Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Problem with bases.

  • 05-06-2021 2:31pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    I have Leopold Quick Release Bases set up on my rifle only they don't seem to be holding zero. The point of impact is moving left and right after removing the sight and replacing it. Any suggestions on how to fix it.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭ Richard308


    Are they return to zero bases? Only ever heard of return to zero on blaser rail and a.r.m.s rings mounted on a fixed picatinny rail.


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    Pictures of similar setup. I have different bases but rings are identical. They operate with a cam pushing forward and pulling down the ring.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭ Richard308


    Mach Two wrote: »
    Pictures of similar setup. I have different bases but rings are identical. They operate with a cam pushing forward and pulling down the ring.

    Don’t think they’re guaranteed return to zero


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    Guaranteed to within a half moa.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,759 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cookimonster


    Are these them-

    https://youtu.be/eVdIVDv2Yxc

    A few comments-

    How much shift are you getting?
    If you can live with the reported 1/2 MOA then they could be ok. It would be well within acceptable tolerances if it's on a deer rifle. I'm quite happy to have that sort of deviation on a zero day. On a rim fire I'd be looking for a bit tighter, but then again that 1/2 MOA may be smaller at usual .22 zero range.

    Are the bases and rings matching?
    I've seen this recently, were the bases and rings were reported to be compatible but in reality it wasn't so. The rifle was zeroed dead on, then begins to wander with each shot. Bases were replaced to excat match of the rings.

    Have you tried various combinations of the ring and bases?
    On one of my set ups the whole lot comes into line if I have the rings placed in a particular way, otherwise any other orientation shots the scope off centre.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    They are the base and rings. I have my bases in such a way that when I put the sight on the tabs are pushing the sight towards me. Would that make a difference.
    Have you theses bases Cooki?


  • Registered Users Posts: 158 ✭✭ GooseB


    I have my bases in such a way that when I put the sight on the tabs are pushing the sight towards me. Would that make a difference.

    I'm not familiar with these rings (I looked at your photos) but just in regard to the above statement - When I put a scope on a normal Picatinny rail, I push the scope away from me (towards the muzzle). When the gun recoils, the inertia of the scope is going to want to make it stay where it is and the rest of the rifle will try to move backwards. This gives the appearance of the scope moving forwards under recoil. Does your ring system ensure any play in front of the rings is removed as opposed to play behind them?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,759 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cookimonster


    [QUOTE=Mach ...pushing the sight towards me. Would that make a difference.
    Have you theses bases Cooki?[/QUOTE]

    Push Forward....

    When mounting rings / bases and there's some forward / rearward play in the position, it is advisable to push everything forward to the muzzle. This will counteract the rearward force of the recoil. The locking mechanism may be flinching under recoil.... what calibre by the way?

    Edit - Sorry missed your question.

    No I don't have them. The issue was with Burris / Leopold bases and rings. The rings lock into the bases in a rotating fashion.
    My set ups are or were on either receiver dovetails/dedicated rings or picatanny bases / rails with matching rings ( QD in these cases)


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    I have them on a .22 LR. I would think that recoil would be minimal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    So you had quick release weaver type rings?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,759 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cookimonster


    Mach Two wrote: »
    I have them on a .22 LR. I would think that recoil would be minimal.

    Ok, to save yourself a hugh nightmare proceed carefully and slowly and don't get a rush of poo to the head.
    • Firstly check your scope (what make?), ensure the cross hairs are fairly centred and not way off the axis. If theres an issue, bore sight and see if there is a massive difference between the bore sighting and the centre of the scope. This would indicate a misalignment of the bases. Go look at the bases.
    • Without dismantling everything, check all your screws are tight. If you find something wrong then fix that one thing and check zero.
    • If all is tight, remount your rings - start by removing them, placing the bottom halves into the bases and mount the scope from there doing the usual procedures. Ensure that the screws are cross tightened and repeat even when torque is reached, as each adjust ment on opposite screws can effect its partner. Check zero and continuity.
    • If your still having issues, remove bases, clean reciever and bases well and remount. Some locktite solution can be used on the base screws. Reassemble and check zero and continuity


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    Leupold scope. How do you mean way off the axis? I had to move the crosshairs a good bit when I changed rings and bases. Would that affect the ability for the sight to hold it's zero?

    I am actually using Leupold Gunmakers Bases. I had to make theses bases for the gun. The bases are very well secured.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,759 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cookimonster


    Mach Two wrote: »
    So you had quick release weaver type rings?

    I had Waever bases on my Mauser with steal Burris QD rings. The receiver mounting system is the same as the Remington 700 configuration. These worked fine but Ichanged the bases to a full length Picatanny rail to accommodate different set ups. It's a good solid set up and doesn't give me any hassle

    555044.jpg


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,759 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cookimonster


    Mach Two wrote: »
    Leupold scope. How do you mean way off the axis? I had to move the crosshairs a good bit when I changed rings and bases. Would that affect the ability for the sight to hold it's zero?

    If the bases are not in line with the bore and off centre then the scope will be off centre to the bore. If this deviation is severe enough you can end up adjusting windage so much that your vertical cross hair could be all the way to the left or right of its adjustment plain. This can put strain on the internals or not give you a good sight picture.


    Mach Two wrote: »
    I am actually using Leupold Gunmakers Bases. I had to make theses bases for the gun. The bases are very well secured.


    That's a whole different ball of wax and way out of my omelette and pancake realm, you obviously had to machine / cut / shape the block to fit the receiver and then drill the mounts to fit the exsisting tapped reciver holes etc. There's a huge amount of things that could be off, no insult to your skills.


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    That's a whole different ball of wax and way out of my omelette and pancake realm, you obviously had to machine / cut / shape the block to fit the receiver and then drill the mounts to fit the exsisting tapped reciver holes etc. There's a huge amount of things that could be off, no insult to your skills.

    The bases are 100% in line with each other which is I presume correct. They are tight fitting without any movement.
    I have a standard dovetail rail that is on most rimfire rifles.

    How do I check the sight to get it centred. It is keeping its poi between shots it is only when the sight is removed and replaced that poi changes.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,759 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cookimonster


    Remove the scope (handy with the QD mounts) and place the tube of the scope on something that will allow you to evenly and smoothly rotate it 360. Crank the power down if you can and look through the scope at a fixed point - small dot on the wall etc. While looking through the scope slowly rotate the tube in one direction if the cross hairs are fairly centred then there will be little deviations between the aim point and the point on the wall. If the cross hairs are way out of line then after abouts 90 degree rotation you should start seeming a massive difference between the aim point and the spot on the wall.

    Remove turret caps and dial your turrets all the way out to the right or left, then up or down. Now slowly click back the opposite direction, counting the clicks as you go. If you max out a say 80 clicks dial back 40 click, then repeat with the opposite turret. Try the rotation trick again and your scope should be centred.

    Put the scope back on the rifle and check the bore sighting. If you find your way off then theres a problem.


    Re holding zero, obviously you are rezeroing to get it back on each time you remount the scope - this could be a tension problem, if the mounts and rings aren't aligned it may be torqueing the scope tube and causing loss in zero. Check the rings are in line and not out of place.

    Again, when you lose zero is the point of impact consistent or is it random and moving. In other words loss of zero but all are going in the same hole.

    Re the fit of the mounts, do you have a retaining system ie side clamp, vertical screws down onto the reciever etc or is it just a friction fit. I ask because a few of my rifles (CZ, Brno and BSA) had dovetail reciver mounts but all rings or bases were fixed in place by side clamps or in the case of picatanny to dove tail fittings downward torquing screws.


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    Thanks for that Cooki. A lot to do there.
    I just took a few shots there. Fired 5 shots and removed sight after each shot. All shots almost touching each other. Problem fixed I thought. A miracle. Fired another few shots. Hoping for the same results. Back to the start again. Probably 2" spread. This is at 40yds.

    I will post a picture of my setup tomorrow.


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    Photos of rifle.


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    Photos of base. I have drilled and threaded a hole to take a grub screw in the middle to help keep it in position since theses photos were taken.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,759 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cookimonster


    Forgive my ignorance, what rifle is it?

    ...again, since we are chatting, was there a particular reason to go with this mounting set up?

    One thing you could try to eliminate the elephant in the room, is to mount the scope with conventional dove tail rings - test fire that then you'll know that the scope is good.if you don't have extra rings, test the scope on another rifle.

    I always loved the simplicity of dove dail rings - rings to receiver. I have a unmoderated 270 that uses a dove tail receiver with a single recoil pin in the rear mount - no issues with it at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    Sako Quad. It has interchangeable barrels. I was hoping to use nightvision at some stage so this set up would be ideal for me. I have also discovered that when I squeeze down the front ring first the rear ring lifts 0.2 mm. I checked this with a feeler gauge. I will have to put a shim on it. If I turn the sight around it fits flatter on the bases so changing the rings around might be a good idea.

    I don't want to remove the bases on it as they are a tight fit and if I take them off and refit them they probably won't fit as well. Good idea actually to change the rings to check the sight. I could fit it to another rifle.
    If this system works I would be very happy with it.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,759 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cookimonster


    Fitting night vision was the reason I got rid of the two seperate bases, the full length picatanny gave me better mounting options. Some of the NV can be a b*tch to get a good eye relief and suitable LOP.

    I ended up setting up a dedicated NV rifle with a picatanny on a dove tail reciver so I have the option for fitting a day scope.

    555180.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    How well do the weaver type quick release base hold poi?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,759 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cookimonster


    Mach Two wrote: »
    How well do the weaver type quick release base hold poi?

    I never got to that stage of removing the scope off on a regular basis, but they did hold usable zero, slight shift of about 1/4 inch to the right (?). I would recommend the picatanny rails as they are more compatable with other mounting systems then weaver.


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    I checked out other people's thoughts on your system and the system I am hoping to use. My one came out tops providing I get it up and working.


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    What kind of rings have you on that set up?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,759 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cookimonster


    Mach Two wrote: »
    I checked out other people's thoughts on your system and the system I am hoping to use. My one came out tops providing I get it up and working.

    Fair enough, but have a look at various NV units and how they attach to the rifle, often requiring some sort of step back mounts to allow proper eye relief. Some of the thermal units that are more traditional in terms of scope design may allow fairly conventional mounting but many still utilize oversized housing where traditionally elevation and windage turrets are located. Rings may need to be spaced out beyond the range allowed with normal reciever positions. Scope / Unit housing may come in contact with iron sights, barrel and receiver profiles etc, etc so a multi slot rail can help over come these situations.

    Some people get hung up with full rails thinking they may cause obstructions, its simply not true. I've used two centrefure rifles with blind magazines both fitted with full length rails with no issues loading, unloading or ejection, one of them a straight pull and it operates smoothly as fast as I can cycle it. I've also shot two controlled feed rifles with rails, again no issues. While my .22 fitted with a rail worked flawlessly.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,759 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cookimonster


    Mach Two wrote: »
    What kind of rings have you on that set up?

    Burris Steal QD (1 inch) on the Mauser and Hawke Steal QD (30mm) on the CZ


  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ Mach Two


    The problem with the likes of Burris Steal QD rings and similar rings from what I could read was that they were not returning to zero. Or not as good as the Leopold Quick Release Bases.
    I am of course open to correction.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,759 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cookimonster


    I've indexed the throw levers and tested the I've torque using a fat wrench, but prior to that I tested the set up just using indexing.

    For the .22LR I got good repeatablity on initial testing but I have since changed rifle to a .22 centre fire and haven't removed the NV scope since zeroing.

    I use the steal rings for longevity and robustness.


Advertisement