Scope base and mount

[EC]

You guys gave me good input for my scope choice so I'm turning to you again regarding a base and rings for the Bushnell 4200 3-9x40.  Our moderator has elsewhere recommended Weaver Grand Slam bases with Warne QD rings.  I like steel over aluminum even if it is heavier so that sounds good to me, but what are the other useable choices, if that isn't too broad a question.

I realize QD bases are a real help when the ML has to be cleaned after each shooting session, but that's not the case with smokeless, so are the QD's still worth the extra cost?  (I don't expect to use the scope on any other rifle, though having the option is a positive)

How about a 1-piece base -- better than 2 piece?   Seems more solid and if I had the cash, I like the Warne Picatinny 1-piece base for the greater choices of where to place the scope (using Weaver style rings).  If I am willing to wait, I can save for it -- same for QD rings.  I might do that, but your opinions will help me choose.  I like the Weaver style attachment method, as opposed to the "twist-in" method.  Maybe a 1-piece base gets in the way of putting in the primer?

Anyway, keeping the above in mind, what do you guys regard as the better options for bases and rings on the Savage?

[RandyWakeman]

Warne steel bases and medium height rings will do a fine job for your 3-9 3200.

I use the QD type and prefer them, the standard rings work just as well.

[EC]

Thanks Randy, in an effort to get the scope as low as possible, do you (or anyone) know if the 'low' rings would fit also?  Anybody try it with the 4200 in 3-9x40?

[RandyWakeman]

I wouldn't bother, the scope is low enough. Trying to lower it more decreases your maximum point blank range, reduces clearance between your bolt and scope, and makes the addition of some pop-out scope covers a problem, for no practical advantage whatsoever.

[EC]

Randy, I wasn't aware of those other factors, so thank you again.  I asked because I remember reading somewhere that there was some advantage to getting the scope as low to the bore as possible, though I don't recall what the reasoning was.

[tucker301]

I mounted my new Leupold VX-III using Leupold QRW bases and rings, because I wanted to be able to remove the scope every now and then and maintain near zero.
Much to my disappointment, I've found that the mount holes in the receiver were not drilled in perfect alignment with the bore.
This has caused me to completely max out the scope's left windage adjustment, and I'm still about an inch right of center at 100 yards.

I'll have to switch back to the Leupold STD bases and rings or go to Burris Zee rings with offset inserts to make up for Savage's carelessness.  

I'm not saying you'll have to do the same, but I have learned that I'm not alone in having a ML-II that isn't drilled straight. Apparently Savage's tolerances for the alignment is 16/1000ths or less.
Something to consider.

[EC]

Whoa Tucker, what happened to you makes me hope Savage is not as careless about other aspects of the rifle's construction.  I've read where it has happened to others too.  My rifle hasn't arrived yet so I have my finger's crossed.  To be on the safe side I am thinking of the Burris Signature Zee rings now. 

I remember reading somewhere that Weaver's cheap stamped rings, when the scope in them was removed from the rifle and then put back on, that the zero was not disturbed.  If that holds true with the Burris rings, then even on the rare occasions when I take off the scope and put it back, hopefully they will allow the same result.

Thanks for the head's-up.

[EC]

To give an update on my scope and ring choices:  I was all set for the Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9x40 at $240 and then Natchez had to go and put the Elite 4200 Firefly 2.5-10x40 on sale for $300     

I was going to deny lust until remembering the time I was deer hunting from a tree stand with a centerfire, close to dark, but within legal shooting time.  Hadn't seen anything when here comes a small 4 pt. sneaking out of the thick stuff at 20 yards.  He thinks something isn't right, but stays to figure it out.  We are in a stand of trees with leaves still on and it's darker in there than out in the open.  I can barely see his chest in the scope, but the cross-hairs aren't visible enough to know where the bullet will go.  It's a close shot and probably it would have been fatal if the field of view was simply centered on his chest, but I didn't want to chance it -- put the safety back on.  With Firefly there would have been a different ending.

Back to the present and you can guess the rest.  I gave in and spent the extra cash for the scope.  Then, thinking it would sure be nice to be able to put that scope on my centerfire, I ordered the Warne QD rings and have to hope Savage drills the base holes correctly.  Anyway, I'm excited about the rifle, the scope and am anxious to get back into muzzle loading, only this time with the option of smokeless advantages.

[jpdown]

EC,

Looks like you've already decided on scope rings and bases. I've had some Savage's with the scope hole alignment problems already mentioned. I've tried most brands and types of bases and rings available for the Savage. All the steel ring and base sets mentioned will give a solid mount. I finally settled on the Burris XTR tactical steel bases and medium Burris Signature Zee rings. They give me alignment flexibility, no scope tube ring damage, and the ability to move a scope with with relative ease among rifles with the same weaver-style bases. 

[EC]

Dang, the bases and rings are already on their way.  "Now you tell me" applies here because as I look over the XTR bases, I see that the front base can be reversed for another option in scope positioning.  If I had known about them I would have preferred the XTR's since the Grand Slam front base will have to be returned for an extension base if it won't allow the scope to come back far enough to fit me. 

[mwd571]

The steel weaver grand slam S46 or the Warne steel bases are the way to go.  The QD rings are the way to go when thinking about cleaning the gun.  One thing to remember if the the edge of the front base touches the back edge of the recoil lug you will have problems getting to shoot for you, most of the weavers and warne you will have to bevel the front edge with a dremmel tool to prevent this.  Words of wisdom

Cheers, Mike

[EC]

Thanks MWD571.  One thing though, it looks like the front edge of the front base impinges on the barrel nut of the savage, not the recoil lug, right?   I say that, having never seen the recoil lug on a Savage, so I may not know what I'm talking about.  It's just that the recoil lug on my Model 70 Winchester is on the bottom front of the receiver and not visible when the barreled action is in the stock...so I assume the Savage is the same way.  Straighten me out because I must be missing something.

[mwd571]

That is the lug, then there is the nut, two seperate items, if it is touching the thing you think is the nut it is touching on top of the lug and the front edge of the mount will have to be beveled away from that

Mike

[EC]

OK, I got it. Thanks. My trouble was that I had never paid much attention to the barrel nut (or what I thought was the barrel nut) on a Savage.  But if UPS is on time, the rifle will be delivered on Monday and then things will be more clear.