Bases...1 piece or 2?

[Big Caliber]

I never gave it much thought. When I bought my 1st rifle, (bolt action), my faithful gun shop manager recommended a 1 piece scope base. Since then, I've always gotten a 1 piece mount whenever I got another rifle. But now I'm wondering if there is any real advantage or disadvantage to either a 1 or a 2 piece mount as I'm having difficulty locating a 1 piecer for a Savage MKII, 22lr. Any thoughts??? And yes, I did try the search function.

 

[NoSecondBest]

There is an advantage to a one piece mount. If the receiver is not perfectly machined, two piece mounts can put stress on the scope in the rings. A one piece mount eliminates a lot of this since it is made flat and parallel. Polishing a receive is often done after machining and actually removes some metal from the top of the receiver. Also, most companies today save time in a lot of the process and quality can suffer to some extent. Try EGW, they make mounts for your gun.

 

[g.willikers]

A two piece mount does add a variable for misalignment.
But sometimes they are necessary.
Like if the distance between the mounting holes in the receiver are unusual.
Or there's interference with a one piece and the ejection port.

 

[BumbleBug]

This is an excellent question!

I've always preferred 1-piece bases for my rifles. They just look stronger & better. But I've heard two different opinions on which style is better. The idea of being stress-free on the scope & the rifle itself are universal. One thinking is that a 1-piece base, which is very ridged, bolted down to an also very ridged receiver can induce stress across the action, assuming a slight misalignment. But a misalignment across a 2-piece mount would put stress on the scope tube instead. Pick your poison. Luckily it is rarely an issue, but just from a logic stand point, 2-piece bases with rings that uses inserts might the ultimate solution.

FWIW...

...bug

 

[SSA]

I've used both with no problems. I prefer 2-piece bases on bolt actions.

 

[jmr40]

Years ago most rifles had to be drilled and tapped by a gunsmith. Even early rifles drilled and tapped at the factory were often not perfectly aligned. One piece bases and windage adjustable mounts were common, and needed, to get the scope aligned with the bore.

With modern rifles neither are really needed. Lots of folks still use them because that is what grandpa always used. They never understood why. On some long range target rifles 1 piece rails with elevation built into them are used to allow more scope adjustment. This is about the only real advantage 1 piece bases offer any more.

I much prefer 2 piece bases. They are still stronger than any scope. The scope will always fail first so I never understood the desire for heavy steel rings and 1 piece bases anyway. Two piece bases are lighter and with nothing over the loading/ejection port make it easier to load, unload the rifle. They give more room for fingers between scope and bolt when carrying the rifle and are far easier to mount correctly.

 

[Big Caliber]

Hmmm...ok! Thank you all very much. I'll see what EGW has.

 

[lefteye]

JMR40 nailed it. I have always used two piece bases to maximize access to the loading/ejection port (especially when wearing gloves).

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I prefer one piece, adds stiffness to the action.

 

[lefteye]

Are one piece bases made of the same steel as the receiver of a bolt action rifle?

Are the screws for scope bases made of the same steel as the receiver of a bolt action rifle?

I am curious - seriously - about how a one piece base actually increases the "stiffness" of a bolt action receiver. I would guess that any increase in the "stiffness" of the receiver is marginal unless the one piece scope base and screws are at least as strong as the receiver steel.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

It's stronger than the air that WAS between them.

 

[lefteye]

It's stronger than the air that WAS between them.

"Marginally"!

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I don't know the answer in an exact sense. I just know that good one piece bases supposedly add stiffness, which should be a good thing.

 

[Jim Watson]

Supposedly.

The receiver is bigger and stiffer than the base, therefore the base will deform to follow any imperfection in the receiver.
This for commercial guns and scope mounts, not the customs where they machine them to match with no stress on either.

 

[lefteye]

Thank you Jim. I didn't state it very well, but I thought that the strength and stiffness of a one-piece scope base had to equal (or exceed) the strength and stiffness of the receiver upon which it was mounted in order add any degree of accuracy to a bolt action rifle.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

The base is weaker than the action but the combined unit is stronger than the action alone.

Just like when I build a set of stairs. There is a 4x4 post on the center of each stringer, to the ground. They are much stronger than a 2x4. However, a 2x4 run at an angle across all 3 makes them much stiffer.

 

[mete]

Please do not confuse strength and stiffness !!! You're talking about well below the elastic limit .
In the knife making world many think that stiffness of a blade is related to heat treatment [strength] -NO it's related to thickness of the blade .

Take a piece of paper hold down one end onto a table . try to support a pencil on the other end -- pencil falls to the floor .Take same paper , make accordian type folds parallel to the length .Hold one end on table - the other end WILL support a pencil. You haven't changed the paper as far as strength but you have changed the stiffness. Get it now ???

 

[Sierra280]

I agree with the 1 piece people. Stiffer action, less potential stress on scope tube and (what no one has mentioned) a 1 piece picatinny base gives you a lot more to play with when finding good eye relief.