1 piece or 2 piece scope bases?

[dvdcrr]

I once bought a short action Rem 700 rifle. I casually asked the seller if a 1 piece or 2 piece scope base should be utilized. He quickly responded that I should use a 1 piece base because it stiffens the action, and he said this was very important. Do you think this has any merit?

[kilotanker22]

Doubt it. That aluminum scope base I don't think actually stiffens the action in any meaningful way.

I still say one piece base. For the reasons that you can easily have elevation built into your base. Also the fact that it's easier to make one piece true than to make two separetlyachined bases true to each other. Also a single.pice base will in many cases, make it possible for you to use a wider variety of optics,

[jmr40]

That idea has been around for years. Never seen any data to prove it. In fact there is a good argument that one piece mounts using old school dovetail and windage adjustable rear rings is less strong at least partly because they only utilize 3 mounting screws instead of 4.

Traditionally I've preferred using 2 piece mounts on most hunting rifles since it leaves a little more room on top of the action making loading and ejection a little easier. But most guys shooting target rifles anymore are going to a one piece rail with multiple slots for scope base mounting. I like the concept and it does have some advantages on a hunting rifle too.

Plus many newer rifle designs are using an enclosed action with just a small ejection port. That is proving to make for a stiffer action, and there are no negatives to using a rail type base on them.

[NoSecondBest]

kilotanker22 has it right, and right for good reason. It's not uncommon to get receivers that aren't totally flat on top for various reasons. Some, such as Savage, do a polishing job on the receiver after machining it and it can be a couple thou off from flat. Using two piece bases puts them on slightly different planes. You end up having the rings off a bit and then you have to get them aligned. Also, with one piece mount you have more opportunity to move some scopes forward or aft to get better eye relief. Turret spacing and length of scope are sometimes restrictive and you can end up with more room to locate the rings. You aren't going to "stiffen up" a steel receiver with a mount base.

[std7mag]

I'm with Kilo, NoSecondBest on this one!

I shoot mostly Savage actions. Very open on top.
While i don't believe a one piece will actually help stiffen the action, i'm not seeing where they hurt either.

I also use a one piece on my Mauser actions.

As mentioned, better alignment, more options to set eye relief.

I do have an old round back Savage action that is WAAYYY more than a couple thousandths off! I'd have possably never realized it if it were not for the one piece base.

[Pahoo]

Do you think this has any merit?

If given an option and will not interfere with fit or performance, I go with a one-piece. I have the tools to work with both, so it's really not a big problem. ..

Be Safe !!!

[Don Fischer]

I've used both and don't really prefer either over the other. first time I used one piece was because I bought into the stiffer action idea. Yes or no I don't really know but seem's to me it would help some. For aligning the rings better, one piece probably does that. But just how important is that? I don't know that either has any advantage anymore and I don't lay awake night's worrying about it. Presently I have one set of one piece on a 700 Rem and no problem I can see. Have nine set's of two piece on the other rifles and no problem's I can see. I pretty much stick to two piece these days because they are less expensive. People that shoot a lot have an annoying habit of proclaiming what they use is the best. And what they don't is simply far lesser quality! Most are looking for the one hole group, no one has found it! Get the mount's you can afford and go for it, you'll sleep better!

[dahermit]

Most are looking for the one hole group, no one has found it!

MacMillan, 1964. He found it.
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/...-mac-mcmillan/

[Bart B.]

I was asked the same question some years ago at work. Asked a mechanical engineer who used a Rem 700 long action about this issue. Next day, he told me after measuring the receiver with a one piece Weaver base attached then using 4th order vibration engineering formulas, it was only about 0.9% stiffer.

Winchester 70 receivers without the base are about 30% stiffer than Rem 700's.

[Bart B.]

Here's a smaller one holer.....

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/...ve-shot-group/

[Don Fischer]

That's not one hole. It's a .009" group!

[Bart B.]

Originally Posted by Don Fischer

That's not one hole. It's a .009" group!

Yes, for sure. Maybe a very tiny cloverleaf group.

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by Bart B.

Here's a smaller one holer.....

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/...ve-shot-group/

Still not a one hole group. That is a .0077" group! it is something how small some can get. Bet they can't do it regularly! I'd heard some years ago someone did a .009" with a 22 Hornet! Don't know it true though!

[Bart B.]

The first shot fired makes a one hole group.

There's no universal shooting sports standard for what a one hole nor cloverleaf group is.

Sierra has shot several sub .010" 10-shot test groups in their 100-yard range at their California plant

[10-96]

I go for looks. If the rifle has a nice wood stock and isn't all tacticalled out- I like classier looking 2 piece Leupold or Redfield bases. If the metal is flat black, matte, parkerized looking, bull barrel, muzzle doo-dad, tactical looking stock- then I'll use a 1-piece.

To air some of my thoughts here... If an action is wiggly enough to need the stiffening of a 1-piece base, then- Why aren't more base screws broken or base holes wallered out? Also, why aren't scopes used in 2-piece bases dented, rubbed raw on the outside edges of the rings, or just plain trashed? I can't see where it matters enough to worry about much aside from aesthetics unless you're building and shooting something based off of a 20mm Vulcan case type earth shaker.

[std7mag]

Don,
If you want to know if one piece is definitevly better than a 2 piece setup, go to a few matches.

I'd be almost willing to bet your gonna see either a separate one piece base, or the receiver have a machined base.

Why?
Because they work best. That simple.
If it doesn't work, you will not see it at a match, unless it's a newbie.

While i'm still a newbie at match shooting, even i can see the effectiveness of a one piece.

As for adding strength to the action, how much do you think those #6, or #8 screws are gonne do?

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by std7mag

Don,
If you want to know if one piece is definitevly better than a 2 piece setup, go to a few matches.

I'd be almost willing to bet your gonna see either a separate one piece base, or the receiver have a machined base.

Why?
Because they work best. That simple.
If it doesn't work, you will not see it at a match, unless it's a newbie.

While i'm still a newbie at match shooting, even i can see the effectiveness of a one piece.

As for adding strength to the action, how much do you think those #6, or #8 screws are gonne do?

On a hunting rifle, 1 1/2" group at 100 yds is really all we need. In a match quarter inch group is nice but you won't win with it!

[NoSecondBest]

On a hunting rifle, 1 1/2" group at 100 yds is really all we need. In a match quarter inch group is nice but you won't win with it!

Should read "all I need". It's not what many others settle for. Small critters require small groups. Mediocrity is, well mediocre. Also, the OP was asking about which mounts, one or two piece.

[dahermit]

Originally Posted by Don Fischer

On a hunting rifle, 1 1/2" group at 100 yds is really all we need. In a match quarter inch group is nice but you won't win with it!

A purely arbitrary number. When I was a youth, the rhetoric was that a 3" group at 100 yards was all that was needed for deer hunting.

[std7mag]

1.5" group at 100 yards doesn't cut it for me.
If one of my hunting rifles shoots 1.5", then i'm trying to figure out why it's shooting so poorly.

1/4" has me placing top 3 for factory rifle in my local UBR, Groundhog matches.

And i never said which match. F-Class, 1,000 yard benchrest, PRS. Your not gonna find 2 piece bases.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by std7mag

1.5" group at 100 yards doesn't cut it for me.
If one of my hunting rifles shoots 1.5", then i'm trying to figure out why it's shooting so poorly.

1/4" has me placing top 3 for factory rifle in my local UBR, Groundhog matches.

And i never said which match. F-Class, 1,000 yard benchrest, PRS. Your not gonna find 2 piece bases.

2 piece bases allow easier access for loading and unloading on many actions. I see them as hunting and not bench rest. Honestly, many of the new br actions have integrated bases.

[std7mag]

I haven't seen a hunting rifle yet, where there isn't enough room to load or unload using a one piece base.
Ok, maybe some of the lever actions.
Except for the screwy mounts on my Ruger 77MKIIs (with the medium rear ring, low front ring), all my hunting bolt actions wear EGW one piece base, with low rings.

[NoSecondBest]

I've never had a one piece mount interfere with unloading on any of my guns. Some are cut out on the port side to allow more room. I have had two piece bases that would not allow using a short scope or one with long/short eye relief without having to buy an extended ring. I've owned a lot of guns and I've never found where a one piece mount caused any problems. I have put two piece bases on some guns and they worked fine also. However, the one piece prevents a lot of sins like having to rework the rings so they don't leave marks or pinch the scope tube body.

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by dahermit

A purely arbitrary number. When I was a youth, the rhetoric was that a 3" group at 100 yards was all that was needed for deer hunting.

Of course it is but many years ago some rifles were only good for about that. I can't except it in my rifles but then My rifles are all pretty well tuned and I load everything and bed all my rifles. In theory a 1 1/2"load 3" high at 100yds is pretty good to go out to 250-300 yds depending on the cartridge is why even 2" would make it in many places! So why do we need a quarter inch rifle? Ego! Yea I got the ego too which is why I don't settle for less than an inch group's.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by std7mag

I haven't seen a hunting rifle yet, where there isn't enough room to load or unload using a one piece base.
Ok, maybe some of the lever actions.
Except for the screwy mounts on my Ruger 77MKIIs (with the medium rear ring, low front ring), all my hunting bolt actions wear EGW one piece base, with low rings.

I said its easier to do with 2 piece base. I didnt say impossible to do with one piece base. Gloves are the factor that complicate it. I have huge fingers in the first place.