NEWB 700 SA build. Please don't hate me.

[SirRoboftheBrown]

Brand spankin new to the forum. Not quite so much in regards to shooting, but definitely to long range/bolt.

Picked up an sps varmint in 308 with a Vortex Viper Hst 6-24 x 50 already on it for $300. SUPER STEAL! First things first, out with the "tupperware stock" and on the market for new, even new to me. Need detachable mag upgrade. New rings and rail (currently cheapo stuff). I'm not a complete newb, but asking for some help. I prefer traditional stocks, but not opposed to a chassis system. I like the idea of a folder because of that 26" barrel, but never handeked one and not set on it. Had a B&C Medalist milled out for Bagder bottom metal, Badger rings and rails, and a Leupold Mk4 on a previous 700 AAC build years ago and had no complaints. Had some thoughts of cutting the barrel down/threading it and making a sudo-M40 clone, but don't think I can swing a grand for a stock that I have to wait forever for, and will require additional custom work and parts to complete. Not that I don't understand the difference in a McMillan and a B&C, Im just not that advanced of a shooter or as well funded (Read single father).

I want to be able to dail out to 1000 yards. This scope offers a MAX of 65 MOA of elevation travel. I believe this would get me there (isn't it like 40 MOA from 100?). Would there be an additional advantage to an MOA base?

Listen, I believe in buy once cry once, but I have minimal extra spending cash to burn and want to get behind this rifle in the the next 2-3 months so budget is the mindset but a true sacrificial compromise is not what I want to do. Anyone have any stocks or anything laying around they could help arm a brother with? Unless you can suggest an excellent budget replacement to biting the bullet for Badger enhanced M5 bottom metal, thats where I'll head. Same goes for rings and rail, unless someone has a bomb proof budget suggestion, they will be Badgers. Extras cluttering your workspace, I'll gladly take them off your hands. Rah.

 

[308pirate]

I think a KRG Bravo would fit the bill of "prefer a traditional stock but consider a chassis"

 

[JaoeyP]

I think a KRG Bravo would fit the bill of "prefer a traditional stock but consider a chassis"

Second this. Modularity of the chassis, feel of a stock. $350 shipped, AI mag ready. If you want to go down the chassis road the new MDT Oryx at $400 looks pretty sweet, I've been considering one for a rifle of mine.

As far as MOA base, zero your rifle first-you have rings and a base on it already, right? See how much elevation you have to play with from a 100 yard zero, run your load info through a ballistic app and see if you have enough elevation in the turret to get there. If you do, maybe stick with what you have for now. If you don't, grab a 20 MOA base, EGW makes a decent product at a good price.

 

[kRcu]

Welcome to the forum. Paragraphs.....they will go a long way for you. Please...paragraphs.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

I think a KRG Bravo would fit the bill of "prefer a traditional stock but consider a chassis"

Briefly looking at it, I like the Bravo. Is that what you're running? Is it generally well accepted? Most of the <$400 stocks I see get ridiculed and negatively criticized in the searching I've been doing the last week or two.

 

[XLR308]

The Greyboe Renegade is also an excellent choice if you prefer a traditional stock with an A-5 pattern.
I would however recommend bedding it, that wouldn't be necessary with the Bravo but I prefer the feel of a fiberglass/composite stock over plastic.
Just comes down to personal preference as both are good options.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

Welcome to the forum. Paragraphs.....they will go a long way for you. Please...paragraphs.

I will endeavor to comply.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

The Greyboe Renegade is also an excellent choice if you prefer a traditional stock with an A-5 pattern.
I would however recommend bedding it, that wouldn't be necessary with the Bravo but I prefer the feel of a fiberglass/composite stock over plastic.
Just comes down to personal preference as both are good options.

I do prefer a fiberglass/composite feel as well, but admittedly have few rounds through a plastic stocked rifle other than the standard Military fare. I have the ability to bed if needed and am always willing to tackle my next DIY.

 

[XLR308]

I do prefer a fiberglass/composite feel as well, but admittedly have few rounds through a plastic stocked rifle other than the standard Military fare. I have the ability to bed if needed and am always willing to tackle my next DIY.

Just to clarify the Bravo has an internal aluminum chassis with plastic skins like the older AI.
You won't here complaining of an AI feeling cheap due to the skins or the Bravo for that matter I just personally don't like the feel of the plastic.
There are some enhancements to the Bravo you won't get with the Renegade due to the aluminum chassis part but it just depends on what features you want or need.
All I needed was a front picitinny rail for a bipod so I added that and I'm happy with it until I add texturing to the Renegade.
I would suggest comparing both and decide what features you really want or need and go from there.
Being able to actually handle both would be ideal.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

Second this. Modularity of the chassis, feel of a stock. $350 shipped, AI mag ready. If you want to go down the chassis road the new MDT Oryx at $400 looks pretty sweet, I've been considering one for a rifle of mine.

As far as MOA base, zero your rifle first-you have rings and a base on it already, right? See how much elevation you have to play with from a 100 yard zero, run your load info through a ballistic app and see if you have enough elevation in the turret to get there. If you do, maybe stick with what you have for now. If you don't, grab a 20 MOA base, EGW makes a decent product at a good price.

Suggestions for ballistic app? Any free ones worth downloading?

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

Just to clarify the Bravo has an internal aluminum chassis with plastic skins like the older AI.
You won't here complaining of an AI feeling cheap due to the skins or the Bravo for that matter I just personally don't like the feel of the plastic.
There are some enhancements to the Bravo you won't get with the Renegade due to the aluminum chassis part but it just depends on what features you want or need.
All I needed was a front picitinny rail for a bipod so I added that and I'm happy with it until I add texturing to the Renegade.
I would suggest comparing both and decide what features you really want or need and go from there.
Being able to actually handle both would be ideal.

Yeah, I need to drive out to NOVA to some shops I know will have some different stuff, but dreading the multi-hour drive.

 

[VP47PPC]

I have good results with my ballistic app when using Density Alt + app to update weather data. I have good results with StrelokPro, its not the popular app but its treated me great for a years worth of matches PRS, NRL 22 and 22 Silhouette. It also helped my son get his first deer, a 350yrd shot & a spot on hit.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

Just to clarify the Bravo has an internal aluminum chassis with plastic skins like the older AI.
You won't here complaining of an AI feeling cheap due to the skins or the Bravo for that matter I just personally don't like the feel of the plastic.
There are some enhancements to the Bravo you won't get with the Renegade due to the aluminum chassis part but it just depends on what features you want or need.
All I needed was a front picitinny rail for a bipod so I added that and I'm happy with it until I add texturing to the Renegade.
I would suggest comparing both and decide what features you really want or need and go from there.
Being able to actually handle both would be ideal.

I understand the principle behind bedding blocks. I have heard of and watched a few videos of people modifying/bedding their cheaper stocks with bedding blocks. On top of that talk of "mass produced action imperfections". If I get a "more budget" chassis/stock and bedding it or modifying it squeezes a bit more out of it I'm game. Obviously I would run a chassis/bedding block equipped stock first to see how it acted, then bed if necessary. I do like the suggestions so far. As Ive been out of it a while, all I even knew to look up were McMillan, Manners, HS, B&C. LMAO.

I understand, and I would definitely have to pick up some experience to pass judgment on the plastics.

Im not too "high speed low drag" with the attachments. Optic, swivel bipod(already own), sling, stock pack, barrel/optic cover. So crazy moduarity isn't a prerequisite.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

Fyi, whatever parts I end up choosing will be taken to a veteran gunsmith for bedding, blueprinting, milling, threading, lapping, mounting ect ect.

 

[VP47PPC]

The KRG Bravo looks good. I am also newer to this PRS game and a bit of a traditional guy when it comes to stocks. I have 2 B&C for my hunting rifles and 2 H&S Precision on another hunter and Varminter. All are bedding block rifles and the B&C rifles went without additional epoxy bedding and they both shoot fine. For matches my Bergara HMR Pro sports a stock similar to the KRG Bravo. I like this kind of stock & find the target style pistol grip to be a nice feature and the bedding block is big plus. Not sure about the feel of the KRG but the Bergara "plastic" feels solid and satisfying for me.

 

[JaoeyP]

Suggestions for ballistic app? Any free ones worth downloading?

Strelok, Hornady are both great for free apps to start with.

Also, re: KRG Bravo, I have one. They're pretty slick for the money. My only gripe is the polymer on it doesn't feel as fancy as my fiberglass stocks. Effects its performance in no way at all. Mine is on a 700 AAC in 308 I used for whitetail hunting.

 

[Kickin45]

You’ll be prefectly happy with the Bravo chassis.
I believe there’s a B&C stock with a mini chassis available that is reasonably priced as well

 

[308pirate]

Briefly looking at it, I like the Bravo. Is that what you're running? Is it generally well accepted? Most of the <$400 stocks I see get ridiculed and negatively criticized in the searching I've been doing the last week or two.

I don't "run" anything. I use KRG 180-Xray chassis on my Howa rifles.

The Bravo didn't exist when I bought mine and the 180-Xray has been discontinued.

In any case, KRG products are top quality, don't let the price confuse you. Do a search on KRG here, plenty of information.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

I don't "run" anything. I use KRG 180-Xray chassis on my Howa rifles.

The Bravo didn't exist when I bought mine and the 180-Xray has been discontinued.

In any case, KRG products are top quality, don't let the price confuse you. Do a search on KRG here, plenty of information.

I personally use the term "run" as I did to indicate operating a piece of equipment or using a tool. That is what a firearm is, is it not? I'm not fishing for an argument in any way, simply interested in your obvious dislike for the terminology.

 

[308pirate]

I personally use the term "run" as I did to indicate operating a piece of equipment or using a tool.

I use tools. I run someplace to get there quickly.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

Doing my research on here for the Bravo, I hear 3 things that I was hoping someone could clarify for me.

Someone said that the grip/trigger is fairly far apart. I'm 5'8" with short stout hands. Concern #1

The weight, I prefer the feel and balance of a heavier rifle system (read older style fiber/composite stocks). I have been disappointed with handling some lighter stocked systems and worry about it feeling forward heavy with the 26" barrel on it. Any real world experience here?

Several people commented about "parts coming loose/loosening screws" and the cheek rest seeming "flimsy". Again, real world experience appreciated.

Really liking the idea of torquing my barreled action onto a chassis, slipping in a mag and sending lead.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

I use tools. I run someplace to get there quickly.

Fair enough.

 

[TanktheFrank]

I definitely recommend putting your hands on whatever you are interested in. In the last year, I've had two grayboes, a McMillan a5, an aics, and now I have an xlr evolution. They all fit their own way, and have their subtle differences.

If I were in your shoes (again), I would pick up either the grayboe renegade with bottom metal, red hawk is running a pretty good deal now), or the krg bravo. Maybe the x-ray if you felt froggy.

A lot of it comes down to preference and perception, not having one on hand to fiddle with, I'd take pirate's experience and not be too concerned with flimsy pieces or parts coming loose. Keep your shit tight as part of PM and it's all good.

 

[_Raining]

To add to what @JaoeyP said, the 65 MOA in your scope is 32.5 Up and 32.5 Down, although it doesn't always work out to be that way. On your rifle, it could end up being 37.5 Up and 27.5 Down or 27.5 Up and 37.5 Down. But as he said, check how much you have now.

Do you have a chronograph, accurate muzzle velocity is important to get good data out of any ballistic application. Also note that published BC for bullets are not always accurate so if you have 30 MOA of elevation and the app says you need 29 MOA then it might be a good idea to get a 20 MOA base for safe measure (also wind and other env variables can push that 29 MOA to over 30).

Note: In my rifle with 175 TMK at 2700 fps MV, it is 34.625 MOA at 2550 DA and 80 degrees F. An example of 20 MPH Left to right wind + a new DA of 2000, I now get 35.75 MOA of elevation needed. Another example is 100 less MV from the first example (2550 DA, 80 F, But now 2600 FPS, no wind) gives 37.875 MOA of elevation needed. So it is likely a 20 MOA base would be useful for you.

I have also read about people speculating that you don't want to get to close to the edges of adjustment as it can be imprecise.

 

[JaoeyP]

Doing my research on here for the Bravo, I hear 3 things that I was hoping someone could clarify for me.

Someone said that the grip/trigger is fairly far apart. I'm 5'8" with short stout hands. Concern #1

The weight, I prefer the feel and balance of a heavier rifle system (read older style fiber/composite stocks). I have been disappointed with handling some lighter stocked systems and worry about it feeling forward heavy with the 26" barrel on it. Any real world experience here?

Several people commented about "parts coming loose/loosening screws" and the cheek rest seeming "flimsy". Again, real world experience appreciated.

Really liking the idea of torquing my barreled action onto a chassis, slipping in a mag and sending lead.

Grip/trigger- I have relatively small (not tiny) hands and have no issue. This may also depend on how you grip. I keep my thumb on the same side of the stock as my trigger finder, so no issues there.

I had my 243 with 26" barrel mounted in it at one point, was forward heavy only when I put my can on it (which is pretty heavy).

Have about 250 rounds through mine in its current set up with no screws coming loose. IF that's an issue with this stock, could be an issue with any stock. No issues with flimsy cheek rest so far.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

To add to what @JaoeyP said, the 65 MOA in your scope is 32.5 Up and 32.5 Down, although it doesn't always work out to be that way. On your rifle, it could end up being 37.5 Up and 27.5 Down or 27.5 Up and 37.5 Down. But as he said, check how much you have now.

Do you have a chronograph, accurate muzzle velocity is important to get good data out of any ballistic application. Also note that published BC for bullets are not always accurate so if you have 30 MOA of elevation and the app says you need 29 MOA then it might be a good idea to get a 20 MOA base for safe measure (also wind and other env variables can push that 29 MOA to over 30).

Note: In my rifle with 175 TMK at 2700 fps MV, it is 34.625 MOA at 2550 DA and 80 degrees F. An example of 20 MPH Left to right wind + a new DA of 2000, I now get 35.75 MOA of elevation needed. Another example is 100 less MV from the first example (2550 DA, 80 F, But now 2600 FPS, no wind) gives 37.875 MOA of elevation needed. So it is likely a 20 MOA base would be useful for you.

I have also read about people speculating that you don't want to get to close to the edges of adjustment as it can be imprecise.

I believe the M40 has a 30 MOA base, what if any, would the benefit be of a 30 over a 20. Would I essentially "lose" the lower range adjustments?

 

[TanktheFrank]

I would think that most guys running a 30 are expecting more shots past maximum point blank range than within. So you could zero for 300 or farther and have more adjustment range.
I could be wrong though, I only use 20 and 0 moa.

 

[_Raining]

I believe the M40 has a 30 MOA base, what if any, would the benefit be of a 30 over a 20. Would I essentially "lose" the lower range adjustments?

Anytime you add an MOA base you are stealing from that lower range and giving it to the upper. After you zero, you don't typically care about the lower but as I said, things are not going to be perfect.

So if you add a 30 MOA base and your situation with a 0 MOA base is 27.5 Down and 37.5 Up then you won't be able to get a 100 yard zero. Most times I have seen this discussed it is a good idea to assume your zero could be off by +- 5 MOA from that Max Elevation divided by 2. So since with a 32.5 split, a 30 MOA base might get you in trouble but a 20 MOA shouldn't.

If you assume the worst of that 5 MOA difference then with a 20 MOA rail, you will be at 27.5+20 Up and 37.5-20 Down. And 47.5 should be plenty for what you are doing (1000 yard 308). Risking not being able to get a 100 yard zero for an extra 10 MOA wouldn't be worth it for me.

Edit: The worst case of that 5 MOA theory but with a 30 MOA rail is. 37.5+30 Up and 27.5-30 Down. So you would get the max 65 Up but you wouldn't be able to get a 100 yard zero (You would be at a disadvantage of 2.5 MOA). You can just zero further but for 1000 yard with 308 I would just get a 20 MOA rail.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

I would think that most guys running a 30 are expecting more shots past maximum point blank range than within. So you could zero for 300 or farther and have more adjustment range.
I could be wrong though, I only use 20 and 0 moa.

Something in my memory tells me if I zeroed at 300, my 308 would be about an inch low at 100. Is this real, or did I make that up?

I know there are tons of specifics I would have to collect from my rifle/ammo to extrapolate the real figures. But just spit balling hypothetically here.

My thought here is 20 MOA base, zeroed at 300, using holdovers below 300. Is this a generally accepted practice?

 

[JaoeyP]

I would think that most guys running a 30 are expecting more shots past maximum point blank range than within. So you could zero for 300 or farther and have more adjustment range.
I could be wrong though, I only use 20 and 0 moa.

Zeroing at 300 won't give more adjustment than zeroing at 100. The point at which the scope is dialed to an elevation correction for 1000 yards would be the same regardless of the zero.

Regarding a zero, I personally prefer a 100 yards zero for a centerfire rifle because from there, everything is and increase in elevation for correction.

 

[VP47PPC]

Regarding a zero, I personally prefer a 100 yards zero for a centerfire rifle because from there, everything is and increase in elevation for correction.

I also believe that when you zero at 100 and altitude atmospherics change from your zero day place you have less built in error than if zeroed at 300. That said not sure how big a difference it makes or how far you have to be shooting for it to add up to anything.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

Anytime you add an MOA base you are stealing from that lower range and giving it to the upper. After you zero, you don't typically care about the lower but as I said, things are not going to be perfect.

So if you add a 30 MOA base and your situation with a 0 MOA base is 27.5 Down and 37.5 Up then you won't be able to get a 100 yard zero. Most times I have seen this discussed it is a good idea to assume your zero could be off by +- 5 MOA from that Max Elevation divided by 2. So since with a 32.5 split, a 30 MOA base might get you in trouble but a 20 MOA shouldn't.

If you assume the worst of that 5 MOA difference then with a 20 MOA rail, you will be at 27.5+20 Up and 37.5-20 Down. And 47.5 should be plenty for what you are doing (1000 yard 308). Risking not being able to get a 100 yard zero for an extra 10 MOA wouldn't be worth it for me.

Zeroing at 300 won't give more adjustment than zeroing at 100. The point at which the scope is dialed to an elevation correction for 1000 yards would be the same regardless of the zero.

Regarding a zero, I personally prefer a 100 yards zero for a centerfire rifle because from there, everything is and increase in elevation for correction.

That was my next question, and yes Im being lazy, what does the trajectory of a 308 look like. So the general consensus to get those 1000 yard shots dialed with these components, is a 20 MOA base over a 30?

Anyone advocate for the 30 MOA. Or is the only benefit farther ranged dail adjustments?


I guess I'm a bit confused on my logic. I'm admittedly amateur at best on PRS. I'm studying MOA and have bought some snap caps to work on my fundamentals while I work on the physical build. I know that it's ultimately me that makes the shot not the rifle. I did hold a secondary MOS of 0933. I consider myself a shooter with "budding potential". You guys have the knowledge and truly welcome it all.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

I also believe that when you zero at 100 and altitude atmospherics change from your zero day place you have less built in error than if zeroed at 300. That said not sure how big a difference it makes or how far you have to be shooting for it to add up to anything.

I'd be interested to hear from someone with more experience about this!

 

[_Raining]

Anyone advocate for the 30 MOA. Or is the only benefit farther ranged dail adjustments?

The 30 CAN work out but it would put your 100 yard zero (IF you actually can zero at 100) at the lower end of the scope adjustments which I have read is not a great idea.

what does the trajectory of a 308 look like

That all depends on your muzzle velocity, Density Altitude, and Ballistic Coefficient of the bullet.

Your MV will change based on temperature and Density Altitude:
Both an increase in the temperature and a decrease in the atmospheric pressure, and, to a much lesser degree, an increase in the humidity, will cause an increase in the density altitude.

In my rifle with 175 TMK at 2700 fps MV, it is 34.625 MOA at 2550 DA and 80 degrees F. An example of 20 MPH Left to right wind + a new DA of 2000, I now get 35.75 MOA of elevation needed. Another example is 100 less MV from the first example (2550 DA, 80 F, But now 2600 FPS, no wind) gives 37.875 MOA of elevation needed.

For my rifle with 2700 FPS, 2550 DA, 80 F, Sierra 175 TMK: a 300 yard zero will shoot 4.7" high at 100 yards. Most people will zero at 100 yards.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

The 30 CAN work out but it would put your 100 yard zero (IF you actually can zero at 100) at the lower end of the scope adjustments which I have read is not a great idea.


That all depends on your muzzle velocity, Density Altitude, and Ballistic Coefficient of the bullet.

Your MV will change based on temperature and Density Altitude:
Both an increase in the temperature and a decrease in the atmospheric pressure, and, to a much lesser degree, an increase in the humidity, will cause an increase in the density altitude.

In my rifle with 175 TMK at 2700 fps MV, it is 34.625 MOA at 2550 DA and 80 degrees F. An example of 20 MPH Left to right wind + a new DA of 2000, I now get 35.75 MOA of elevation needed. Another example is 100 less MV from the first example (2550 DA, 80 F, But now 2600 FPS, no wind) gives 37.875 MOA of elevation needed.

For my rifle with 2700 FPS, 2550 DA, 80 F, Sierra 175 TMK: a 300 yard zero will shoot 4.7" high at 100 yards. Most people will zero at 100 yards.

I desperately held on to this using the limits of my comprehension of the subject matter, but I do understand and I appreciate the specification in your reply.

I should have clarified, I meant the trajectory below 300. As it relates to choosing a zero.

 

[_Raining]

I'd be interested to hear from someone with more experience about this!

You can just play with the numbers in a ballistic calculator.

DA 2550, 80 F, 2700 fps MV, 175 TMK, 1:11.25 Twist:

300 Yard Zero: No Wind @ 1000 yards. 30 MOA UP, .5 MOA Left.

100 Yard Zero: No Wind @ 1000 yards. 34.5 MOA UP, .625 MOA Left.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DA 1550, 80 F, 2700 fps MV, 175 TMK, 1:11.25 Twist:

300 Yard Zero: No Wind @ 1000 yards. 30.75 MOA UP, .5 MOA Left.

100 Yard Zero: No Wind @ 1000 yards. 35.25 MOA UP, .625 MOA Left.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if you zeroed at 300 yards and your DA dropped from 2550 to 1550 and you did not account for it then you would be off by .75 MOA at 1000 yards.
If you zeroed at 100 yards and your DA dropped from 2550 to 1550 and you did not account for it then you would be off by .75 MOA at 1000 yards.

Seems the same to me but maybe I am misunderstanding what @VP47PPC is describing, or the granularity of the AB app isn't small enough to show the difference.

 

[_Raining]

I should have clarified, I meant the trajectory below 300. As it relates to choosing a zero.

Where you zero doesn't matter that much since you will be following what your ballistic app says. Most people have scopes with a zero stop so they can't dial down below that. If someone with a zero stop is zeroed for 300 yards then they would not be able to dial down to a 200 yard or 100 yard shot, they would be forced to hold under the target using the reticle.

As I said before: For my rifle with 2700 FPS, 2550 DA, 80 F, Sierra 175 TMK: a 300 yard zero will shoot 4.7" high at 100 yards or require you to adjust down 4.5 MOA.

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

From my post in the optics section I am told that with a 20 Moa base I "should" have no issues with a 100 yard zero and up to a grand in adjustment.

I could turn this thread into a shit show of questions for you guys, but in an effort to be civilized and have referencable information shared I'll start directing some of my more specific questions to their appropriate sections.

Focusing on choices for this rifle build and spefically stocks. Any other sub $600 chassis/stocks that I might not have considered?

Also, bolt knobs. This is an opinion based question. Do I get a whole new handle to take to my smith, or just get him to mill/thread on a new one? What's the realistic cost difference/benefit? My last rifle I just left the factory knob. What are everyone's thoughts on the KRG two piece deal?

 

[SirRoboftheBrown]

Where you zero doesn't matter that much since you will be following what your ballistic app says.

I will fiddle with an app. And will probably use it for some baseline referencing. But I'd honestly like to do as much as I can by hand on paper. Confirm my data, little hand written dope chart in my scope cap. I'm not really talking about precision grouping/competition, hand loads, benchrest. Think more along the lines of "man sized steel plinking".

EDIT I know I'll catch some kind of flak for that comment.

 

[TanktheFrank]

Do I get a whole new handle to take to my smith, or just get him to mill/thread on a new one? What's the realistic cost difference/benefit? My last rifle I just left the factory knob. What are everyone's thoughts on the KRG two piece deal?

I use the bolt lift, it's a cool addition. Tbh, it was a gift and had I not been given it, I would have had my Smith thread my current handle and get something more permanent. That still might happen when I take my barrel in to be chopped.

 

[Rust]

You'll want a 20 minute base. Personally I like Farrell bases and rings but then I've been dealing with Ken for years. A scope generally operates better in the middle of it's adjustment range. If it doesn't have enough adjustment to zero at 100, no big deal, just figure out how high over point of aim it is and figure that into your come-ups for range. If all else fails I've seen 10 and 15 minute mounts, and there are always the Burris-Z rings with the inserts.

I've had two problems with 700s regarding scope mounting.

With one receiver (first year production Sendero) the dimensions were a little off from the front of the receiver to the rear, maybe someone had a bad day and leaned into the polishing belt a little too hard and removed some metal. With a one piece mount tightening the front mount screws left a noticeable gap between the rear of the mount and the receiver. The one piece scope mount was measured true. Didn't feel like bedding the mount. Ended up with two piece mounts and lapped the piss out of the rings to ensure the scope wasn't stressed being mounted with misaligned rings. I suppose I could have used Burris-Z rings too.

The other, a 700P, the mount holes were not in line with each other. Either the front screws or the rear screws could be put in. Once again, the rail was true. Two piece 20 minute mounts and once again a LOT of lapping of the rings. I could have had the holes redone to a #8 screw but I had the mounts in my box along with a lapping bar. I suppose I could have used Burris-Z rings there too.

Reason I mention that is a lot of scope issues come from the scope being stressed being mounted in misaligned rings. In particular it stresses the erector assembly which can result in anything from lack of repeatability to failure.