When in doubt, cant is better in the mount than the base:
As one-piece scope mounts, many of which have built-in cant, have become more common on the market the question of whether it is better to have cant built into the mount or into the base caught my attention. Previously, when scopes were always mounted in rings, no one had a choice in the matter. Initially, I was inclined to think that it didn't much matter which option the user went with, but I have changed my mind on the subject and, for a variety of reasons, I have come to the belief that going with a flat base and inclined mount is the smarter option for users to whom it might matter. I should add that unless you occasionally use your optics on more than one rifle, I still don't think it matters. However, if you, like me, switch optics between rifles, it does matter and here are the reasons why:
1) The magnitude of cant most useful for a particular scope / rifle combination is more dependent on the optic than the rifle and when switching optics around, it is not the base that moves with the optic, but the mount. With the exception of things like purpose built bench guns, being able to adjust a little further out is usually a bit better. This calls for a more tilted base. However, not all scopes can accommodate even 20MOA, let alone 30 or 40. If the choice is made to go with a high tilt base, this limits the user's scope selection in the future and might even impede the resale value on the used market in the case of a bedded base or integral rail. It makes more sense to go with the canted mount as, unlike the base, that mount will presumably travel with the optic from rifle to rifle: properly matching the optic to its ideal cant on each platform.
2) Whereas a wide variety of canted mounts exist, some rifles with integral bases do not come in anything but flat. One of the primary reasons that I switch optics around is to do load development on, and shoot long range with, an AR and a SCAR. Both of these rifles have flat tops and only regularly come that way. If I use a canted base on my precision rifle, this causes two problems. First, the zero is very far off on either of the flat platforms when the optic is moved over. Second, I do not get the benefit of the extra adjustment range I have on the precision rifle with the other two platforms. This is unfortunate because these are sub-MOA guns that are quite capable of benefiting from the extra potential range.
I realize that the cost of using a one piece integral mount with cant instead of a tilted base is that the optic typically ends up sitting higher on the rifle. I will add that, not only is this a general cost of using a one-piece base; it is also a price that must typically be paid when using an optic on more than one rifle. For this reason, an excellent argument can be made for using low rings and a tilted base. However, for those looking to use a scope on more than one rifle, or buying a one-piece mount anyway: buy the flat base and tilted mount.
What do you all think?
As one-piece scope mounts, many of which have built-in cant, have become more common on the market the question of whether it is better to have cant built into the mount or into the base caught my attention. Previously, when scopes were always mounted in rings, no one had a choice in the matter. Initially, I was inclined to think that it didn't much matter which option the user went with, but I have changed my mind on the subject and, for a variety of reasons, I have come to the belief that going with a flat base and inclined mount is the smarter option for users to whom it might matter. I should add that unless you occasionally use your optics on more than one rifle, I still don't think it matters. However, if you, like me, switch optics between rifles, it does matter and here are the reasons why:
1) The magnitude of cant most useful for a particular scope / rifle combination is more dependent on the optic than the rifle and when switching optics around, it is not the base that moves with the optic, but the mount. With the exception of things like purpose built bench guns, being able to adjust a little further out is usually a bit better. This calls for a more tilted base. However, not all scopes can accommodate even 20MOA, let alone 30 or 40. If the choice is made to go with a high tilt base, this limits the user's scope selection in the future and might even impede the resale value on the used market in the case of a bedded base or integral rail. It makes more sense to go with the canted mount as, unlike the base, that mount will presumably travel with the optic from rifle to rifle: properly matching the optic to its ideal cant on each platform.
2) Whereas a wide variety of canted mounts exist, some rifles with integral bases do not come in anything but flat. One of the primary reasons that I switch optics around is to do load development on, and shoot long range with, an AR and a SCAR. Both of these rifles have flat tops and only regularly come that way. If I use a canted base on my precision rifle, this causes two problems. First, the zero is very far off on either of the flat platforms when the optic is moved over. Second, I do not get the benefit of the extra adjustment range I have on the precision rifle with the other two platforms. This is unfortunate because these are sub-MOA guns that are quite capable of benefiting from the extra potential range.
I realize that the cost of using a one piece integral mount with cant instead of a tilted base is that the optic typically ends up sitting higher on the rifle. I will add that, not only is this a general cost of using a one-piece base; it is also a price that must typically be paid when using an optic on more than one rifle. For this reason, an excellent argument can be made for using low rings and a tilted base. However, for those looking to use a scope on more than one rifle, or buying a one-piece mount anyway: buy the flat base and tilted mount.
What do you all think?
