Diversified Innovative Products+ EGW base review

TOP PREDATOR

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 19, 2008
4,591
83
54
SCRANTON AREA PENNSYLVANIA
If you intend on shooting your .22lr or other rimfires past 100 yards and reducing or eliminating excessive "holdover" as your scope may run out of vertical adjustment, a sloped or MOA base is a must have. This is comparison of the Diversified Innovative Products (D.I.P) 25 moa base and the EGW 20 moa base, and some of my objective opinions of both.

A few years back when I started to really get into rimfire shooting, I did the usual 50 yard shooting, then when that got less than challenging, moved out to 100 yards. All though 100 yards still offers a challenge with the 22lr, I started to try 200 yards, and found that most of the scope I have run out of adjustment at the 150 yard mark or even less due to the dramatic drop of the cartridge at that distance. A great amount of holdover was needed to reach 200 yards, but I knew there had to be a better way.

As I got more into rimfire shooting and taking it more to a serious level, and by surfing the fine forums such as this one, the answer seemed clear as a bell - a MOA sloped base is neccessary to accomplish the job.

Enter the D.I.P. and EGW bases for rimfires. Both get the job done, adding the needed adjustment to the elevation of the scope by "tilting or sloping" the front of the optic downward, which in turn gives you more "clicks" of upward adjustment. Both bases are well made, and both are similarly priced, and are of the same length. That's about where the similarities end. I started with the EGW 20 MOA base, pictured on the bottom of this side by side photo.
bases001.jpg

At the time, I believe it was the only one available, I was pleased with it, it did it's job, and was around $40.00. Enter today's market, the D.I.P. 25 MOA base, pictured above at the top of the photo. The differences are night and day.

First a little background. The EGW base didn't fit my Savage's holes in the receiver. I contacted EGW, they had told me that Savage had a batch of mis-drilled receiver holes, to send the base back, and they would send me either a blank base that I can have drilled to match the mis-drilled holes, or wait until they were finished making new bases for the "bad" receivers. As I wanted everything to be right with this rifle I decided to wait. I waited for almost 2 monthes, called about the status. As their bases were selling like hotcakes, they were having a tough time keeping up with demand. Understandable, I figured, so I ordered the blank (undrilled) base. Now I have a closer to $60.00 base after shipping costs back and forth, and gunsmithing costs to drill it just right. Not EGW's fault, I could have waited until they made the new ones, and their customer service was better than average, so I want to point out that I'm not knocking them.

My next MKII model F (featured in the LOW BUDGET .22 TRAINER - start to "finish" thread), wasn't intended for 200 yard shooting as I had my other Savage covering that. But then I thought "why not"? So i went with the D.I.P. base.

When I received it I fell in love with it! It had a very "tacticool" look to it, and had many great features engineered into it that, in my opinion, made it the "go to base". Not that the EGW base was bad, just that the D.I.P. one had more things "right" about it.

One clear advantage was the cutout in the middle for the ejection port. It allows you to access the chamber much better to clear stuck shells, misfeeds, etc., and makes cleaning easier. The Savage name on the base is a nice touch, along with the overall beefiness of the picatinny slots and overall finish.
bases015.jpg

The EGW, not so much. No real quick access to the chamber, much thinner spaced, partial slots that reminded me more of a saw blade, yet it had a certain plain elegance about it, and a path of lines running down the center.
bases013.jpg


The intent was to remove the EGW base from the MKII BV do do a better pictorial, however one of the allen screws used to mount it stripped, and I now have a "permanantly mounted" base. The RT base comes with carefully oiled and packaged Torx type screws, a definite improvement over the allen ones. If you don't have one of these Torx bits, D.I.P. offers them for under $1.50.

Another built in feature of the D.I.P. base is the predominant slot located in the middle front of the base. This is to eliminate the mis-drilled receiver hole problem I endured earlier, and to fit the MKIIs and model 93s. The bolt side rear bottom of the base has an angle cut into it to allow the bolt handle to clear no matter what model you have. Pretty slick and headache free.
bases005.jpg


With either of the bases, the height of the base itself makes you go to a lower height ring than the one you are presently using, that is, if you want to get the optic closer to the bore and help with eye relief. I went from medium to low height to achieve the advantages of both, and still had some clearance left between the 40mm objective and barrel. I was concerned at first that I couldn't with the D.I.P. 25 MOA's greater slope, but it posed no problem. Plus added an extra 5 MOA, which should enhance ANY scopes adjustability.

The other thing I noticed is that the cutout is also longer horizontally compared to the EGW, for 22lr, .22 mag, and 17hmr applications. One base that fits all of them, and the MKII / 93 combined. Nice touch, and I also noticed that all the edges around the cutout are nice and smooth, another difference from the EGW base. The EGW has at least one more practical slot to mount a set of rings to it, with additional ones running across the top of the ejection port, that probably would never get used without more interference to chamber access.
bases004.jpg


There was only 1 really odd thing about the D.I.P. base, and that is that it had some sort of groove on the bottom. I wasn't completely rounded, and looses contact with the receiver at this point. As we are talking low or hardly near no recoil with the rimfires, I didn't see this as a hinderence as it may be with a centerfire, just odd.
bases008.jpg


I also thought the slot in the front middle of the base may collect gunk in it from a long day in the field, but that's just me nitpicking, trying to find a fault with this base, of which I could not find of any reasonable circumstance.

When considering the pros and cons of both at around the same price, I would have to go with the D.I.P. 25 MOA base as it has so many more nice features and I feel has a better "look" about it. Once again both the EGW and RT bases work fine, just that the D.I.P. has more "right" with it and I do prefer it to the EGW for all the added features.

bases002.jpg

bases003.jpg

bases018.jpg

bases017.jpg


So thanks D.I.P. for putting out a high end, well engineered and adaptable, capable and "tacticool" looking base that takes rimfire shooting to a higher level and at an affordable price. Not only for us savage buffs, but Marlin, CZ, Anchutz, Ruger, and Sako fans alike. There is a choice out there, and at least for me, that choice is apparant. The Diversified Innovative Products 25 MOA base.
http://www.diproductsinc.com/

ADDITIONAL PHOTOS:
url]

url]

url]

url]

url]

url]

url]

url]

 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

Good write-up.
I've got a Rimfire Technologies base on my CZ and really like it. I also got great customer service when I called with a few questions.
I wish they made a 30 or 40 MOA base. Since my rifle seems to need a whole lot of "up" to get zeroed at 50, I don't have as
much travel left over as I'd like.
CW
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

Nice write up. Like you I have both EGW and RT bases. I started with a EGW since they were the only game in town at the time. I do slightly prefer the RT but I have no real complaints about the EGW. If both were originally available, I would prefer the RT but as it stands, there's no reason to replace the EGW.
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

Good review TP. I've purchased two of the 20 MOA Bases from EGW, (one for my MK II-FVT and one for my son's MK II-BTV), we're very happy with them. Haven't tried what RT offers as I was lead to the EGW first when I was asking about this 200 yard .22LR shooting subject last year.

A 25 or 30 MOA Base would be nice to have but I doubt I'll change the bases now since I can reach 300 yards with the 20 MOA ~ and that's all the longer our local Range is.

Good review!
smile.gif
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

Good write up. With my 20MOA EWR rail I'm good to 400. A 30 MOA rail would be nice. I think I could go to about 450 with the 20 MOA rail. The Scope I have has 90 MOA but with a correction for click error its more like 100MOA

Here is 400yards with a Savage Mark II BTVS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHI4C9BIdj8

Haven't been out since the summer. Waiting for the snow to go to be able to get out again.

Cheers
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

Just checked and RT offers 20 min base for anschutz. Cost a few bucks more because it clamps the groved reciver.
Sure would look good on my silhouette rifle.
I'm thinking I have 24 minutes unused under the 40 meter setting.
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

You could consider a Shim under the end of the base that would be the same as machining more elevation

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cwshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good write-up.
I've got a Rimfire Technologies base on my CZ and really like it. I also got great customer service when I called with a few questions.
I wish they made a 30 or 40 MOA base. Since my rifle seems to need a whole lot of "up" to get zeroed at 50, I don't have as
much travel left over as I'd like.
CW </div></div>
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

I am wondering what the slot spacing on them is? i know the EGW spacin g is standard at 10mm as per picatinny specs is the RT the same it looks like a well made piece of kit i dont usualy like slotted holes to make rails multifit but with a 22 that is not a real issue if it was a 308 then there would be an issue. I think the RT looks a lot nicer and with the cutout it is probably needed on a small action like a 220.

Good writeup and thanks for sharing your experiences.
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wild_Bill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am wondering what the slot spacing on them is? i know the EGW spacin g is standard at 10mm as per picatinny specs is the RT the same it looks like a well made piece of kit i dont usualy like slotted holes to make rails multifit but with a 22 that is not a real issue if it was a 308 then there would be an issue. I think the RT looks a lot nicer and with the cutout it is probably needed on a small action like a 220.

Good writeup and thanks for sharing your experiences.

</div></div>

mil spec piccatinny slots
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

I wrote RT about a 25 MOA left handed base from my soon to arrive BTVS and received this reply-
"Sir
We do have a couple for our southpaw friends. They are not listed on the web site because we don't have a good photo on a left handed rifle. I provided a link below unfortunately we only have them in a standard rail."

Is the RT base that much better that I should consider the standard base w/ insert rings(shim maybe?) or just go EGW? I have their base on my 10FLCP-K with good luck but I have no real basis for comparison.

Nice review, thanks.
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

i have an egw on my .308, and again although nothing wrong with it, if i could find the type of features built in to a moa sloped base for it like the fimfire technologies one (for the same price), i would choose the later.

the cutout, universal receiver hole fit and overall "tacticool" look really has me sold on it.

if a budget is the main concern, the added expense of insert rings may be the deciding factor, as the leftie standard R/T wront give you the +MOA advantage.

on the flip side, the cutout would help with clearing any misfeeds and cleaning.

sorry to flip flop like that, but in reality, if your going to consider inserted rings and a regular base, i'd imagine putting those rings on the standard bases that come with the rifle would save you $40.00 bucks.
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

Its more a function vs budget thing. RT has got it there.
I'm looking at the 30mm 6-24 vortex crossfire with 75 MOA of elevation. It will be a trainer used to shoot 200-250yds. From a 50 yard zero it sounds like I'll need about 18-20 MOA (from what I've read). So maybe a standard mount will work for me if I don't eat up too much travel trying to get zeroed. Yes, no? Still new at this. Thanks
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

I would mount it and try it from this post you do not need any more elevation
Bill

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CumminsTruck97</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its more a function vs budget thing. RT has got it there.
I'm looking at the 30mm 6-24 vortex crossfire with 75 MOA of elevation. It will be a trainer used to shoot 200-250yds. From a 50 yard zero it sounds like I'll need about 18-20 MOA (from what I've read). So maybe a standard mount will work for me if I don't eat up too much travel trying to get zeroed. Yes, no? Still new at this. Thanks </div></div>
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

I got a RT rail for the 452 about 2 years ago and Weaver rings wouldn't work and should have. CS wasn't much help. EGW came out with an expensive one for the 452 instead of the $40 one that the Savage rifles use. I asked how much of an accuracy improvement to expect from the expensive base and never got an answer.

The RT rail is about as accurate as I can expect, but just restricted to certain rings.
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

i read somewhere that guy had a problem with the rings for the CZ rail also, where the width of the rail wasn't wide enough.

his solution was to shim the one side with a thin piece of aluminum cut out of a soda can.

he said it worked and continues to work.

i don't know first hand of the CZ rail problems, as i don't have a CZ (but wish to), but the savaage rail was and is GTG.
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

I have been using the RT on a CZ for over a year. Great customer service. I do wish they would add the right sized tool with the order though for a few dollars more. The three hour search it took me to find mine was time that I cannot get back.
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

Ive got this rail on my savage and one on my CZ they are both really nice pieces for the money... very good machining and attention to detail.

For those of you wanting more than 20-25MOA... look at the burris Zee rings. I had to piggy back those with my base to get the desired base line zero on my 22 mag.

Sick Bases.
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

I got my RT base in last week. I opted for the no-cant version for my .17 HMR. It fits absolutely perfectly. My only complaint is that the rear screws don't have dedicated holes for each one. It's more of a groove that allows fitment on the two different screw distances that Savage goofed on. I torqued the front two screws to 30 in-lbs, but the rear two seemed to begin eating at the aluminum base when I tried to torque them down. I never got my torque wrench to click at 30 in-lbs on those. I put a small amount of blue loctite on all 4 screws, and I dabbed a little RTV on the heads of all 4 as well to ensure they don't work loose. Haven't had a chance to shoot it yet with the new base, but I'm certain it will be excellent.
 
Re: RIMFIRE TECHNOLOGIES / EGW MOA BASE review

T P thanks for the informative write up. I think you were the one that pointed me towards DIP for my Annie 64. I got the DIP 20 moa and it has taken me to 200 yds NP. Don't have a place for 300 yet, but based on info provided here and my test I should have enough adjustment left in scope to get to 300. Using Wolf MT zeroed at 50 I am 5.75 moa up at 100 come up is 24 moa for 200 yds. Zeroed at 50 I have 45 moa total left in scope and that should get me to 300, if I can find a place "close" to try it.

Thanks again T P