glad to be of assistance

[bowhunter1661]

I think I changed my mind on the rings as well. After looking at the scope, I think I will prefer the larger gripping surface of the vortex rings over the TPS. Also I am going to go with Hankins recommendation and go with the precision match vortex rings. I think I will be much happier in the long run.

And Fishhawk, I was thinking the same exact thing when I bought the 6.5, however after reading review after review lots of people stated never having an issue aquiring their targets when at closer range. Also I should have described my deer hunting in IL better. I don't hunt the timber much during gun season. If I do I hunt out of our ladder stands in tree lines, along the edge of fields or in our box blind. So I am hoping the higher power does not hurt. I do plan on giving my best shot at longer ranges, 500-800 yds. Also before variable power scopes, 6, 8, and 10 power fixed scopes weren't out of the norm.

[Richard]

When I build a gun for someone, I recommend a steel base and steel or the tactical type (6 screws per ring) aluminum rings. That being said, on my own rifle which now has almost 3,000 shots thru it, I have used the Millet one piece Picatinny base along with the Burris Tactical Aluminum rings. I not only bed the base to the action, but I also bed the cross pins from the rings to the groves in the base. This allows NO movement. Its the beating of the cross pins against the groves that cause damage and subsequent shift in the scope. I have also added star washers behind those 1/2" nuts that tighten the rings to the base. They did loosen up once on me.
Richard

[hankinsrfls]

Aug 21, 2014 20:22:49 GMT -5 bowhunter1661 said:

I think I changed my mind on the rings as well. After looking at the scope, I think I will prefer the larger gripping surface of the vortex rings over the TPS. Also I am going to go with Hankins recommendation and go with the precision match vortex rings. I think I will be much happier in the long run.

And Fishhawk, I was thinking the same exact thing when I bought the 6.5, however after reading review after review lots of people stated never having an issue aquiring their targets when at closer range. Also I should have described my deer hunting in IL better. I don't hunt the timber much during gun season. If I do I hunt out of our ladder stands in tree lines, along the edge of fields or in our box blind. So I am hoping the higher power does not hurt. I do plan on giving my best shot at longer ranges, 500-800 yds. Also before variable power scopes, 6, 8, and 10 power fixed scopes weren't out of the norm.

 You will be very happy with those rings, I use about 50 sets a year... along with the Warne base... Buy them by the box full.

 IMO..... A good shooter/hunter that knows his rifle,, Should be able to shoulder it, point it at the target 50 yards away , drop his head down, look through the scope set on 6.5 or 8 power and be on the target.  If you can't do this then you should practice it with out shooting.....  Just shoulder, look, and see where you are at..do this until you can find a paper plate in the scope every time just by pointing it. Quick acquisition is critical when hunting rutting bucks in the woods. You don't need a 4 power or a red dot scope if you are familiar with your rifle. Jeff.

[7mmmag]

I will give a vote for the TPS Products . I use it on all my rifles and I have never been let down good luck . Look at Leupold with CDS Dial they will match it to your ballistics .

[rossman40]

Warne, Murphy or Farrell bases are my favorites. The EGW HD line in steel is another.

As far as rings I like the Signature Zees but when you use a picatinny rail I like to use picatinny rings. On a weaver style mount the cross slots are .150-.180 wide so rings for use on a weaver style have a cross bolt or recoil lug that is like .140. On a picatinny the cross slots are like .204 so rings for use on a picatinny will have a .190-.200 cross bolt or recoil lug. TPS makes great rings (I was told they make the Vortex rings) but I have found the Weaver Tacticals to be cheaper. You can choose 4 hole or 6 but if you want the picatinny style you want the ones with a part number that start with 99. Since Burris moved production of their rings to China the XTRs QC sucks.

The side screw/s only holds the ring to the base, the cross bolt or lug takes the recoil. You can not tighten the side screw/s enough to prevent it from moving 100% on a heavy kicker. If you get too much play and/or your rings get loose you can run into what is called "slamming" the scope, which will kill any scope quickly. During install you always want to push the rings forward on the mount. Use of a quality one-piece base and quality rings you usually do not have to lap the rings but it never hurts to check. Dropping a scope into lapped rings, it's just like they suck together for a solid fit even before you tighten the caps.

[rambler]

Aug 23, 2014 9:21:59 GMT -5 rossman40 said:

Warne, Murphy or Farrell bases are my favorites. The EGW HD line in steel is another.

As far as rings I like the Signature Zees but when you use a picatinny rail I like to use picatinny rings. On a weaver style mount the cross slots are .150-.180 wide so rings for use on a weaver style have a cross bolt or recoil lug that is like .140. On a picatinny the cross slots are like .204 so rings for use on a picatinny will have a .190-.200 cross bolt or recoil lug. TPS makes great rings (I was told they make the Vortex rings) but I have found the Weaver Tacticals to be cheaper. You can choose 4 hole or 6 but if you want the picatinny style you want the ones with a part number that start with 99. Since Burris moved production of their rings to China the XTRs QC sucks.

The side screw/s only holds the ring to the base, the cross bolt or lug takes the recoil. You can not tighten the side screw/s enough to prevent it from moving 100% on a heavy kicker. If you get too much play and/or your rings get loose you can run into what is called "slamming" the scope, which will kill any scope quickly. During install you always want to push the rings forward on the mount. Use of a quality one-piece base and quality rings you usually do not have to lap the rings but it never hurts to check. Dropping a scope into lapped rings, it's just like they suck together for a solid fit even before you tighten the caps.

Very good info!