5/27/2023 0 Comments 2 pices base one piece base![]() ![]() ![]() The only reason to lap a ring is to allow for full contract between the rings and the optical tube, but even then it's imprecise given variation between the optical tube and the tube you are using to lap the rings. Plus you are actually resolving the underlying alignment problem by bedding the base, rather than just accommodating the alignment problem by creating a set of mis-aligned rings to match the mis-aligned base(s). That will accomplish the same thing as lapping (aligning both rights so that there is no stress on the optical tube), without encountering all the downsides of lapping the rings. And once again, if you find clearance under one base, then that's the base you bed. You can do basically the same thing with a set off two piece bases - you just have to install the bases and rings on an optical tube (or a straight piece of 1" bar or tubing) first to be able to check each base for excess clearance. If you fond no space under ether end, when the other end is screwed down, then you don't need to bed the mount at all. If so, then you've now identified it as the end that needs to be bedded. If there is no space, then you re-install the base from that end and see if you have any space under the other end. If so, you now know you need to bend that end. If you have a one pice base, you install the screws and snug them up on one end and then see if you have any space on the other end. Similarly if your two piece bases are not in the same plane they will stress the optical tube and the receiver - it's just a lot more obvious that this is happening. ![]() However the one piece base will still be placing stress on the receiver, which is not conducive to accuracy. If you are using a one piece base on a crooked receiver, the base will be taking the stress off the optical tube and you'll be tempted to declare victory and call it good. Ideally, what you are looking for is a perfectly aligned set of rings that won't stress the optical tube, but just as importantly, won't be stressing the receiver either. Personally, I think lapping the rings is a bandaid approach to the problem. In either case, if you are using quality bases and mount them properly, either design will get the job done. On the other hand many one piece bases, particularly on short action receivers, only use three screws rather than four, so they have less shear strength than the 4 screws used on two piece bases.Ī two piece base will be lighter than a one piece base.Ī two piece base will allow more room for loading. It's easier to bed a one piece mount for full contact with the receiver than it is to bed a set of two piece mounts (which is the correct solution to the above problem).Ī one piece base, if attached fore and aft with four screws rather than three, can be cantilevered out in front of the receiver ring, giving the shooter some additional options for mounting larger optics. However, mounting a one piece base on said receiver will still result in vertical stringing, so it's not a good solution. One piece bases can, when properly mounted, add a small degree of stiffness to the receiver of a traditional bolt action design.Ī one piece base will make any misalignment of the holes drilled and tapped into the receiver instantly obvious - not that it will actually solve the problem however.Ī one piece base makes it seem to be easier to mounting a one piece base on a receiver where the tops of the bases would not be in the same plane with two pieces bases. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |