Aluminum Weaver 46 Bases (picture added)

[swampman]

Has anyone used them with sucess? I hate to have to special order bases, and I've never had a problem with aluminum bases on my other rifles.

[smokeeter]

I know alot of guys frown on the aluminum bases. I have them on two of my savages with zero issues

[jeff]

I've used aluminum for 9 years on all my ml2's but one, couldn't tell the difference.
Jeff~

[ozark]

I have mounted many without issues. However, if I had the steel bases available I would use them simply because so many feel they are better. I see the steel reccomended but haven't heard much of the others failing. In fact, none.

[bigmoose]

I have Leupold QD mounts and rings on both my Savages,They have preformed perfectly. I would highly recommend them.

[boarhog]

I was using the steel Weaver Grand Slam rings on steel bases. Bases are fine, but I had 2 screws on the rings strip out in the ring itself. I don't believe that they were over tightened, because I used the Wheeler torque doodad set at the recommended in. lbs. The same setting I have used on several brands of aluminum rings. I have switched to Burris Signature rings now. Guess we'll see how that holds up.

[Jon]

Boarhog. Let us know how the Burris Signature rings hold up for you That is what I've been using but I sure would appreciate other opinions positive or negative.
Jon

[swampman]

I really like the Burris Zee Rings

[rossman40]

With the recoil of the 10ML, aluminum bases in my experience has been if they come slightest bit loose they will be pounded to crap, even more so if you do not have a full width cross slot. Your much better off going with Warne or Weaver Grand Slams.

[herman]

I have used the burris signature rings on all my rifles for years without any problems at all.On my savage muzzleloaders (50 cal) I have had the heavy recoil to strip out where the side screws attach the back ring useing a leupold steel base so have switched to burris bases on my muzzleloaders.Haven't had a problem with them so far.

[spaniel]

Aug 8, 2010 7:33:46 GMT -5 herman said:

I have used the burris signature rings on all my rifles for years without any problems at all.

+1, everything I have with a scope wears Burris Signature rights. I use the inserts to cant the scope for more dial travel.

[robertb]

I decided to go with Burris XTB weaver style steel bases. These are made of steel and offer several different positions picatinny style:



Those couple with Leupold QRW rings should be the ticket to moving the scope around should I need open sights. I hope recoil doesn't pose an issue. The Leupold QRW rings looked to be a better built product than the Burris quick release rings.

Leupold QRW rings:

[rossman40]

The QRWs are nice and I use them but here is the problem I had with them using aluminum mounts. I had a ATV accident which took out my 2-7X32 scope and mounts, the only mounts in town were aluminum Weavers. So I put a 3-9X40 3200 on with medium QRWs. Some models of the QRWs use a recoil lug instead of the cross bolt. After about 50 shots (fairly hot) things went south. Because of the relief cut in the mounts it pounded the recoil lugs to the point they were bent. I called Leupold and they sent me new ones right away and I ordered a set of Warne mounts. Luckly I think I caught it before scope damage, the scope is now a back-up.





Robertb, You have to remember your mixing picatinny style bases with weaver style rings. The cross slots on the picatinny bases will be .205" and your recoil lug or cross bolts on your weaver rings will be .140-.130". You can not count on the clamping force of the rings to hold against the recoil, more so with heavy scopes. So you want to make sure your rings are forward against the mount. If the rings come loose they bounce off the mount then you have a gap so every time the rifle recoils it comes back while the scope tries to stand still till the mount slams into the ring. We call this "slamming" and as a result you get a G-force spike that while short can be hundreds of times more powerful and trash a scope pretty quick. Even quicker if the scope is in a bind. Face it your basicly mounting a scope on a .375 H&H Mag, 30 years ago if you said you were mounting a scope on a .375 they would have laughed at you.

[robertb]

Rossman,
You bring up some good points. I'm now wondering if this is the right setup. I have mixed picatinny and weaver specs in the past but it was on a .223, not a .50 cal. smokeless muzzleloader. I called Leupold this morning to confirm this setup and they said it would work and to make sure the rings were pushed up against the base when tightening. I'm now in a quandry as I sure don't wanna ruin a new VX3 scope due to something I know that could possible go wrong.

[153]

I will reply with my only set I have used. Warne bases and QR Rings. I have used other in the past but have never had an issue with Warne rings or bases. The QR are nice as I can swap scopes between two Savage MLs to check to see if a scope has gone bad. My Savage have not ate a scope yet but my T/C with three 50 gr pellets ate a Burris Sig 4x16x44 with side adjustable objective. I have place Warne bases and rings on every gun I have now and have never had a scope slip. For the small difference in money I would go with a proven product.

[fishhawk]

Robertb, the Burris XTB bases are great to use on the Savage. When it comes to rings it is highly recommended to either use the Burris Signature rings or lap the rings. In past talk the fact that the Savage action is sanded on a belt sander to make the final finish causes ring alignment problems. Bedding the bases is also a good idea.

[ET]

Guys Mr. Rossman40 is the Wiz in my book when it comes to scopes and mounts.
He also pointed out the condition using the Weaver Aluminum mounts and it was his recommendation of using the full bolt instead of the blade type for my QR setup. In the picture below you can see the blade bent on the front ring mount.



Also I went with the Leupold steel base mounts. Now in the picture it appears to just sit on the division line of receiver and recoil lug.



Let’s just say that is too close and had to relieve some of the bottom of the base mount with a Dremel tool. Since that time no issues period with my scope setup.

With the bent blade seen in the first picture I did manage to straighten it and the ring mounts with the blade setup now sits on a spare scope sighted for my current deer load.
I only enjoy a 1-week controlled deer hunt and with this setup won’t miss a beat if my current scope on the 10ML-II should somehow sustain damage.


Ed

[swampman]

I can't see a need for QR rings but I ordered some S46 steel bases.

[trooper1]

I put these bases on my Savage ML because I needed bases and the local stores did not carry steel. I used EGW mounts and have not had a problem in 100 shots. I must admit that I will switch to steel bases after this season.

[cfvickers]

I have them on my 10ML, but it has not successfully fired enough times to test their life span or toughness. However I have them on my Encore 45/70 which I regularly shoot 300 gr remington HPs at 2350, and have been lately shooting 500 grain Jacketed RN Hornady's at really close to 2000 fps. recoil is brutal, it has destroyed 4 scopes, but they have all held zero all the way up until the scopes come apart, it shoots 3/4 inch 100 yard groups with the 300s and 1.5 inch with the 500s. If this isn't a test of durability, there isn't one. Never needed tightening, I have pulled all scopes off and placed another right into the rings. I like them.

[swampman]

I ordered them from SWFA and the backordered them. That will be my first and last order with SWFA.

[swampman]

The steel S46 bases came today and I mounted a Leupold 2-7X33 VX-1 in some steel Millet Angle Lock rings on my Savage. The scope was just barely long enough to fit between the rings but the eye relief is perfect.

[rossman40]

You were doing good till you used the Millet Angle-Locs. You have a pretty light scope so you may be all right. A bigger/heavier scope and you would be in trouble.

[swampman]

I'm not going to shoot heavy loads either.

[Al]

Aug 18, 2010 19:12:36 GMT -5 swampman said:

I'm not going to shoot heavy loads either.

That's what most of us said at one time or another ;D

[Al]

If your into one piece mounts, these can't be beat www.dnzproducts.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=66

I have never had a scope move in them yet on any rifle, and a bit of shopping will find them about $10 cheaper

[fishhawk]

I agree with Rossman, the Millet angle-loc rings are junk in my book. The clamping ears don't have enough clamping area. They will move and could trash your base(s) when the recoil lugs start smacking the front of your cross slots.

[swampman]

I've used the cheapest rings and bases on the market for over 35 years and never had a single failure even with loads approaching .458 Winchester levels in the .45-70. I'm trying to understand how a 250 grain bullet at 2100fps in a 10lb rifle is going to be hard on rings.

[Dave W]

Murphy came up with his law with the MLII and scopes in mind ;D.

Never had a scope failure in 35 years of hunting, then I bought a MLII. Every AO scope that has sat on top of it (3) has failed. IMO Listen to Fishhawk, Rossman and others and take every precaution.

Friend had a Zeiss Conquest mounted in Burris Sigs, did not last a 100 shots with IMR4759 and 250 SST's, a relatively light kicking load by MLII standards.

[swampman]

What Scope brands were you using?