Iclimb
Well-Known Member
Not looking for anyone to Bash a company. I received a rifle with a EGW base, wondering; any complaints, quality concerns etc. ? would like to put on a precision build.
EGW base
- Thread starter Iclimb
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Broz
Well-Known Member
Look for a better product like Nightforce, Near, Badger etc. The soft aluminum EGW bases with the tiny screw heads have caused problems in several rifles I have fixed by replacing with higher end rails. I look at it like this. Below we have a precision rifle that cost $$$$ above we have a precision scope that cost $$$$. I do not wish to link the two with anything of less quality.
Jeff
Jeff
Iclimb
Well-Known Member
My thoughts too. Big advantage of going to 8-40? Can I tap to 8-40 with my barrel still in?
Sully2
Well-Known Member
If you purchased a completed rifle...do you think the man was shooting crawdads in his backyard ditch? Unlike SOME that post here all the time and badmouth the hell out of EGW items....I say they arent bad at all..
Ive even got one ON a rifle that used #8 screws....so the "big #8 screw idea" aint as popular as some think.
While there are company's that make and sell "better" rails being so high priced as some price their stuff doesnt automatically make it "better".
Of course "we" could always GLUE stuff together ( commenly referred to as "bedding" a scope and mount) ORRR we can go with whats normally used....try it out...and should it fail THEN try some different quipment. But before Id ever dril and tap an action for larger screws...Id mount the rail and drill both rail and action and install a STUD to take the shear loads.
Sully2
Well-Known Member
Iclimb
Well-Known Member
Broz
Well-Known Member
Just to be clear I was not referring to adding 8x40 screws. I was referring to the original #6 screws that come with EGW rails. EGW realizes they are inferior for some applications and offer for sale better quality #6 screws now.
Although #8 screws offer more clamping force, this not the majority of what holds a rail on. It is indeed the shear strength of the mating surfaces of the rail and receiver top. It is common knowledge that over the years the tops of receivers have changed in dimension. Mfg. changes made this a challenge for the rail / mount industry. This is why some rails are made with a universal bottom in an attempt to fit these variations. In result the foot print of contact surface between rail and receiver top is diminished. So less shear strength is the net result. Bedding a rail to the receiver is not "gluing it on". It is indeed a process that gives 100% contact to the footprint between rail and receiver. Results are a stronger system and more shear strength.
The common problem of the variation of dimension of receiver tops creates another problem. If these two mating surface are not of perfect fit the result will be the rail flexing as tightened down. This translates into the top of the rail not being true or flat when tight. Especially with some less expensive flexy rails. Then when rings are tightened down this uneven surface is transferred into the scope tube. Even a few thousands is bad juju. So now when our scope does not track correctly or hold zero we blame the scope, right?
Proper bedding of these surfaces will keep the rail true on top and give the best foundation for a good working system, that stays that way. Although, some may never notice this, it is there and when allowed to will cheat our precision rifle and optics of doing what they are intended to do, and that is shoot consistently and accurately. Or we could blame the rifle or optics, right? Some may never even realize this....lightbulb
The addition of adding dowel pins to increase shear strength is an option. But it does not replace bedding by any means. It only increases shear strength and does nothing to help the accuracy and scope tube stress problems caused by the bolting together of unlike surfaces.
I will add that my experiences with 6 of the rails this thread is about failing were on long range rifles of magnum calibers. Where heavy optics are commonly used in conjunction with recoil. In each case the problems were fixed by properly installing a good quality rail. And each rifle is still shooting well. We use these rifle to hunt at distances past 500 yards on regular basis. So this may not apply to pea shooters or BB guns. But I do feel it would probably help them. Might even see accuracy that some may never know they are missing out on. But we can always simply blame the optics or rifle, right?lightbulb
Jeff
Although #8 screws offer more clamping force, this not the majority of what holds a rail on. It is indeed the shear strength of the mating surfaces of the rail and receiver top. It is common knowledge that over the years the tops of receivers have changed in dimension. Mfg. changes made this a challenge for the rail / mount industry. This is why some rails are made with a universal bottom in an attempt to fit these variations. In result the foot print of contact surface between rail and receiver top is diminished. So less shear strength is the net result. Bedding a rail to the receiver is not "gluing it on". It is indeed a process that gives 100% contact to the footprint between rail and receiver. Results are a stronger system and more shear strength.
The common problem of the variation of dimension of receiver tops creates another problem. If these two mating surface are not of perfect fit the result will be the rail flexing as tightened down. This translates into the top of the rail not being true or flat when tight. Especially with some less expensive flexy rails. Then when rings are tightened down this uneven surface is transferred into the scope tube. Even a few thousands is bad juju. So now when our scope does not track correctly or hold zero we blame the scope, right?
Proper bedding of these surfaces will keep the rail true on top and give the best foundation for a good working system, that stays that way. Although, some may never notice this, it is there and when allowed to will cheat our precision rifle and optics of doing what they are intended to do, and that is shoot consistently and accurately. Or we could blame the rifle or optics, right? Some may never even realize this....lightbulbThe addition of adding dowel pins to increase shear strength is an option. But it does not replace bedding by any means. It only increases shear strength and does nothing to help the accuracy and scope tube stress problems caused by the bolting together of unlike surfaces.
I will add that my experiences with 6 of the rails this thread is about failing were on long range rifles of magnum calibers. Where heavy optics are commonly used in conjunction with recoil. In each case the problems were fixed by properly installing a good quality rail. And each rifle is still shooting well. We use these rifle to hunt at distances past 500 yards on regular basis. So this may not apply to pea shooters or BB guns. But I do feel it would probably help them. Might even see accuracy that some may never know they are missing out on. But we can always simply blame the optics or rifle, right?lightbulb
Jeff
Outlaw6.0
Well-Known Member
Broz & I don't always agree but on optics & mounts you will hardly ever (if ever) see us on diffferent teams. I totally agree with his statement (bold). Personally, an EGW rail on a precision rig is akin to Walmart tires on a GT500 or in Broz' case, a ZR1
.The term I'm alluding to is "weak link" as explained by Broz above in a more definitive dissertation.
Will it work? Maybe, but; are you willing to take that chance? There is a reason the top tier shooters in their respective sports run what they run....
t
Iclimb
Well-Known Member
You guys are expressing my "gut feeling" on the situation. Even if it is just "in my head" the doubt is still there. And sometimes that is enough. I guess for me the end all is just to get a total NF setup. I'm wondering about tapping to 8-40. Can you do so with the barrel installed? Possible with a non-tapered tap (if they make one)?
Outlaw6.0
Well-Known Member
My 338Rum was done with the bbl installed however, the holes were helical threaded on a CNC mill. I have no idea if one can do it by hand or not.
t
Broz
Well-Known Member
I have done it by hand. But it is a bit risky and care needs to be taken. I used a few special ground taps for that front blind hole. The last ground off flat, also referred to as a bottoming tap. Brake one of these little taps off and you have a problem.
I really think the #6 screws are fine as long as you buy a good mount with quality screws. Many gun smiths during a custom build will go ahead and set up the action in their mill and drill & Tap to #8. But I think the main reason is more along the lines of making sure the mounting screws are true to barrel bore alignment than just wanting bigger screws. The upsizing will allow some correction if the holes are off to barrel alignment. I do not do it unless I have that problem or a screw hole is stripped.
Jeff
I really think the #6 screws are fine as long as you buy a good mount with quality screws. Many gun smiths during a custom build will go ahead and set up the action in their mill and drill & Tap to #8. But I think the main reason is more along the lines of making sure the mounting screws are true to barrel bore alignment than just wanting bigger screws. The upsizing will allow some correction if the holes are off to barrel alignment. I do not do it unless I have that problem or a screw hole is stripped.
Jeff
jimbires
Well-Known Member
here are instructions for bedding a base . these came with a mount I have . simple instructions and well worth the effort .
Broz
Well-Known Member
Good post Jim. And I use Ferrell bases too. Good company with a wide selection. They are good bases. My only complaint is they tend to run tall and one needs to account for that in ring height. For this reason I prefer NF rings and bases for most 700 Rems and clones.
Jeff
Jeff
benchracer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,652
I am a firm believer in choosing components based on the intended application. If you intend to mount a heavy scope (like a Nightforce) on a hard recoiling rifle, by all means, spend the money to buy rings and bases that will stand up to the punishment.
OTOH, I use EGW bases with Warne rings on most of my rifles, with excellent results. Of course, none of the rifles I use this setup on are chambered for heavy recoiling cartridges and I am not mounting heavy scopes.
The ONLY issue I have ever had with the EGW mounts was because of misalignment of the mounting holes in my Remington 700 receiver. Both of the Remington 700's I have owned, made 10 years apart from one another, had the SAME misalignment issue. I have never had that problem on another make of rifle.
I do have a couple of rifles that will be getting more expensive rails because of availability issues for the actions themselves and because one of the rifles produces quite a bit of recoil and I intend to mount a fairly heavy scope on it at some point.
I often see the question asked about a particular item, "How good is it?" I rarely see the application specified alongside the question. With the purpose unspecified, I tend to consider both the question and the answer to have very little meaning.
OTOH, I use EGW bases with Warne rings on most of my rifles, with excellent results. Of course, none of the rifles I use this setup on are chambered for heavy recoiling cartridges and I am not mounting heavy scopes.
The ONLY issue I have ever had with the EGW mounts was because of misalignment of the mounting holes in my Remington 700 receiver. Both of the Remington 700's I have owned, made 10 years apart from one another, had the SAME misalignment issue. I have never had that problem on another make of rifle.
I do have a couple of rifles that will be getting more expensive rails because of availability issues for the actions themselves and because one of the rifles produces quite a bit of recoil and I intend to mount a fairly heavy scope on it at some point.
I often see the question asked about a particular item, "How good is it?" I rarely see the application specified alongside the question. With the purpose unspecified, I tend to consider both the question and the answer to have very little meaning.
