View Single Post
Old October 28, 2012, 04:59 PM   #5
10-96
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2005
Location: Tx Panhandle Territory
Posts: 4,159
Quote:
and I think I would prefer the 1 piece for the extra strength, but I am open to suggestions.
FWIW, I'd like to share my thoughts on your thoughts. There will be the same number of screws holding the base to the receiver- those will be your weak link (if there was one). The Mauser action is built so robust, that if it needs any additional strength from a optics base- please don't chamber whatever it is you're about to chamber and fire. That portion of the one-piece base that runs across the open portion of the receiver is pretty beefy, but what can it do that is above and beyond the capabilities of those screws? Now if one were to disregard the heat treatment of the receiver and TiG weld the one-piece base to both bridges of the receiver- that could add a little rigidness... at the cost of a now-worthless receiver.

Rifles have stood up well for years with even those {much softer} aluminum Weaver style two-piece bases, which by the way use the same four mounting screws. If you were to subject recoil or abuse upon a rifle that would endanger any of the bases... What would that do to the scope itself? And the stock?

It's my opinion that the option between a one-piece and a two piece base is purely cosmetic and personal preference. Also, a two-piece base setup would nullify any worries of Long, Short, or Intermediate length acitons.

Whichever base you go with, I would opt to mill down the clip guide hump. And, I would examine the possibilities of Burris Signature Rings. Those have inserts in the rings that can be changed to adjust for windage or height issues. (Plus, they look darn good on the scalloped Leupold 2-piece bases).
__________________
Rednecks... Keeping the woods critter-free since March 2, 1836. (TX Independence Day)

I suspect a thing or two... because I've seen a thing or two.
10-96 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02304 seconds with 8 queries