Which do you prefer and why? Is the HD any stronger by having the solid slots as opposed to the little valley in the standards?
Printable View
Which do you prefer and why? Is the HD any stronger by having the solid slots as opposed to the little valley in the standards?
It's probably stronger. The basic one is more than strong enough.
I have both and they both are very good bases.
The HD may be a little stronger due to them being flat across the top and having more material in that area. Like mentioned above though the standard one is plenty strong.
The 2 main differneces in them is (1) the full slots instead of the open middle, and (2) the HD base is a lower profile than the standard base.
For a target action where the top of the action is closed off I prefer the HD base, as it sits very low and you see almost no gap between it and the action. For a standard action where you are using it as a blind mag I would rather use the standard version.
Heres a side view of my HD base on my target action:
[img width=600 height=450]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/pdog06_photos/oct2010060.jpg[/img]
And a standard EGW base on a standard action:
[img width=600 height=450]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/pdog06_photos/Feb2010011.jpg[/img]
Thanks for the info guys. How about on the heavy kickers? What if you need extra height even with high rings? How much lower is the HD over the standard?
That top pick with the HD base is a 50mm scope with a set of medium rings. My 56mm 8-32 SIII will also fit on it with mediums but it is VERY close to the barrel(Too close for my liking). My 8-32x56 NF BR will fit with a set of high rings.
How much bigger a scope do you got than a Nightforce BR?
The base itself isn't going to fail under recoil with either version. The only problem with the EGW bases is that all the stress of recoil is borne by the mounting screws. The shear strength of the screws is the limiting factor. Contrast that with a base such as the Weaver tactical that has a recoil lug that locks into ejection port and bares the force of the recoil directly to the mount and keeps the screws from taking the brunt. Not an issue unless the recoil is pretty extreme.
I have a Swift Premier 6-24x50 that was mounted in Burris high signature zee rings and Burris two piece steel mounts which are pretty thin. I have a large shank varmint contour barrel that tapers straight off of the shank (no step down). It was so close I couldn't use the offset inserts for the rings without the objective touching the barrel. That's why I bought an EGW base to put on it because it's a good bit thicker than the bases on there now. I just haven't had a chance to switch it out to see how much clearance I will have. Since I bought it though I've been thinking I would like the HD instead, just didn't know how much lower it would be. I guess the only way is to get one and try them both.
The Weaver base looks to be about the same height as the EGW HD, has a recoil lug, full profile rail and costs less than half what the HD does.
Yeah I'm thinking about getting that one for my accutrigger model but they don't make it for the old flat rear receivers. In fact I can't find any except EGW and Warne for the flat rears.
Does anybody know one that's made for the flat rear receivers other than Warne?
uhhh, an EGW......also a Ken Farrell......
I knew EGW. I should have clarified. I meant one piece bases with solid slots. The EGW has the channel in the middle, I don't see where they make an HD model for the flat rears. I'll check out Ken Ferrell though. Thanks.
"Not an issue unless the recoil is pretty extreme."
How extreme? One I am working on is a 338 win mag.
I would go steel if you plan on using Burris Signature Zee rings or any ring that has a tiny screw in the cross slot.Quote:
Originally Posted by efm77
I have had those rings move forward on aluminum bases, even full picatinny like the HD, deforming the corner of the top edge of the cross slot with 338 Lapua, 50 BMG and the like in rifles, and the same thing in hand guns like the 454 Casull.
If the ring has a beefy cross bolt, preferabely with a FLAT surface up front then either base should be fine. I only use Nightforce, Badger, Burris Signature Zee and IOR Valdada rings so I can't say from experience if any other rings are going to deform the base like the Zee rings do, but on my own rifle, I go with a steel base on any magnum that I plan on shooting heavy bullets with regardless of the ring type.
Sounds like if your rings have slid then you didn't slide them all the way to the front of the slot in the first place when you mounted your scope. If the ring is slid all the way to the front of the slot I don't see that being an issue. What concerns me is the little tabs on the base breaking off under recoil on the bases that have the channel down the middle.
It appears the options for a solid slot base for the flat rear receivers are much more limited than for the round rear receiver. I may get the Warne for my flat rear (300 win mag) or just take my chances and stick with the EGW with the channel in the center that I already have and hope that it holds up to the large scope that will be on it (I think it will but just like knowing that a part is more than strong enough). On my round rear receiver (338 win mag) I have the standard EGW base but will likely switch it to either the HD or the Weaver tactical as the steel bases (Warren, Ken Ferrel etc.) are nice but I can't afford to put them on all of my rifles. I would be scope base poor! That would be a ton of money just in bases if I were to put them on every one of my rifles. I've heard others on here though say that they have the standard EGW bases on 338 Edges without any problems so maybe I'm just being too paranoid. ;)
As long as the crossbolts are pushed all the way forward and can't get up a head of steam before hitting the front of the slot there is no difference between steel and aluminum. The channel down the middle is a total non-issue. The difference in strength is completely negligible. If you're concerned about recoil, the only upgrade I would bother with on the EGW base would be to have a 'smith bore out the receiver to accept 8-40 mounting screws. With the Weaver base nothing else would be required. The lug takes all the force.
Do all Weavers have the lug in them? Specifically this one? http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=266352
"With the Weaver base nothing else would be required."
Yeah I'm probably going to try it on my round rear receiver but like I said before Weaver doesn't make one for the flat rear receiver. At least I can't find one (the Weaver tactical model that is). So I guess I'll just stick to the regular EGW base on my flat rear model.
Have you looked at Ken Farrell FG-Force?
http://www.kenfarrell.com/FGF-SAV-NS-A-1-0.html
I've never felt the need for it but if you're worried about the mount shifting, this might bring peace of mind.
you could have a local machine shop bore and tap a hole in a standard mount to accomplish the same effect.
No I haven't looked at those. I'm working out of town right now and have limited internet access so I can't look at it right now. However, I have looked at other Ken Ferrells and while they are excellent bases, they cost more than I am willing to spend for a base.
That is the exact version that I have, complete with recoil lug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varget 7-08
Thanks Helo!Quote:
Originally Posted by helotaxi
Ok now another twist to the question. Do you have a preference of steel or aluminum for the material?
No preference personally. The only place where I could see there being a real difference (other than in someone's mind) is if you were to get the receiver really hot. At that point, the different expansion rates of the aluminum of the base and the steel of the receiver might come into play. Of course unless you had perfect contact, bedded the base with thermal paste, got the scope in on the joke and all players were heating and expanding uniformly (IOW were watching reality in the rear-view), all bets are off anyway. Not to mention that by the time you got the receiver that hot, the barrel would be glowing, drooping and a smoothbore.
The difference in strength is moot since the Al base is more than strong enough.
"The difference in strength is moot since the Al base is more than strong enough."
Really? Even on the big boomers?
With a recoil lug, yes. Even without, the screws will take all the force of the recoil, not the base itself. All the steel base really adds is weight.
Ever seen a .50BMG rifle built on an aluminum receiver? I know that I have. The strength of Al is not an issue.
True but I think on rifles that have AL receivers, the locking lugs actually lock into recesses in the back of the barrel so the receiver doesn't really house the rearward thrust of the cartridge during firing. Also true about the screws taking the recoil but the base is what holds the rings in place. As the gun recoils the ring wants to slide forward. The ring is slid up against the front of the slot to prevent it from sliding. This is what I question, whether the Al base's slots will stand up to the rings wanting to push forward under heavy recoil. I guess since a lot of the guys on here use them on 338 Edges the answer would be yes.
But the Al receiver still has to handle all the recoil. Bolt thrust isn't the issue. On the .50 that I have shot, the entire recoil load was essentially borne by the take-down pins and the aluminum surrounding them (built on an AR-15 lower).Quote:
Originally Posted by efm77
If the rings are installed all the way forward in the slot, they can't get up a head of steam before hitting the front of the slot. They really aren't going anywhere. My concern would be tall rings that aren't very long. They could create a pretty hefty torquing moment and could bend the rail. The EGW is a little thick for a reason. Just this reason. You'll notice that most of the steel bases are thinner.Quote:
Also true about the screws taking the recoil but the base is what holds the rings in place. As the gun recoils the ring wants to slide forward. The ring is slid up against the front of the slot to prevent it from sliding. This is what I question, whether the Al base's slots will stand up to the rings wanting to push forward under heavy recoil. I guess since a lot of the guys on here use them on 338 Edges the answer would be yes.
"On the .50 that I have shot, the entire recoil load was essentially borne by the take-down pins and the aluminum surrounding them (built on an AR-15 lower)."
Good point.
"They could create a pretty hefty torquing moment and could bend the rail."
I should have worded it that way, that's what I was thinking about.
If the rings are long and/or are over the spots where the base screws to the action, it isn't even kind of an issue. Again the EGW base is pretty thick, I wouldn't worry about bending it unless you're using something like 1" extra-high Burris Signature Zee rings (which are really narrow).
I think I'm going to switch to a steel base on this one because I am using Burris Signature Zee rings 30mm with a pretty hefty scope on a 300 win mag. If they only made an HD for the flat rear receiver I'd use one of those and probably not have anything to worry about.
I honestly think you'd have the same problems with the steel base. I simply wouldn't use those rings under those conditions. I love them for most uses, but that is one of the exceptions.
Well if that's the case then I'm SOL. This rifle is a flat rear receiver made in about 2003 and the holes aren't exactly straight so I need the offset inserts to get the windage and elevation close. The thing that may be a silver lining though is that I've rebarreled and restocked it to where it weighs about 12-13lbs. so that soaks up a lot of the recoil. I guess we'll see what happens or maybe I'll switch to a smaller scope.
I've got a set of Leupold style Burris bases with Signature rings to go with them for a flat rear. If you want them they're yours for postage. The rear base is windage adjustable and the Signature rings make sure that using the windage doesn't bind up the scope.
ETA: you have a 30mm scope, don't you. The setup I have has 1" rings, but you're still welcome to it.
Thanks, that's very kind of you. But I'm not sure I'll have enough clearance with that type of base which is why I'm switching to a tactical style base because they're thicker which will give me a little more clearance over the barrel. My barrel has a pretty big profile and if I cant the scope downard at all with the bases on there now the objective bell contacts the barrel. I've also always been afraid of that rear ring juming out of the windage screws under recoil on bigger calibers. Heard of that happening before since there's very little gripping the rear ring.
I think you are really over thinking this decision. The aluminum EGW base will work for what you are shooting...So will a steel Ken Farrell base.... So will a steel Warne base....
You guys are comparing a 300Wm to a 50bmg.. Not really a comparison in recoil if you ask me. Yes the 300wm has a good bit of recoil, but it isnt that bad that one of these bases are gonna bend or break...atleast I have never seen or heard of one doing it...
MANY members here and elsewhere use these bases on calibers that large and much larger and have no troubles at all.
I wasn't comparing it to a 50 at all. My initial conern was the very small tabs for the slots on the standard base when using a rifle with considerable recoil. FWIW I have a Winchester model 70 in 300 win mag with very cheap weaver aluminum bases and aluminum rings on it and they have never failed. Albeit I've heard of people saying they've had aluminum bases/rings fail on magnum calibers. However, their slots (the weavers I have) have much more meat to them that the standard EGW base which is why I was concerned. If EGW made a HD for the flat rear I would use it and not worry but since they don't I am going to switch to steel. I have an HD base for my round rear receiver in 338 win mag that I'm going to use and it shouldn't have any trouble but I may also end up putting a steel base on it just because. It basically boils down to I've decided I'd rather have a base with solid slots than with a big channel down the middle and little tabs to hold the rings in place. I'd rather have a solid slot in order to have more surface area to displace the force of the recoil against the cross bolt in the ring.