Quick scope question

[gatorhugger]

Scope installs make my head swim.
I just put a new rear base on my savage rifle, but now the rings are not level.

Do scope rings have to be perfectly in line and level?
My back scope ring is now just a smidgen higher than the front ring, I can't imagine it would make a difference, but before I locktite it tonight wanted another opinion.

 

[revhigh]

What I'd do gator, is get a 1 inch (or whatever your rings are) dowel, and mount the ring bases using the dowel rather than the scope. Putting stress on a scope tube, either vertically or horizontally is never a good idea.

If your rings are correct and matched, what you're describing shouldn't be happening, IMO.

REV

 

[RonS]

Should be in the same plane. You might try a set of the Burris rings made to adjust for that.

http://www.burrisoptics.com/sigrings.html

 

[gatorhugger]

The rings are the same size, they are the exact same rings.
It's the bases that are a different height.
The gun has a two peice weaver base system.
The rear base is just a smidge higher than the front base.
Which makes the back ring a smidge higher.

Like less than an 1/8 inch difference in height between the front and back ring.
How would that put additional stress on the scope? Or would it I guess I am asking?
It seems like such a miniscule difference I think I am just gonna go for it.

 

[revhigh]

If the rings are out of alignment, when you tighten the top caps, you'll be putting stress on the scope.

I'd get a new set of bases if you're interested in doing it right.

REV

 

[planetcat]

I think they make shims for solving this exact problem. It's been a while since I've installed a scope, so you might want to search Weaver, Leupold, and maybe Warne and Burris to see if they have them.

 

[Mike J]

I may be wrong but I seem to remember someone else on another forum encountering this same issue with a savage.

 

[Mike J]

This is the thread I was thinking about Gator http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=559442&highlight=savage+weather+warrior

Is the gun a Weather Warrior? I would be inclined to shim it like someone else said.

 

[Al James]

You can shim underneath the base using several different materials or you can shim the scope up in the ring. Camera negatives work great and if I remember right are .003.

Depending on which base it is [F or R]you may not need much shiming to get the scope into the adjustment range. Let us know how it goes.

 

[nekvermont]

Why did you only replace the rear base? Is the new rear base the same height as the old front base? Why not a "new set" of bases? Those Burris signature zee rings that RonS spoke of are a good way to go.

 

[gatorhugger]

Why did you only replace the rear base? Is the new rear base the same height as the old front base? Why not a "new set" of bases? Those Burris signature zee rings that RonS spoke of are a good way to go.

Smart man.
I initially replaced just the rear base on my Savage Edge because the darn screws are ridiculously tiny, and the torx heads strip easily. In taking off just the rear base I stripped a screw head until it was totally round. :evil:

So I thought I could just replace the back base and leave the existing front base. But seeing as how I was going to have to shim per the other suggestions, I decided to try to get the front base off and replace it as well.

So now both 2 savage bases are off, factory Weavers bases are in their place.
Everything is nice and level.
On another note, savage really screwed up on this base system they have for their edge/axis. The supplied savage bases are too far apart for most scopes, and you definitely cannot use a 50mm objective.
That's what started this whole ordeal.
I bought a gun/scope package, with a bushnell 3x9, 40mm.
I wanted to change out the scope.
What a tortuous road that turned out to be.

Good gun, accurate as one costing 4 times as much, but it's made for their bases, rings, and cheapo bushnell scope.
I wanted to put a pentax 3x15, 50mm on it and finally suceeded. Though it's awfully high up now with super high rings.
Thanks for all the responses, I know it wasn't in the right forum, but needed some quick help and semi auto forum has the most visitors.
Sometimes I just need some quick friends! :wink:

 

[planetcat]

Why did you only replace the rear base? Is the new rear base the same height as the old front base? Why not a "new set" of bases? Those Burris signature zee rings that RonS spoke of are a good way to go.

Smart man.
I initially replaced just the rear base on my Savage Edge because the darn screws are ridiculously tiny, and the torx heads strip easily. In taking off just the rear base I stripped a screw head until it was totally round. :evil:

So I thought I could just replace the back base and leave the existing front base. But seeing as how I was going to have to shim per the other suggestions, I decided to try to get the front base off and replace it as well.

So now both 2 savage bases are off, factory Weavers bases are in their place.
Everything is nice and level.
On another note, savage really screwed up on this base system they have for their edge/axis. The supplied savage bases are too far apart for most scopes, and you definitely cannot use a 50mm objective.
That's what started this whole ordeal.
I bought a gun/scope package, with a bushnell 3x9, 40mm.
I wanted to change out the scope.
What a tortuous road that turned out to be.

Good gun, accurate as one costing 4 times as much, but it's made for their bases, rings, and cheapo bushnell scope.
I wanted to put a pentax 3x15, 50mm on it and finally suceeded. Though it's awfully high up now with super high rings.
Thanks for all the responses, I know it wasn't in the right forum, but needed some quick help and semi auto forum has the most visitors.
Sometimes I just need some quick friends! :wink:

Gator, how do you like that Pentax scope? Which model did you get? I've seen them on sale for really good prices, but was wondering how the optics were. Can you compare it to another scope, like the crappy bushnell on the Savage or maybe a leupold?

 

[Ale-8(1)]

When mounting a 'scope on my Maximum, the ring bores were slightly out-of-line. Bought the entire package from a single manufacturer, so it wasn't mixed parts.

This was one of the "replace the rear sight and clamp to the barrel" arrangements. Drilled and tapped top strap would have been the proper way to go, I know, but I wasn't that serious about the whole thing and didn't want to drill/tap the gun.

I fiddled around and managed to get the bores aligned with some shim stock. It works, but it's not optimal I guess.

:roll:

 

[revhigh]

When I got my 17hmr Savage the first thing I did was throw away those Savage bases and replace them with top quality Warne bases and rings. That scope hasn't move an iota in 5 years or so ... has never lost it's zero, and shoots 5/8 inch groups at 100 yards.

Those all in one pkgs are generally junk ... almost anybody who's serious replaces the whole scope system in those guns. You're almost better off just buying the bare rifle.

REV

 

[Ale-8(1)]

When I said "entire package" I was referring to the mount system only.

 

[gatorhugger]

Why did you only replace the rear base? Is the new rear base the same height as the old front base? Why not a "new set" of bases? Those Burris signature zee rings that RonS spoke of are a good way to go.

Smart man.
I initially replaced just the rear base on my Savage Edge because the darn screws are ridiculously tiny, and the torx heads strip easily. In taking off just the rear base I stripped a screw head until it was totally round. :evil:

So I thought I could just replace the back base and leave the existing front base. But seeing as how I was going to have to shim per the other suggestions, I decided to try to get the front base off and replace it as well.

So now both 2 savage bases are off, factory Weavers bases are in their place.
Everything is nice and level.
On another note, savage really screwed up on this base system they have for their edge/axis. The supplied savage bases are too far apart for most scopes, and you definitely cannot use a 50mm objective.
That's what started this whole ordeal.
I bought a gun/scope package, with a bushnell 3x9, 40mm.
I wanted to change out the scope.
What a tortuous road that turned out to be.

Good gun, accurate as one costing 4 times as much, but it's made for their bases, rings, and cheapo bushnell scope.
I wanted to put a pentax 3x15, 50mm on it and finally suceeded. Though it's awfully high up now with super high rings.
Thanks for all the responses, I know it wasn't in the right forum, but needed some quick help and semi auto forum has the most visitors.
Sometimes I just need some quick friends! :wink:

Gator, how do you like that Pentax scope? Which model did you get? I've seen them on sale for really good prices, but was wondering how the optics were. Can you compare it to another scope, like the crappy bushnell on the Savage or maybe a leupold?

Well first of all Rev is right, the package deals suck. The bushnell scope that came with it was all right, nothing special, and the bases sucked! Cheapest bases possible. Savage really scimped.

On to the Pentax. I had a 4x12 that I loved. Clear, bright, never lost zero. I just got the new Pentax 5x. Which is a 5 times variable. So it goes from 3-15 power. This thing so far has been a disappointment. today I was shooting and I was wasting a lot of rounds. I would shoot,high, low, left, right. We have all had one of those days where you sit and scratch your head and wonder what the heck is going on.
Finally, realized the vertical adjustment turret was falling completely off.
All from the recoil of a .223. WOW.
It almost fell off in my hands.
So I managed to tighten it down and finally zero'd the scope back to where the cheapo Bushnell was shooting. Which was 5/8 inch groups at 100 yards. Until I "fixed" the scope I was getting 3" groups.
I hope it doesn't loosten up again shooting the gun.

This new Pentax is NOT bright and vivid, suffers heat distortion images worse than any cheaper scope I have used, isn't really clear at 15 power, and fell apart in my hands.
I guess that is my review of Pentax. :?