0 MOA vs. 20 MOA Picatinny Rail. Which is best?

bWONGER

bWONGER

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
147   0   0
Location
BC
Hello CGN world,

I am looking to buy a EGW picatinny rail for my .308 rifle and I am not sure which MOA to get (either 0 MOA or 20 MOA). EGW says they recommend you buy a 0 MOA rail for 600 yards and below and a 20 MOA for 600-100 yards. Does anyone have any experience with these types of rails? Is there any downfall of getting the 20 MOA for shooting under 600 yards?

Any input would be much appreciated. Thanks!
 
Depends on how much adjustment is in your scope. You'll need the 20 MOA rail if you don't have enough adjustment to reach out as far as you want. Either way, it shouldn't hurt, how close are you trying to zero and how far do you want to reach out?
 
I plan on zeroing my scope at 200 yards. I doubt I will be shooting further than 600 yards to be honest, but I was just wondering if having a 20 MOA and shooting under 600 would affect the adjustments of the scope or have any negative impact.
 
Not at all. Don't worry about it, you'll be fine using a 20 MOA base if you like, and it will give you more range if / when needed. All the base is doing is canting your scope down so you have additional vertical adjustment in the scope.

This little article may help 20 MOA Base Explained
 
That's great! Thanks for the help and the useful link! I think I'll go with the 20 MOA. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it right.
 
As long as you can zero at 100-200 you'll be fine. I zero my .243 at 100, and shoot anywhere from 100-800 metres (I don't hunt that far, it's paper targets obviously).
I have a Leupold VX1 that has enough adjustment to go the distance, but my VX2 doesn't.
I'm buying a 20 MOA rail myself fairly soon.
I think you'd be fine at 600 without it, about + 16 MOA from a 100 yard zero will get you to 600 yards with a .308.
 
bWONGER said:
That's great! Thanks for the help and the useful link! I think I'll go with the 20 MOA. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it right.
Click to expand...

How about "Better to not have it at all if you don't need it"?

Rails cover much of action making top loading and single loading more difficult. They typically end-up requiring an adjustable cheek-piece or leaving you wishing you had one. If not properly fitted/bedded they will either bend the action to fit the rail or bend the rail to fit the action. They usually mount with 3 screws instead of four. They can cause close range zeroing issues with scopes with limited adjustment. Ironically; scopes with enough adjustment that don't cause zeroing issues probably don't need the rail in the first place.They cost money.

None of these are the end of the world if you actually need the adjustment, but why put up with any P.I.T.A. what-so-ever for something that is nothing but a fashion statement? Why fix a problem that you don't even have? Even if you do need the extra tilt, off-set inserts can provide it with no downside. Many 30 mm scopes will provide enough elevation that they don't need any help.
 
Last edited:
I have rails on all my rifles that wear scopes. Generally I recommend a 20 min rail and I've never had an issue obtaining a zero at 100m.

As for the "fashion statement" comment above that will likely be the most inaccurate statement you will read this day ��
 
Will scopes typically have the same amount of elevation adjustment above and below zero?

If yes, wouldn't zeroing at 100 be a non issue with any score on a 20 MOA rail?
 
Scotty454 said:
Will scopes typically have the same amount of elevation adjustment above and below zero?

If yes, wouldn't zeroing at 100 be a non issue with any score on a 20 MOA rail?
Click to expand...

No. Zero is where zero is. My 300WM zeroed at +70MOA wi a flat base. So I had a custom +40 base made by ATRS. Now I zero at 200 yards at +30 and I still have 70MOA left to play with which gives me the option to push a long way out if I ever move back to country where I can see more than 50 yards.
 
Nothing worse than running out of adjustment, not many figure in their scope / ring height over bore either. Kind of why I asked how close OP was looking to zero. Lots of devils in the details we didn't mention, but over all should work out fine.
 
Dogleg said:
How about "Better to not have it at all if you don't need it"?

Rails cover much of action making top loading and single loading more difficult. They typically end-up requiring an adjustable cheek-piece or leaving you wishing you had one. If not properly fitted/bedded they will either bend the action to fit the rail or bend the rail to fit the action. They usually mount with 3 screws instead of four. They can cause close range zeroing issues with scopes with limited adjustment. Ironically; scopes with enough adjustment that don't cause zeroing issues probably don't need the rail in the first place.They cost money.

None of these are the end of the world if you actually need the adjustment, but why put up with any P.I.T.A. what-so-ever for something that is nothing but a fashion statement? Why fix a problem that you don't even have? Even if you do need the extra tilt, off-set inserts can provide it with no downside. Many 30 mm scopes will provide enough elevation that they don't need any help.
Click to expand...

Yes definitely things to consider.

However I have found that not all rifles have particularly straight/true receivers. When bases are attached to the receiver they don’t always line up. I bedded a rail on a Rem700 that required a lot of JB weld to fill in the gap under where the rear mount would sit. That means the rings won’t be true.

I am not sure what the effect of that would be on the scope but I can’t see it being good.
 
BigUglyMan said:
No. Zero is where zero is. My 300WM zeroed at +70MOA wi a flat base. So I had a custom +40 base made by ATRS. Now I zero at 200 yards at +30 and I still have 70MOA left to play with which gives me the option to push a long way out if I ever move back to country where I can see more than 50 yards.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of this exact issue yesterday when I sold a 20 moa base to a friend. That being why every base dosn't have a 20 moa start to the equation. Which brings me to your post. I had one scope with a 50mm bell and lower height rings which would not accommodate the 20 moa bases. The front bell was contacting the barrel.

Could you post a picture or two of those 40 moa bases so I could get an idea of the eyepiece above the stock comb and the relation of the scope to the barrel? Appreciated.

There is an earlier post with regards to aesthetics and the base interfering with cartridge handling. IMO form follows function.
 
While we're on the topic, how is the quality on the EGW HD rails?
I had a few concerns about them being aluminum rather than steel, but a .243 doesn't have enough recoil for it to be a problem is my final conclusion.
Good fit and finish? I'm putting it on a Tikka T3.
 
EGW are good quality, budget minded products. I use them.
They are the OEM rails on the Savage 10tr.
No they might not be the best most expensive mounts, but they are good.

One thing to consider is that they dont have the built in recoil lug on the under side that some of the high end mounts have, if using a heavy recoiling rifle.
 
BigUglyMan said:
No. Zero is where zero is. My 300WM zeroed at +70MOA wi a flat base. So I had a custom +40 base made by ATRS. Now I zero at 200 yards at +30 and I still have 70MOA left to play with which gives me the option to push a long way out if I ever move back to country where I can see more than 50 yards.
Click to expand...

I meant like true optical zero of the scope. I.e. rotate the scope on its axis, and the reticle doesn't move (Whereas if you had elevation adjusted in either direction, the reticle would swing around with the scope). Hopefully I'm explaining myself well enough.

Say you have 50 MOA of adjustment, if that on either side of a straight line, giving you 100MOA total? Or would that be 25 on either side, for 50 total?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom