Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
The Basics, Starting Out
One piece vs two piece bases
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 390586" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>I'll disagree. The whole issue is which scope mounting system if better able to resist forces that could cause a scope to shift position and lose its zero. I consider scope mount failures to include any time my rifles lose zero from a previous outing, and I've had that happen even with one-piece aluminum bases and aluminum picatinny tactical rings. So I refuse to return to use of two-piece bases which only increase the potential for a bumped scope to shift POI.</p><p></p><p>The modulus of elasticity strength properties of steel versus aluminum? Are they really important when the scope tube itself is made of aluminum? Maybe so if the test is how hard one must swing a steel hammer to deform the base, rings, or scope. Are we to believe aluminum mounting systems lack the strength to fasten an <strong>aluminum</strong> scope tube to the receiver. I'm certain the thinner-walled scope will be damaged before the modulus of elasticity of aluminum bases and receivers are exceeded. The advantage of a once-piece base over a two-piece base is not related to forces that deform and destroy the base, rings, or scope, but the bumps and nudges that cause a shift in the scope's zero and subsequently result in a miss on a hunting shot. That's where the one-piece base mounted to the receiver at each end over a distance spanning 4-5 inches has the advantage over the two-piece base. Four screws holding one single base with the screws spaced 5" will resist higher force without movement much better than two screws spaced 3/4" holding the two separate bases on a two-piece base to the receiver.</p><p></p><p>Any quality 1-piece aluminum base with aluminum rings will survive forces the aluminum scope tube itself will not, and will add less weight to a packing rifle than most any two-piece steel base and steel ring set. And a one-piece aluminum base will resist shifts in scope zero better than any two-piece base on the market that are held to the receiver by two screws separated by a distance of ~3/4 inch.</p><p></p><p>Most custom receivers are equipped with one-piece bases. They are able to incur higher applied forces prior to shifting position on the receiver, compared to two-piece bases.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 390586, member: 4191"] I'll disagree. The whole issue is which scope mounting system if better able to resist forces that could cause a scope to shift position and lose its zero. I consider scope mount failures to include any time my rifles lose zero from a previous outing, and I've had that happen even with one-piece aluminum bases and aluminum picatinny tactical rings. So I refuse to return to use of two-piece bases which only increase the potential for a bumped scope to shift POI. The modulus of elasticity strength properties of steel versus aluminum? Are they really important when the scope tube itself is made of aluminum? Maybe so if the test is how hard one must swing a steel hammer to deform the base, rings, or scope. Are we to believe aluminum mounting systems lack the strength to fasten an [B]aluminum[/B] scope tube to the receiver. I'm certain the thinner-walled scope will be damaged before the modulus of elasticity of aluminum bases and receivers are exceeded. The advantage of a once-piece base over a two-piece base is not related to forces that deform and destroy the base, rings, or scope, but the bumps and nudges that cause a shift in the scope's zero and subsequently result in a miss on a hunting shot. That's where the one-piece base mounted to the receiver at each end over a distance spanning 4-5 inches has the advantage over the two-piece base. Four screws holding one single base with the screws spaced 5" will resist higher force without movement much better than two screws spaced 3/4" holding the two separate bases on a two-piece base to the receiver. Any quality 1-piece aluminum base with aluminum rings will survive forces the aluminum scope tube itself will not, and will add less weight to a packing rifle than most any two-piece steel base and steel ring set. And a one-piece aluminum base will resist shifts in scope zero better than any two-piece base on the market that are held to the receiver by two screws separated by a distance of ~3/4 inch. Most custom receivers are equipped with one-piece bases. They are able to incur higher applied forces prior to shifting position on the receiver, compared to two-piece bases. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
The Basics, Starting Out
One piece vs two piece bases
Top