  | Ken Farrell Rings |
|

11-15-2004, 08:08 AM
|
|
Platinum Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,310
|
|
|
Re: Ken Farrell Rings
Ian--have you confirmed your statement above???
Because i just got a set from ken to review for www.6mmbr.com and the crossbolt is heavy and ROUND--it is not square and should bolt right on to any picatinny style base.
the crossbolt is about .185 in diameter, and pic spec grooves shold be .206, so im pretty sure you are wrong on that one.
please correct me if im wrong though.
BTW--to the original poster, they appear to be a sweet set of rings, but mine wont be on a rifle till early spring.
JB
|

11-15-2004, 08:38 AM
|
|
Bronze Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California
Posts: 85
|
|
|
Re: Ken Farrell Rings
Those do seem to be a nice pair of rings. For less than half of the badgers they look really nice. This is what I'll probably go with. http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/sto...AL+SCOPE+RINGS
|

11-15-2004, 01:19 PM
|
|
Gold Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northamptonshire England
Posts: 667
|
|
|
Re: Ken Farrell Rings
I attached my Leupold LRT M1 to my 300wsm Stealth with leupold MK4 rings and a Ken Farrel 20 moa one piece base and it looks beautiful.But i would like to bring your attention to Leupolds PRW rings,with which i have mounted my VX111 6.5-20x50 to my 243.They may not look as good as the MK4s,but they are excellent quality and extremely good value for money at around $45. We pay twice as much if not more, by the time shooting equipment reaches our shores here in Britain. Good hunting to you all.
|

11-15-2004, 01:48 PM
|
|
Platinum Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,310
|
|
|
Re: Ken Farrell Rings
Ian?????^^
|

11-15-2004, 06:18 PM
|
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sask. Canada
Posts: 2,411
|
|
|
Re: Ken Farrell Rings
I have been involved in mounting several Farrel bases on friend's long range rifles - the problem I mention is related to the fact that the Picatinny spec cross-slots do not go from one end of the base to the other like Badgers and Nears do. The centeral portion of the top of the base does not have cross-slots, the ones we had all had the Farrel name engraved there on a flat. Unfortunately, the flat space buggers up the matching (spacing) of the picatinny spec slots. If you went from front to back, they are correct initially, (the width, depth and spacing work) then the space in the middle, then the rear set of slots which are slightly out of alignment. If we take off a scope with rings set for Badgers or Nears, liine up the front cross-bolt, the back one will not fit into a slot - they will not match the Farrels. When I do this with Badgers or Nears the fit is perfect every time.
Not a biggie if you stay with Ken's bases, although we did have some discrepancies with matching among older and newer models.
Our Badger and Near bases let us switch any scope, the ring spacing fits the cross-slots perfectly from rifle to rifle regardless of Winchester, Remington, Savage or whatever.
You pays your money and you gets your stuff - Farrels are nice looking bases that work fine, but in our experience they do not let us go back and forth with our Badgers and Nears. His scope rings are nicely made, but do not use the standard 1/2 nut that most other tactical rings use - I happen to prefer the 1/2 nut for torqueing the 65 inch pounds with - we all have our little preferances.
Have had several guys order Ken's bases and flat out got the wrong base - this was fixed promptly but caused some wasted time - possible that the guys blew the order initially too, not sure about that.
In no way do I feel that they are not nicely machined and finished - all of his stuff is and he maintains reasonable pricing. Plus he is a nice person to talk to.
|

11-16-2004, 08:31 AM
|
|
Platinum Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,310
|
|
|
Re: Ken Farrell Rings
so then your above statement is only true if one of the rifles involved in the switching has a farrell base as well.
so the rings werent the problem, it was the spacing on the base.
In talking with him the other day, he said they are making their bases Pic. spec now.
So the rings will interchange, as long aa you go farrel-to-farrel or badger-to-near/badger but not farrel-to-badger
right?
JB [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
|

11-16-2004, 08:29 PM
|
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sask. Canada
Posts: 2,411
|
|
|
Re: Ken Farrell Rings
You got it right. This post was originally about his rings, sorry to get it sidetracked re bases. When I said "They will not interchange with Badger bases" I did not mean to infer anything about Farrell rings. I like to switch scopes a lot, most of my rifles have Badgers or Nears, they are completely compatible in my experience. Could not switch to Farrells, just won't line up so you would have to loosen one of the rings.
|
  |
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
|