First Rifle

[Technophat]

Hello all,

This is my first attempt at LR (precision) shooting. I'm an Infantryman with the big 82nd and currently deployed. I'm well versed with the M249 and the M240, but it's time to refine my shot groups. I purchased a Savage model 10 fcp-k in 308 and a Zeiss Conquest HD5 5-25x50 optic, but I'm having a difficult time finding good info on a specific base and rings. The tube is 1", and the true od of the objective bell is 60mm. I also want to use Butler Creek lens caps.

I don't plan on any further mods until I can grow into the weapon. That being said, I'm not afraid to pay for quality. I originally wanted to do a Seekins 20MOA base and rings, but it looks like the .76" rings may be too short. After contacting Seekins, this was their response:

"Thanks or contacting us. We only make one set of rings that are for a 1" tube. Please check with Savage to see if your action is a Round Back Accutrigger with the same hole spacing as a Savage 10FP regarding our Savage 10FP 20 MOA Base".

I read the PDF manual for my weapon, and I'm not sure if this is true or not.

Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. I've been following for a while, but this is my first post.


~Patrick

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

If someone here doesn't have an answer for you can check on Savage shooters forum. The bases for the short actions should all be the same other than the older actions were not round but flat on the back. Just in front of were the bolt handle is attached to the bolt when the action is closed. I can't help you with ring height for that scope.

 

[Spock]

FCP-k is a round back. Sealins or badger are great bases. You may be a bit limited on high end rings with a 1 in tube. Look at badger Leopold mark 4's, Burris for other ring choices

 

[Technophat]

Perfect. Thank you.

 

[Dick.Magee]

I just put a base on my 10 FCP myself. I went with a Ken Farrell steel 20 MOA for Savage SA. Fit really well, did not need bedding. It is a little heavy, but for my use the extra weight is negligible.




As for rings, I had good luck with TPS rings for my 1" scopes. Nice fit and finish with many options for height.

 

[billyburl2]

TPS would be my recommendation for 1" rings as well, or Tally lightweights.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I have an older Ken F 20MOA base on an older 10FP action. They were first combined in 2001. The base is rather tall, which made stock comb modifications (added height) a requirement. My base is glass bedded to eliminate any fit issues. Mine appears very similar to the one pictured above, except that my 10FP action has the pre-Accu-Trigger flat rear receiver configuration.

My solution is a McMillan A3 Tactical stock with the cutout block style adjustable cheek rest. It also has the stacker LOP adjustment. Works very well. Several stock makers can provide functionally similar solutions, but I firmly believe the McMillan stocks are the Cadillacs of replacement stocks. Mine was pillar bedded to my action by McMillan, and the job they did is a work of art.

While I am no longer restricted to lower cost bits and implements, there was along time where I was. It was period dedicated to finding accuracy and reliability on the cheap. I found that the equipment is less of a variable in such endeavors, and that the shooter's ability and commitment make up the larger components of the accuracy solutions.

The first thing an optical mounting solution needs is reliable stability, and that does not necessarily and absolutely require the greatest expenditures. It should also be configured to place the scope itself as low as possible without getting its various low-hanging bits much closer than 1/16" to the barrel and receiver with the scope caps installed. Finally, the optical axis height above the bore axis need to be a known, rather than estimated, value so ballistic calculations will have more meaningful results.

My advice about a first precision rifle is that the precision comes first to the shooter, and then to the rifle. It should take quite a long while before the shooter's skills exceed the accuracy capability of a solidly reliable basic varmint style rifle. By that time, the shooter's skills and knowledge should be adequate to clearly define where and which upgrades can be of real value.

Once one reaches the point where distant groups become consistent in size and shape, and environment becomes a genuinely dominant factor, that's when improvements to the basic system can accrue genuine accuracy dividends.

Greg

 

[Dick.Magee]

Greg:

Good to hear that someone else address the height issue with a new stock. I went down that path as well. However, instead of a McMillan, I went with an AICS 1.5 for savage (the Aston Martin of replacement stocks I suppose.) The comb and LOP adjustments are nice, but what sold me was the aluminum v-block. I'm also a fan of the thumb-hole.





In retrospect, lower rings would have also fixed the height problem...

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Thanks, Dick, for your kind words.

I believe that it is an enormous hindrance to have a rifle that does not fit its shooter as comfortably as possible. Ergonomic mismatches result in fatigue, and I believe that nothing disrupts accuracy quicker than fatigue. Whenever the neck hurts, or the muscles quiver, that's fatigue closing the door on accuracy's tail. The solution always lies in improved ergonomics. LL has even dedicated (a) video(s?) to resolving this very basic issue.

Of the shortfalls in basic rifle design, the adherence to an imaginary average shooter's physique model is the most annoying. For me, that means as much as 3" more LOP is required in comparison to the standard shooter model (I am 6 1/2ft tall). I am probably over a foot taller than Frank is; but get this right, there's nothing small about Frank.

The ability to retailor a stock to match the actual shooter's critical dimension is a major step toward making shooting effortless, and thereby redirecting the shooter's attention to the shooting basics. You can't keep hitting the target once the shooter's body joins in with the other factors detrimental to accuracy.

Greg