Savage scope mount alignment issue. Is this normal?

DIGGER2

DIGGER2

Regular
Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
109   0   0
Location
Ontario
Hey guys, first off I'm not used to working on Savages at all. My brother in law has been having issues with his model 11 shooting low and he's pretty much used all of his upper elevation of his scope. So I said I'd have a look for him. What I've found is that the front edge of ejection port of the receiver is about .015-.020" lower than the rear then tapers towards barrel using a straight edge. Is this normal of a Savage? I've measured the bases it came with (savage XP model) plus a picatinny rail all are of equal thickness. Here's a couple of pictures. I could shim it, but if it's not normal I'll have him go back to Savage.






 
Last edited:
THE EASY FIX; use weaver bases and the Burris signature Zee rings with the inserts. The ball and socket movement within the rings will adjust for this and put no stress on the scope.
enjoy.
 
Are the bases that came with it a one-piece? Provided the rail is not warped from being installed (place a straight edge long the top of it) mount the rail on just the rear of the receiver. Screws does not need to be tightened for this. Is there a gap over the front receiver like in your pic? If so, you can bed the scope base with some JB Weld/Devcon etc. If you decide to go that route, there are Youtube vids out there or I can walk you through it.
 
I doubt there is much bases to the question asked.
The suggestion is there should be no gap rear to front.
Not being willing to take the hardware off a Remington 700 I offer the following.

The Weaver rear base for the Remington 700 measures 0.132" and the front base 0.251.
That would suggest the gap shown in the post would produce a similar gap on a 700.

Don't worry about it . . . the base manufacturers have it all figured out.
 
horseman2 said:
I doubt there is much bases to the question asked.
The suggestion is there should be no gap rear to front.
Not being willing to take the hardware off a Remington 700 I offer the following.

The Weaver rear base for the Remington 700 measures 0.132" and the front base 0.251.
That would suggest the gap shown in the post would produce a similar gap on a 700.

Don't worry about it . . . the base manufacturers have it all figured out.
Click to expand...

This....very few receivers are "level" in the sense OP describes, probably only the solid top stuff like Axis/783 etc.
If your rifle takes the same bases front and back then it's likely "level" in that sense, I'd be willing to bet he bought Axis bases and not bases for a Model 11.
 
The Savage receiver is intended to be level. Bases for a Remington are different heights because the receiver is built that way. Bases for the newer Savages are built to the same thickness because that is what the receiver is supposed to take. Usually, if the front ring is low, I would expect the rifle to shoot high.
 
It is a common enough problem to shim under the bases for these elevation issues. (not in the rings as you will damage your scope) I have done so on many savage receivers new or old. In a pinch you can use a pop can and cut a shim to fit under the rear base. An old school solution to an old problem. You can find factor shims around (Korth had some on hand) In some cases you may need two shims. A pop can shim is about 10 thou. in thickness when cut. some times you need two.

I agree Zee rings are a great option. Either way these options will work for you.
Elky.
 
Last edited:
Hey guys thanks for all the replies. The gun did originally come with 2pcs bases (one of those scope package rifles) and he had problems shooting low, so now he bought the picatinny rail to help him get some better ring spacing. I put the the picatinny rail on its side and snapped a photo . Sooo if I put the straight edge on the back there's a gap in the front, and if I put it on the front there's a gap at rear. It's like the action is rainbow shaped. I did notice the front of receiver was tapered a bit, may explain the rear gap. So I picked him up some Burris rings today and I'll try and get them mounted up tomorrow. If this don't work out, I'll take Trinimon's suggestion and bed the rail. Sooo we'll see how it goes. Thanks to all again for your suggestions. Cheers


 
I would use a 2pc Weaver base set with the Burris rings with inserts.
A one piece base is going to pull up tight to front and rear receiver rings, and is going to be bowed in the process. Its top surface is going to reflect the uneven receiver.
 
Test the one piece rail by just attaching it via the rear receiver screws only and note if the front end is floating above the front receiver.
 
Trinimon said:
Test the one piece rail by just attaching it via the rear receiver screws only and note if the front end is floating above the front receiver.
Click to expand...


Hey Trinimon, so if I attach the rear of base only there is a measured .020" gap in front. If I attach it to the front only, there is a measured .040" gap on rear. I measured the distance given by the deflection of the rail flex to the top of the receiver. Rail seems to be flat according to the straight edge. Apparently the Burris signature rings don't come with the alignment inserts and they are a separate kit. So I've found some, I've just have to pick them up.
 
I'd furrshure send Savage a note with the attached photos and get them to comment on this.
Did you get a one awtt or is this the normal flavour?

I'd be pissed that a new rifle would dictate which set of rings with inserts I'd need to buy.
 
Well fellas, i picked up the set of Burris posi align inserts. I set the scope back to close to factory zero in terms of elevation.(Equal movement up or down) For s**ts and giggles I put in the 0 inserts to look at my laser bore sighter POI. Yup it's waaaaaay off. So I ended up with a -.020" insert in the front and a +.02" in the rear for a total difference of .04" and it's pretty much bang on according to my laser site SL-500. So only a range session will determine 100% success or not. Thanks for all guys input it's much appreciated. I'll be contacting Savage and asking them what kind of s**t there selling.
 
kamlooky said:
Maybe ask them whut kind-oh chit yer buying?
Click to expand...

This isn't my rig, it's my brother in laws. I'm not a Savage fan at all. I'm not trying to be a gun snob, but I prefer stuff a little higher up on the quality scale. As the old saying goes, "you get , what you pay for". Email has been sent to Savage with pics, so we'll see what they have to say.
 
Can't comment on Savage, but it is not at all unusual for Remington 700 receivers to exhibit a bit of warping from heat treatment. Heat treatment occurs after machining, and because the cuts are asymmetrical, warping can occur. If you set up a M700 receiver on a mandrel, and put the mandrel between centers on a lathe, the warping can be easily seen. Sometimes the bedding surfaces of a R700 receiver are trued up. This is also why bedding blocks in stocks are skim bedded - the receiver is less true than the block, and the bedding corrects the fit. Remington Model 40X receivers have machining performed after heat treating to reduce warping. Makes machining a bit more difficult and expensive.
I suspect that this is what you are observing with this Savage. The Burris rings with the inserts are a cost effective solution.
 
You can fix this 3 ways
1) shimming (least recommended) but doable.
2) machining receiver flat and parallel with bore axis.
3) getting appropriate bases and rings that will take care of this common problem (Recknagel, EAW, MAK, Ziegler) expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom