One Piece Base VS Two Piece Base

R

Runt

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Location
B.C. Interior
Hello Fellow Gun Nutz
This May have been brought up millions of times but I could not find the info in the search. What are the advantages when going with a 1913 rail one-piece base vs two-piece base?
Is it more important on a long or short action?
Is weight the only large advantage/disadvantage?
Will a one-piece base strengthen your action?

What would be the pros vs cons of installing a two-piece base on a short action Rem. 700 if your overall goal is making a handy/light but accurate rifle.

Thx in advance for responding
 
For the wieght saving it won't be a huge factor.

One piece bases sometimes limit your access to the chamber so trying to put single rounds in a internal mag is a bit harder.

One piece bases do however give you a huge variety of options for mounting optics.

You can start getting into the argument about a one piece strengthening the action however, everyone has a different opinion on if this really works, and whether this is more of a disadvantage.
 
This is a very good question. There are some rifle builders that will put nothing on their guns but 1 piece bases, but then again, builders like HS put 2 piece bases on. I personally think that there are a couple of advantages to a 1 piece. For example with the Badger or IBA base that is clip slotted and has the recoil lip and have 8X40 screws installed, it keep the action a little tighter and the one piece also allows the shooter more movement for an optic from front to rear. I do not think that these are very big issues but I am sure it could open a whole big can of opinions. You could not go wrong either way, but the 2 piece bases are a little cheaper.
 
Farmboy said:
For the wieght saving it won't be a huge factor.

One piece bases sometimes limit your access to the chamber so trying to put single rounds in a internal mag is a bit harder.

One piece bases do however give you a huge variety of options for mounting optics.

You can start getting into the argument about a one piece strengthening the action however, everyone has a different opinion on if this really works, and whether this is more of a disadvantage.
Click to expand...
If a person is looking to shave every ounce they can, two pieece bases are thhe way to go.
As far as action strengthing goes however, I don't think a one piece would make a big difference unless it was silver soldered to the action, becuae of the minscule flex in the screw joints.
This is splitting hairs of course, but for a precision accurcay rifle, splitting hairs can make the difference.
Cat
 
For an ultra light hunting rifle I would go two a two piece base. You can also buy the TPS Al7075 one piece base so you can save some weight on the steel system. Or go to a two piece al alloy base to save the most weight.


On a single shot due to the solid bottom, I don't see any significant advantage other than multiple ring locations.

I believe Varmint Al in the USA had shown that the clamping strength of the 6-48 screws was sufficient to eliminate slippage between the base and receiver. 8-40 screws of course do an even better job. Some smiths go as far a gluing the receiver to the base....or the base to the receiver. I prefer the 8-40 screws since the screws are the weakest link.

Given the right receiver rail on the 700 Rem is thin, a good stout one piece base (properly installed) can only help stiffen the receiver. Perhaps Bill Leeper has done a test on this. I know he has done some tests on barrel weight and the degree of receiver flex on one of the Rem actions.

A well made picatinney base also helps keep alignment of the rings from the front receiver ring to the rear receiver ring - properly installed of course. This helps minimize the need to lap. Two piece bases will do its best to follow the receiver contour and hole locations. I've seen too many NEW Remingtons with holes drilled off center....scarey.

Some of the one piece bases offer a recoil stop to eliminate the shear forces on the screws. Farrell G-force and TPS to name a few brands..

The one piece Redfield and Leupold bases offer questionable value in stiffness since they are cut down so much there really isn't much bridge material left to do more then help keep the rings aligned and in their windage system it isn't even a consideration.
 
The screw thing is just what I read in
Harold Vaughn's "Accuracy Ridlew facts", Joe.

I didn't pay it too much attention becuase unless it is hooked up to dial indicators or some other machine, I don't think even my targets rifles would be able to shoot the difference as they don't have al;l the other stuff included that would make a difference.
They even have WOOD stocks!:D

The book iS a very interesting read, and an engineer like yourslef could likely get right into it. ( not enough pictures for me!:D
Cat
 
Hi Cat.

I have Vaughn's book as well. Very good read and educational.

Regards,

joe
 
If you buy a good quality one piece base and bed it to the receiver, it won't be warped and the rings should be very well aligned. If the base doesn't fit perfectly and you simply screw it to the receiver, you may distort a perfectly machined one piece base and have no advantage.
 
Well I'm probably going to set myself up for a hammering here, but here goes. I have heard the weight arguement applied to rings, bases, scopes, and every part of the rifle, but there comes a time I think when you got to ask to what purpose does saving an ounce on a base make a difference. A full length rail helps to strengthen an action and gives a solid base for a scope to sit on along with excellent adjustment options over a 2 piece. Weight also helps to reduce recoil, my thought on it is if you have to worry about shaving an ounce to worry about weight over the structural and mechanical advantage, maybe we need to add a few more pushups to our day. I'm no poster boy of health, but have a hard time understanding this theory of removing weight.....It must apply to some competition thing does it? I know shooting standing holding a C7 over a C1 is easier with the C7 but we are talking pounds, not ounces. What am I missing here, or Is there a Jenny Craig of rifles?
 
Short range BR classees like hunter or light varmint , and Silhouette in both unltd and Hunter classes have weight restrictions where a few ounces will make the difference.

When talking about cannons like yours however, i think POUNDS would make a difference, not opunces!!:D

Super lightweight hiking rifles are another area where a lightweight base system would be prefered over a two pice.
it doesn't take much shaving in areas like that , savine a few oz.'s here and there, (as in bottom metal), and in lightwer stocks to add up to a few pounds.
Trhis would make a difference at the end of the day.
I know, because i hunted the Canmore area a few yeears back with a fella that had thee lates lightweight compound.
He flipped when I handed him my Jack kempf flatbow!!:cool:
Cat
 
catnthehatt said:
Thought you might!:rolleyes:
cat
Click to expand...


Cat, I'm surprised you would even think I didn't have it....hee hee:D I personally haven't done the calculations and I was surprised to see the results....but done properly I can believe it. Using the 8x40 screws typically found on newer custom actions makes it even easier to believe. Bonding properly done also helps. Drop in a fitted press or shear pin and even less chance. Keep in mind we are not talking about huge gains on strength, but rather small ones.

As for weight considerations, when you are trying to build an ultra light evey ounce adds up and makes he journey more difficult even for buff hunters/shooters. Adding weight to the rifle through a scope and rings and bases does help reduce your net recoil, but it also increases the stresses on the connection at the receiver.

Off on a tangent...ss for additional weight considerations, take a look at the combination gun barrels and see a real eye opener on how much cro/mo barrel steel you really need for pressure. They are generally ultra thin... as an example on a 7x57 Brno Super at the crown .073" thick.:eek:

23.5" long

2.5" from the case head 0.857" dia

6" from the case head 0.646" dia.

11" from the case head 0.480" dia.

18" from the case head 0.430" dia.

23.5" from the case head 0.430" dia.:eek:

Now so the barrel doesn't whip all over the place they solder it to a shotgun barrel (full length joint) or use a 3 point contact system (like on the Valmet) and that system can shoot....
 
It is amazing what combination guns will do. I really like the Valmet system since you can actually adjust the barrel to have bullets impact your aim point. What I do is have my shotgun slugs impact where I want them at 100 yds with the scope and then bring the rifle barrel into close the same aim point. The Valmet in 30-06 would lay 3 shots pretty much on top of each other giving any quality bolt action a run for its money. Since it is a hunting rifle, I haven't really played with it to see its full performance...

Brno's with the fixed barrels are not as flexible but are still super nice hunting rifles. The perfect bush/intermediate range rifle.
 
Thanks for the posts folks. You all had similiar opinions to my own and you added even more insight. To me it seems like more pro's then con's to run a one piece. Really whats the weight diffrence ...one or two cartridges. Just strange seeing the US Military's M24 with a two piece base so I had to ask the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom