Ken Farrell Rings

They will not interchange with Badger bases if you like to move scopes around, if you have Badgers now I would stay with them like Chris suggested.
Yes, my plan was to be able to switch my scopes around using the badger bases (i can use my ziess for on the go type hunting and the NF for load developement and LR situations). I thought that the Farrell rings would be compatible with the badger base--thanks for pointing this out. I will be mounting up a 1" zeiss conquest and don't like the idea of using ring reducers, this is the only reson why I was looking at Farrell's products. Thanks for the tip guys, the alloy badgers are almost half the weight of the steel version and will be perfect for what I had in mind. Has anyone tried the badger ring reducers, what are you supposed to do about lapping?

[ 11-13-2004: Message edited by: MOA ]

[ 11-13-2004: Message edited by: MOA ]
Maybe I am wrong about this, but when switching the same scope between rifles, I leave the rings, that I have lapped, on the base and just move the scope. My concern is that there may be slight differences between bases, enough to torque the scope when moving rifle to rifle.
MOA , I have had good luck lately using rings made by Tactical Precision , I have gotten 3 sets of their TSR rings and all have been made very well , they come made in aluminum , steel and in 1" , 26mm and 30mm sizes , they run about $50 a set from Brownells.

I know alot of the time you get what you pay for so if you insist on spending $100+ on a set , their is always the Leupold MK4 rings , also Volquartsen maks a Tactical style ring in 1" , both of those run around $150
But Like I said I was very supprise with the
cheaper TRS rings , great quality for the price
I too have heard great things about TPS rings. I love Badgers though..sakofan..It dont get any better!
Ian--have you confirmed your statement above???

Because i just got a set from ken to review for 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.

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.
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.
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


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.
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Recent Posts