Rifle Scopes Would you use this base?

KR1

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
badger-20moaweb.jpg

As you can see in the above photo, this base is less than an optimal mounting platform.
To those that know more than I....would you use it or drop the coin and replace/repair ?
 
It doesn't look as if the bedding is the issue. I don't doubt that it could work fine, but the stress that it could place on the scope tube from the angle of the ring sounds like bad news. I'd get a replacement from the supplier.
 
If the base is screwed in in the picture then you need to check it for flatness off of the rifle. It could be that torquing it down caused it to conform to the shape of your action. in that case it should be propperly bedded.

Chip
 
badger-20moaweb2.jpg
When I was at my FFL picking it up I noticed the issue with the naked eye. I placed the level there and held a piece of paper behind for the photo in hopes that the issue would show.
It was represented as a 20 moa Badger base that came mounted on a used gun I just purchased through the mail. The contour of the base, especially at the front, doesn't appear to me to be badger...any thoughts on that guys?
562717.jpg
Link to Midway

Correction: Spoke with seller that says the ad was incorrect, it is a Ken Ferrell 20 moa base which explains the different contour. I'm still concerned about tweaking the scope should I go forward with mounting in the base in it's existing plane.
 
Last edited:
Holy crap that is out of whack. I've set up no less than 60 Remington 700's for myself and others and I have never seen that. It's always the exact opposite with a hump in the middle because the rear has a gap. As others said I'd pop it off and see if it straightens up, aluminum usually will but if it's steel it may be permanently warped as much as its bent. If its not warped set it on the action and see where the gaps are. You will most likely have to bed it with the screws loose.

Personally I'd send that back to Remington because one of two things are happening if it's not an out of spec base. 1. The action is horribly warped or 2. The rear flat wasn't machined down enough. If its not an out of spec base I'd venture to say #1 is the culprit. Remington actions are cut from bar stock and machined out so warping is entirely possible. Either way it needs to be replaced if that's the case because it's not going to sit in the bedding area correctly and will lead to poor accuracy which could be exactly why it was sold.
 
If it is a Farrell or a Badger it will be stamped on the top who made it. I have several of both and they are all marked. It also should be marked if it is 20 moa or 0 moa. EGW are stamped on the underside.
 
I knew that base didn't look like a ken Farrell base. What you have there is a Millet base. A friend bought one once and it was crooked side to side. I'd start with a quality base. On the low end the weaver tacticals are great and unlike others in the price range have a recoil lug and on the upper end anything from Seekins, badger, or Nightforce would serve you well
 
I have the rings and scope loosely mounted to determine eye relief atm. I'll pull it and the base after I take some measurements that I'll be giving to the gunsmith when I drop it off.
Agreed on the ring selection you suggest Red. Great minds think alike?
Seekins 6/4 rings to hold a Viper 6-24x50 ffp MRAD.
I've sent a photo off to the seller and am awaiting their response in regards to the base. I'm confident he'll deal with the situation fairly.
I guess I can lay off the rush to get a comparator and meplat trimmer....
 
Agreed Graham.

Unfortunately, I've already paid for a quality base once here. Per the ad it was a Badger 20moa, then when I call the seller he said that was typo in the ad and that it was a Farrell base.

Just talked to the seller again. After seeing the same photos posted here he doesn't seem to understand what's wrong with the base.
"It's the same thing as a Badger" and "You didn't pay for a Badger base specifically...you got a hell of a deal" and "I shot that base at 1200 yards".

Now I'm suspect of the entire package. Any way of telling if the gun was actually blue printed per the ad?

****beating head on table repeatedly****
 
Last edited:
Is it just me or do those front mounting holes look way out of whack to anyone else? I also don't think a Farrell base would say "Made in China" on it.

Edited to ask: Does the gun have the factory barrel on it?
 
To my knowledge it is a factory barrel per the ad...700 sps tactical aac in 308. there was no mention of a barrel change.
I think a cheap ass base with an incorrect milling on the bottom is the cause of the issue.

Is it just me or do those front mounting holes look way out of whack to anyone else? I also don't think a Farrell base would say "Made in China" on it.

Edited to ask: Does the gun have the factory barrel on it?
 
I think a cheap ass base with an incorrect milling on the bottom is the cause of the issue.

I agree. You got ripped off if you paid more than $25 for that base. Regardless of what you paid, it's not going to give you the result you want. You can try to get your money back, but I wouldn't spend another minute trying to make that base work.
 
Picatinny Scope Bases

Whoever you bought it from is an idiot especially with those statements above. Look at the bolt at the rear of the lugs and see if there is even wear. Any smith who worked the action would have lapped the lugs as well for even contact.
 
KR1

If the seller said he "shot that base @ 1200 yds", the problem was he missed it, as there are no bullet holes anywhere in it. The only "professional" thing about that rifle is the "professional" screw job he gave to you the buyer.....Hope he kissed you first....
 
Last edited:
Great video for explaining this Rob, thanks a lot for sharing it.

In regards to whom I got it from...
Yes, it is a Hide member, but I'm hesitant to flame someone on a transaction without first giving them the opportunity to make things right.

The seller deleted the thread in the last hour or so, but I had already taken a screen shot of the ad as a precaution.
 
Last edited: