Picatiny Rail Remy 700, EGW, Near, Other Help?

[Broz]

With todays automated milling tolerances, its hard to beleive anyone could be real inconsistant unless set up incorectly to begain with.

I agree it could have simply been a bad run. I know some guys have ones that suit them fine. But I also I feel the quality of the material is better with NF and Near and also Ken Ferrel makes a nice base. I just wish Ferrels bases were not so tall.

Jeff

 

[conn338rum]

I have the picatiny rail Left Handed version on the 338 RUM with 1" Weaver Tacticals rings 6.5x 20 50 mm scope no issues sighting in at 100 yds.

On the 300 RUM used the Weaver Tacticals and rings and same scope again no issues. I thought I might have a problem with the weaver base being left handed rifle but I did not.

Also used weaver base on my 30-06 LH 40 mm scope

 

[Cameron Murphy]

It probably isn't so much the rail, as the tolerances on the rear bridge of the Remington 700's Unfortunately they don't take as much care as they should when they finish / polish them. I've seen height differences of +- .015" from nominal, and worse, up to .012" of slope front to back across the rear bridge. It's also common for the rear bridge not to be even left to right. That is why I generally recommend epoxy bedding our bases, to ensure a straight, stress free mounting. It won't hurt anything if the tolerances are good and the mating surfaces have good contact, but will stop you from warping your base or action if it's a bad fit.

On a point another poster brought up, the price difference between some of the makes of bases generally comes down to material. All of our bases are either stainless steel, or titanium. Since they are both much tougher and harder than aluminum, they can only be cut at about 10% the speed of aluminum, or maybe 40% of the speed you can machine carbon steel. In this, like everything, time is money.

- Cameron

 

[Senderofan]

I have not experienced a problem with either the NightForce, Farrell or the Badger bases. I truly believe........you get what you pay for in bases and rings......besides the scope itself. Advice well served......"You get what you pay for!!!"


Wayne

 

[alf]

Depends on the scope you're mounting and the amount of adjustment it has. I run three different 40 MOA rails with Nightforces and still am 12 to 18 MOA from the bottom, which gives me the most use from my scopes for distance. Just because you only go to 600 now, doesn't mean you should hamstring yourself now for the future, if you can still get a zero you want now.

 

[dig]

The EGW 15 MOA arrived today. Fit and construction are excellent. The rail was checked with a strait edge as suggusted and mic'ed on the top and sides with 100 percent consistancy. I like it better than a Warne and Weaver I have. The rear of the rifle action however (Remington 700 LA) was slightly out of square, rounded, as suggested in this thread by Cameron of Murphey Precission. I beded the scope per Murphey's directions using the excellent instructions on his web site with JB and the work came out excellent. I did this last night and will mount the scope in Warne Maxima rings in the morning.

I would like to thank everyone for the help on this. I will be purchasing Murpheys products in the future (I have a lite weight that titanium seems just the ticket for) base on the excellent advise and feedback.

Its my opinion that in todays day and edge of excellent machining equipment tolarance between all the big names are excelent. I am sure many of the big names, Luepold, Nightforce, etc. . . contract this work out to companies the likes of EGW, Warne anyway. The real bang for the dollar would certainly be a botique shop that specializes in these things such as Near or Murpheys.

Now, am I correct in when bore sighting with a colameter I should adjust down 15 inches from cener to be "on paper" at 100 or 200 yards? I sight at 200. lightbulb

Will post pics when complete and let everyone now when shot.

 

[Broz]

Glad to hear this. Let us know if it is indeed a 15 moa rail too please. After sight in you should be 15 moa lower than center of your elevation adjustment. My last 20 moa EGW ended up being about 50 moa. I had it on a 22-250 with a NF NXS that has 100 moa. I was bottomed out on elevaton shooting 1" high at 100 yards. Not trying to stir the pot, just relaying my experiences with two of the EGW rails. I fixed both rifles by installing NF rails. So I don't see how my experience could have been the action.

Thanks for your report and follow up.

Jeff

 

[dig]

Update! I mounted the scope and used a colometer to bore sight, it took about 42 clicks (1/4 inch adjustment) to bring the scope on center, it was just factory serviced by Leupy (change reticals) so they indicated it was centered. Upon sighting in I was just about on about 2 inches high at 100. Brought it back down to .9 inches for a 200 yard sight in, did not paper at 200 yet but was able to ring 200 yard gone spont on. Althought not an exact scientific analysis it looks like the base is slightly less than 15 MOA however there are a ton of variables here and it certainly is close. Overall happy with the EGW product, will go with Murphey on next mount/build. Beleive the bedding is a great idea