Help figuring MOA of a rail base

[Broz]

Eglet, Look closely at the last pic I posted. You can actually see that the front pad of the base is too tall. This is causing the base to bend in a "S" shape when tightened. The pad being too high is cancelling all the decline cant the base has.

Also, I did what yo said as far as tightening one end at a time. When only the front is tightened, there is a consistant .060" gap between the rear base pad and the receiver.

When only the rear is screwed down. There is a tapering gap between the front pad and the receiver.

I think I need a new base.

Jeff

 

[GNERGY]

I know it is not an EGW base because they have EGW stamped in them. I have a 20 moa EGW base and it is a lot thicker than yours.
Tarey

 

[Broz]

I can't say what it is as I am not the origional purchaser.

But I do know, a NEW 20 moa NightForce is on it's way to me..

Since this is my second issue with less expensive bases, I will stay clear of them in the future. My first bending , not fitting, wrong moa base was indeed a EGW.

Jeff gun) gun)

 

[Eaglet]

Good for you Broz,
AGW is the one I've been having problems with, unfortunaly I can't afford the NF.
I glass bedded mine and now is looking pretty good.
Good Shooting.

 

[KDB]

For what it is worth, I have a 30 MOA Farrell on one of mine and in the instructions they tell you to bed the base. Given the variances and differences in tolerances between rifles of the same manufacture, it seems logical that a perfect fit is unlikely. Bedding corrects for this and should virtually eliminate the deflection of the base when tighten correctly. Same principles as glass bedding the action.

 

[Eaglet]

For what it is worth, I have a 30 MOA Farrell on one of mine and in the instructions they tell you to bed the base. Given the variances and differences in tolerances between rifles of the same manufacture, it seems logical that a perfect fit is unlikely. Bedding corrects for this and should virtually eliminate the deflection of the base when tighten correctly. Same principles as glass bedding the action.

KDB,
you're right on the money. I also have Farrell base on one of my other rifles, much better base but twice as expensive or more. I did also glass bed this one just because of what you explained. I'm glad I did because it has to help keeping those groups together.

 

[Broz]

For what it is worth, I have a 30 MOA Farrell on one of mine and in the instructions they tell you to bed the base. Given the variances and differences in tolerances between rifles of the same manufacture, it seems logical that a perfect fit is unlikely. Bedding corrects for this and should virtually eliminate the deflection of the base when tighten correctly. Same principles as glass bedding the action.

I agree and I usually bed all my bases to take up the minor voids and mis-alignments of the two mating surfaces. I bought this rifle with the base installed and only checked the screws for tightness.

But,,, In this case this is a HUGE miss. To bed this base and retain a true surface on the top of the mount with the intended 35 moa cant, you would have .060" to .080" of bedding only under the rear pad of the base. This means you would need longer screws. That is not going to fly with any of us I am sure.

This base is soft and bends easy. In my opinion it is a cheap piece of junk and is not even close to the kind of equipment needed to engage in a long range shot on an animal.

Jeff

 

[dallas jack]

I'm not sure what kind of base that is but it's not an EGW. I've got EGW bases on three Vanguards and there hasn't been a problem with any of them. I didn't bed the bases but a problem like yours would have shown up when I lapped the rings.

The 700 LA is supposed to use the same base as the Vanguard but yours is nothing like the ones I have. The SA bases are different for the two makes unlike the LA. (screws have different spaceing)

What kind of problem did you have with the other EGW base?

I tried to send a picture (site dosen't support an upload from disk) but I do not have a site to put it on.
Dallas Jack

 

[Broz]

What kind of problem did you have with the other EGW base?
Dallas Jack

Actually I am not saying this is an EGW because I did not purchase it new, it came with the rifle.

But the other two EGW's I had, I did buy new and they were very flimsey and the fit was like a sack on a sow. They actually bent to shape as you tightened them down. One that came to me direct from EGW for a SVM Weatherby short action was marked 20 moa on the package. After it did it's flexing act while I was tightening it down,(and yes I did bed it) the lapping job of the rings was a chore. Then I installed a Nightforce NXS 5.5x22 on it and found that I was bottomed out at 100 yards and still 1" high. That means this 20 moa base is in reality 50 + moa.

I have seen enough of these cheap bases to say I am done with them. If I cant afford a good strong base that fits well, I will save till I can.

I talked to Richard Near yesterday. Looks like I will be ordering two from him. They fit like a glove, have a recoil lug , are strong as you can get, machining is impecable and he now has a light weight version and it is not aluminum.

Jeff

 

[dallas jack]

Wow, that sounds bad. I don't doubt you had those problems just not the same experience that I have had with them. I would do the same under those circumstances. I wonder if there has been a change at EGW.

Anyway good luck with your new bases. Let us know what you think of them when you get them.
Dallas Jack