Gun build - Scope help PLEASE

[pyroducksx3]

EGW are aluminum aernt they? Isnt that considered a no no for long range hunting?

so are the seekins bases and rings (so obviously the vortex rings as well) , and for that matter the nightforce ultralight rings. I though the same thing at first but from what I am hearing theres nothing wrong with aluminum. I went with the nightforce base because its steel. Aluminum is supposed to be as strong or stronger than steel but steel is still harder. These companies are using high quality aluminum T-6 I believe. But I went with the harder base because the scope rings to base screw torque in at 50-55 inch lbs and I just liked the idea of the base being on there and the strongest part of it, plus the nightforce really opens the chamber up and of course I think the nightforce looks the coolest . The aluminum will be lighter and you wont have to worry about corriosion as much as you would with the steel, although Im not really worried about my nightforce base rusting and such.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I have a NF NXS with NF single 20 MOA picatiiny base and NF ultra light rings. For what those rings and base cost I could buy your Vortex scope or a new custom grade barrel. The ring are alumuinum with titanium alloy cross-bolts and jaws. On my 300 RUM I noticed that the scope had slipped forward over an inch, over the course of fire over time... without resulting in any noticeable change of POI. The $162 NF rings are a four screw configuration.

I have the heavy duty EGW base on my Sendero 25-06 and have swapped the NF scope back and forth several times off the 300 RUM. I feel confident in the EGW base. Having checked the EGW site, I don't see a HD base for the Savage. You might want to give them a call and get their opinion for mounting it on your 300 WM and their warranty.

The Weaver rings ($35) and the Burris Extreme rings ($59) are six hole are both aluminum and have almost perfect reviews on Midway.

There are a lot of good choices, and for someone on a budget, or even not on a budget, I think these are good options. These will probably be my choices for future rifles.

You will need a 20 MOA canted base to get to 1K range.

 

[teampete]

So what are the basics for long range base and rings? One pience pictany? Could I use 30 dollar warne rings for that set up or do I need to step it up and spend more money on rings? I think for the 50 dollar range the pictany EGW is good and what I will go with. Especially if aluminum is ok. I like the seekins because of the non snag ability but Idk 100 dollars seems too much compared to 50 dollar bases.

 

[pyroducksx3]

I have a NF NXS with NF single 20 MOA picatiiny base and NF ultra light rings. For what those rings and base cost I could buy your Vortex scope or a new custom grade barrel. The ring are alumuinum with titanium alloy cross-bolts and jaws. On my 300 RUM I noticed that the scope had slipped forward over an inch, over the course of fire over time... without resulting in any noticeable change of POI. The $162 NF rings are a four screw configuration.

I have the heavy duty EGW base on my Sendero 25-06 and have swapped the NF scope back and forth several times off the 300 RUM. I feel confident in the EGW base. Having checked the EGW site, I don't see a HD base for the Savage. You might want to give them a call and get their opinion for mounting it on your 300 WM and their warranty.

The Weaver rings ($35) and the Burris Extreme rings ($59) are six hole are both aluminum and have almost perfect reviews on Midway.

There are a lot of good choices, and for someone on a budget, or even not on a budget, I think these are good options. These will probably be my choices for future rifles.

You will need a 20 MOA canted base to get to 1K range.

I would still be careful of those burris Xtreme rings, I was very interested in them until I started really checking on them. Like I said the gunsmith hated them and the poster on that other thread about the vortes pst had huge misalignment issues with them as well. I have not heard a single bad thing about the vortex (seekins) rings or the nightforce for that matter. I believe there is a compound or resien that you can put on the rings to ensure they dont slip.

 

[WV Sendero]

I have used Warne on 2 different rifles and have not had any problems. With that said, I do like my Leupold Mark 4 base and rings much better. The Mark 4s seem really durable to me and they seem to have a good fit.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I would still be careful of those burris Xtreme rings, I was very interested in them until I started really checking on them. Like I said the gunsmith hated them and the poster on that other thread about the vortes pst had huge misalignment issues with them as well. I have not heard a single bad thing about the vortex (seekins) rings or the nightforce for that matter. I believe there is a compound or resien that you can put on the rings to ensure they dont slip.

Interesting, I'll check the Burris rings out some more. Were the alignment problems on a single piece base?

 

[pyroducksx3]

Interesting, I'll check the Burris rings out some more. Were the alignment problems on a single piece base?

With gun smith I talked to yes they were on a one piece base, the seekins bases, the other guy that was having problems was using 20MOA EGW picatinny base as well, that thread in very recent its vortex pst on the optics section. I put a link to it earlier in this thread.
And teampete I know it may seem weird to spent twice as much on the rings, I know they are good rings. If you can find other good rings for cheaper than go for it. I just know the vortex/seekins rings are good. Also I dont know if it matters but steel rings on an aluminium base? If I was getting an aluminium base I would just get aluminium rings as well, but that me and I dont have a deep backround in this yet.

 

[WildRose]

I don't personally see the need for the wedge base.

For my STW I set my zero to 500yds. I then need only an 18 MOA hold over at 1000yds.

With a Mil Dot scope it's very easy to set your hundred yard zero at the top mil dot, and just use the rest to mark your holdover.

If you know your range and have a 50mm OBJ you should have more than ample field of vew to do so.

Even with the 3-9x40 Mil Dot I have on my 6.8SPC set up this way I have more than adequate FOV for holdover out to 900yds and it is by no means a caliber considered even adequite for long range shooting. It's just the plinker/varmint gun I keep with me in the truck at all times.

I have a similar scope on my M1-A (that I just sold to fund my new project) and have no problem getting to 1000yds with it either.

 

[pyroducksx3]

I don't personally see the need for the wedge base.

For my STW I set my zero to 500yds. I then need only an 18 MOA hold over at 1000yds.

With a Mil Dot scope it's very easy to set your hundred yard zero at the top mil dot, and just use the rest to mark your holdover.

If you know your range and have a 50mm OBJ you should have more than ample field of vew to do so.

Even with the 3-9x40 Mil Dot I have on my 6.8SPC set up this way I have more than adequate FOV for holdover out to 900yds and it is by no means a caliber considered even adequite for long range shooting. It's just the plinker/varmint gun I keep with me in the truck at all times.

I have a similar scope on my M1-A (that I just sold to fund my new project) and have no problem getting to 1000yds with it either.

maybe you are right but then I dont really see the harm in it either. Sure you could use the reticle but wouldnt it be easier to zero you rifle at 200 or so and then have the extra adjustments still. I see that it will work without, but if ordering new then why would you not?

 

[WildRose]

maybe you are right but then I dont really see the harm in it either

Nor did I say that there is any.

Just no sense wasting money on things one doesn't need when on a tight budget.

 

[pyroducksx3]

if he is buying a new base no matter what how is it a waste of money?, and if they are more expensive for the 20 MOA vs 0 I didnt realize it and even if there is , it must be pretty minimal

 

[WildRose]

Ok all thanks for the help again. Now that I have my scope picked out lets pick some base and rings. This scope is just a begineer set up and I plan on upgrading once my funds allow.

What are good base and rings? I want a one piece base and the pictany type sounds good? What does the different MOA stand for on the bases. What rings are good? Vortex makes rings that i hear are pretty good? What is wrong with warne base and ring set up? They are steel as far as I know and very soild. Please help.

Thankss

With your rifle, scope, and budget I'd say go with a Redfield one piece base, and leupold steel or stainless steel rings.

Have your gunsmith look at the set up and tell you what height rings you will need.

 

[WildRose]

if he is buying a new base no matter what how is it a waste of money?, and if they are more expensive for the 20 MOA vs 0 I didnt realize it and even if there is , it must be pretty minimal

The difference is around $40-80.00. That's a lot for a college student.


Nightforce 1-Piece 20 MOA Picatinny-Style Scope Base Savage 110 Through 116 Round Rear, Axis Matte - MidwayUSA

Leupold 1-Piece Standard Scope Base Savage 110 Through 116 Round Rear, Axis Long Action Gloss - MidwayUSA

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=447963

I've never had either a Leupold or weaver base fail to perform flawlessly, nor have I ever had a problem with Leupold rings.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=488005

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I don't personally see the need for the wedge base.

For my STW I set my zero to 500yds. I then need only an 18 MOA hold over at 1000yds.

With a Mil Dot scope it's very easy to set your hundred yard zero at the top mil dot, and just use the rest to mark your holdover.

If you know your range and have a 50mm OBJ you should have more than ample field of vew to do so.

Even with the 3-9x40 Mil Dot I have on my 6.8SPC set up this way I have more than adequate FOV for holdover out to 900yds and it is by no means a caliber considered even adequite for long range shooting. It's just the plinker/varmint gun I keep with me in the truck at all times.

I have a similar scope on my M1-A (that I just sold to fund my new project) and have no problem getting to 1000yds with it either.

I used to zero my rifles at 300 yds with MV's of 3400 fps until I read in a recent thread that environmental conditions could change your zero POI (which actually changes your zero distance), which in turn changes your down range POI because all your data is based on your zero distance. In a 300 WM a pressure altitude difference of 5000' will change your 500 yd POI elevation by about 2" which is going to throw off eveything down range by larger margins. If you shoot and hunt at ranges lesss than 500 yds, I see no benefit from zeroing @ 500 yds. Depending on your load and scope hieght, your trajectory inside 500 yds could reach about 18" above line of sight. With my rifles, I now zero @ 200 yds, which only change by about 0.2" with an 8000' ft pressure altitude change.

IMO, there's no reason not to get a 20 MOA canted base unless your scope has less than enough travel to to zero with a 20 MOA base, which shouldn't be an issue with the Viper. Without it, 1K shooting might be iffy, and if he ever decides to shoot at longer ranges in the future, his uncanted base will be useless.

Objective size doesn't affect FOV. If you look at the specs of the Vipers in 44mm and 50mm, you'll see that their FOV's are the same. Same holds true for Nightforce scopes.