|
|
Post by passthrough on Feb 5, 2011 13:37:57 GMT -5
on my ML II, I put a EGW piccatiny base made of aluminum and plan to mount a nikon 3x9x40 pro staff. which steel quick release rings should I get and should they be low or medium height
thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by totheright on Feb 5, 2011 14:07:22 GMT -5
I have Warne Quick Release on my EGW. I'm tall, so I prefer higher rings. I highly recommend these Warne rings, regardless of height.
|
|
|
|
Post by totheright on Feb 5, 2011 14:18:41 GMT -5
Be sure the EGW mount sits flush at screw locations. I had to bed my EGW, as it didn't sit completely flush on the receiver. This is usually due to the receivers be slightly irregular. Also, be sure the front mount screws do not bottom out before fully pulling down the front of the mount.
|
|
|
|
Post by fishhawk on Feb 5, 2011 14:18:41 GMT -5
I personally would not use typical steel rings on an aluminum base. With aluminum bases I want more contact area between the bases and ring clamping surface. Steel rings are better for steel bases. I recommend either the Burris Extreme Tactical rings or the Weaver Tactical 6 Hole. These are much wider and better suited for an aluminum base on a high recoil gun. However these are not quick release but come off quickly with a proper tool. And absolutely bed your base, and check the above mentioned screw depth, and recoil lug clearance.
|
|
|
|
Post by totheright on Feb 5, 2011 14:21:46 GMT -5
|
|
nsb
Forkhorn
Posts: 77
|
Post by nsb on Feb 5, 2011 15:14:27 GMT -5
To answer the question: You need at least Med. height rings for this mount. Ring height isn't dependent on how tall you are, it is based on the objective diameter of your scope. If you are using a 40mm objective you need at least Med. rings so you can mount the scope on the gun without the objective lens hitting the barrel, and also so your scope covers will fit between the scope objective and the barrel. If you get a larger diameter scope such as a 44mm or a 50mm you would need to get Tall rings.
|
|
|
|
Post by passthrough on Feb 5, 2011 16:34:47 GMT -5
thanks for the replies. I have some QR rings(dont know the manufacturer) from another gun that I tried and they measure .25" thick. are they low rings, the measurement is from where the bottom of the scope touches down to the underside of the ring which sits atop the base. They provide 3/8" clearance to the barrell for the bell of the scope(40 mm). seems like they are still a bit high of a mount but will work. would I order low rings if this is the case?
|
|
|
|
Post by totheright on Feb 5, 2011 16:36:38 GMT -5
Ring height isn't dependent on how tall you are, it is based on the objective diameter of your scope. Being tall and long necked requires me to use taller rings in order to get a proper shoulder and cheek fit for me. |
|
nsb
Forkhorn
Posts: 77
|
Post by nsb on Feb 5, 2011 17:22:31 GMT -5
Ring height isn't dependent on how tall you are, it is based on the objective diameter of your scope. Being tall and long necked requires me to use taller rings in order to get a proper shoulder and cheek fit for me. totheright: You are partially correct The shape of your face (length, cheekbones,etc) can make a difference in which rings you choose if you can't get your face down low enough to see through the scope. I believe though, that the OP was asking which rings he needed to mount the scope on the gun. If the rings are too low the objective lens could contact the barrel and create an interference.I've also seen short people with big heads/long faces have to use higher rings to get the scope up where it was comfortable for them to look through the ocular lens. It still isn't really dependant on your height. |
|
|
|
Post by passthrough on Feb 5, 2011 18:24:07 GMT -5
another problem with the EGW base, the fron short screw hits the bottom of the hole so it cant tighten all the way, any suggestions??
|
|
nsb
Forkhorn
Posts: 77
|
Post by nsb on Feb 5, 2011 18:30:58 GMT -5
another problem with the EGW base, the fron short screw hits the bottom of the hole so it cant tighten all the way, any suggestions?? I've had that happen and the easiest way to fix it is to grind a little off the screw. |
|
|
|
Post by fishhawk on Feb 5, 2011 21:16:57 GMT -5
Grinding the screw is the answer, but to avoid the screw bottoming just as it tightens, try this method. Install the screw without the base and count the turns while pulling out on the screw while backing it out. then install the base with just that screw and count the turns out to remove again. this will tell you how many threads extra you have. Remove a little off the screw at a time until you are about 1/2 turn less to remove than the first test starting with a snug but not tight screw with the base in place. this will allow room to torque the screw and avoid bottoming. And again, bed that base especially on a Savage action.
|
|
nsb
Forkhorn
Posts: 77
|
Post by nsb on Feb 5, 2011 21:29:07 GMT -5
Grinding the screw is the answer, but to avoid the screw bottoming just as it tightens, try this method. Install the screw without the base and count the turns while pulling out on the screw while backing it out. then install the base with just that screw and count the turns out to remove again. this will tell you how many threads extra you have. Remove a little off the screw at a time until you are about 1/2 turn less to remove than the first test starting with a snug but not tight screw with the base in place. this will allow room to torque the screw and avoid bottoming. And again, bed that base especially on a Savage action. Fishhawk: Perfect description on how to do it. Well done! |
|
|
|
Post by totheright on Feb 6, 2011 6:29:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fishhawk on Feb 6, 2011 10:25:32 GMT -5
The author of that link has the right idea, but bedding has another goal. Total contact of the surfaces prevent shifting of the base under recoil which is one common reason for mounting screw failure. The extra friction of contact area and imprinting of the bedding in the receivers finish help greatly. The Savage receiver is initially turned in a lathe to spec then the exposed top area is sanded on a belt sander for appearance. Whom ever at Savage that does this always seems to remove more material in front of the port than behind. The result is two different issues. The first is the surface is no longer lathe accurate round, which results in varied contact area and contact points. The second is the lower and often tapered front area usually means an unbedded base is only touching on the edges closest to the port front and rear. Conclusion, bed both ends, only lightly snug the two screws closest to the port (inner) when bedding. Do install the other two to avoid epoxy in the holes but only until they touch. All this is to keep from stressing the base during the bedding. Another result of the receiver sanding causes the lug to base interference we have, by spec the receiver diameter is listed to be larger than the lug but the over sanding brings the receiver diameter under that of the lug. I would rather they not sand them, it would prevent most of these issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by totheright on Feb 6, 2011 12:03:23 GMT -5
The author of that link has the right idea, but bedding has another goal. Total contact of the surfaces prevent shifting of the base under recoil which is one common reason for mounting screw failure. The extra friction of contact area and imprinting of the bedding in the receivers finish help greatly. The Savage receiver is initially turned in a lathe to spec then the exposed top area is sanded on a belt sander for appearance. Whom ever at Savage that does this always seems to remove more material in front of the port than behind. The result is two different issues. The first is the surface is no longer lathe accurate round, which results in varied contact area and contact points. The second is the lower and often tapered front area usually means an unbedded base is only touching on the edges closest to the port front and rear. Conclusion, bed both ends, only lightly snug the two screws closest to the port (inner) when bedding. Do install the other two to avoid epoxy in the holes but only until they touch. All this is to keep from stressing the base during the bedding. Another result of the receiver sanding causes the lug to base interference we have, by spec the receiver diameter is listed to be larger than the lug but the over sanding brings the receiver diameter under that of the lug. I would rather they not sand them, it would prevent most of these issues. Spot on! |
|
|
|
Post by jray57 on Feb 6, 2011 21:44:06 GMT -5
Just mounted my EGW 1 piece base and encountered another problem you may want to consider. I have a 3X10X40mm 3200 compact and when I slide the scope to the rear to get proper eye relief the objective bell hits the front of the rail. The power selector ring also hits the rear of the rail if not positioned far enough back.This is with Weaver Grand Slam steel rings that measure approx .170. I think they are medium. I am going to go with Burris Sig Zees and by my calculations I am going to have to use the highs in order to allow me to position my scope anywhere along the rail. The meds would probably be close but knowing my luck I am going to order the highs. I also tried my 3X9X40mm Prostaff off of my other ML 2and noticed the same problem- not sure what rings those are they measured aprox .275 which is about what the med Sig Zees measure.
|
|
