Printable View
If they take the effort in making a rail/base, I see no reason why zero MOA base should still be made and sold. All rails/bases should have minimum 10 MOA. It is not like it is that hard to do. In fact, it is not even necessary that they are consistent. I would happily accept a new Ruger 10/22 with a rail that is rated between 10~15 MOA.
CMV.
ho hum....so lets pretend for one minute you have been good lad and all the stars were aligned the day rifle left factory,the scope rail is PERFECTLY aligned in both verticle and horizontal planes and your brand spanking new scope is clicked to dead centre in both planes,you put it in rings and its already pretty much spot on at 50 yards when you go to range.....and you now saying you want it to be pointing 10" low BEFORE you start......
giving you 40 less clicks of adjustment........
I suspect it's to appease a large number of buyers who do not understand why you would want to use a sloped base.
The only valid reasons are that a 0moa rail is a fractionally lower overall height for mounting, or that someone may want a highly robust mounting system to use with an optic that has limited travel available.
I would always opt for a cant/tilt in a base unless it is on a short-range bush rifle. Otherwise, if the scope is mounted on a 0 MOA base, a greater portion of the scope’s usable range of elevation adjustment will be wasted. The most common reason to opt for a 10 or 20 MOA base is because of the limited range of elevation adjustment in the scope.
Since all/most shooters don’t dial adjustments under their zero distance, the goal is to make most of the adjustment range on a scope dial-up to shoot out at targets further away. Ideally, if the riflescope has 40 MOA of elevation adjustment, 40 MOA will be available to dial up. Mounting a scope to a 20 MOA base makes that attainable.
Right, you have all missed some thing.
I have always put on a 20 moa base on every thing, until I needed a rifle for thermal and standard optic using qd mounts.
I was told by the thermal God I was better to use the 0 moa base so bought a steel ctr base of some good bugger of here and am away!
Sent from my SM-A025F using Tapatalk
You lost me completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Because some people buy red cars, some even buy Sang Yong! Some people wear jeans and some wear those ugly looking Chico things. Despite all the hype and hoopla we see in shooting forums about twiddling and fiddling with dial scopes, there is a huge section of out shooting fraternity that quite simply buy a rifle, put a scope on it, sight it in and actually go shoot shit. They dont dial, they have no need. So a 0moa base is perfectly adequate for a large number of people.
Some scopes don't have the tube length for bases particularly in a long action
Firstly, see the premise of the thread is that if one bothers to make a rail, it should be sloped. Many rifles do not come with a rail, People just mount rings and shoot, that is fine. Like you say, simple and straightforward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husky1600
Simple and straightforward is not always without problem. See the recent thread about a rifle can not zero, because scope has only 15 moa each way.
Those who end up buying a rail at all already tinker with their rifle.
Having 0-500m closer to the optical centre of the scope for better tracking and clarity.
It's hardly a concern nowadays, since glass and tracking on new scopes tends to be really good... But old habits die hard. Same reason they still make 270's.
I think the 0moa is just "safe" and probably saves gun manufacturers a lot of headaches.
Picture this, a rifle comes standard with a 10moa rail. In this case its just a regular mans rifle, not a super high end precision setup. The sort of thing that someone is probably expected to throw a cheap scope on. The cheap scope has 30moa of adjustment total. Now in a perfect world, all would be well. Without the rail he should be in the middle of his adjustment range with 15MOA up and 15MOA down, and with the rail installed he should have gained another 10moa, giving him 25MOA of upwards elevation. Problem is that never happens. A lot of the time the guy would not be able to zero the scope as it just never works out quite as it should and there isnt enough wiggle room with the type of scopes people would be expected to mount on this lower end gun.
I think gun manufactuers tolerances would have to be much higher in order to safely offer an MOA mount standard, on guns that people probably wont be putting a long range scope onto. If the dude with the 30moa scope cant get it zeroed with the 10MOA standard mount - whose problem is it going to be? The gun manufacturers, because in theory it should work, but in practice to get it to work failsafe, with scopes and rings whose quality you cant control - the guns tolerances is the one that has to be very high otherwise itll all come back to them. IMO.
Assuming we have a droop-free centrefire barrelled action that shoots 820m/s. when shooting horizontally it takes 0.12s to hit 100m. At t = 0.12 s, d = (0.5) * (9.8 m/s2) * (0.12 s)2 = 0.07 m. I.e. 7cm, or around 3 MOA, drop. On average, scopes are mounted about 5cm above the bore, measuring from the centre of the scope to the centre of the bore. At 100m, that higher difference is just under 2moa. Basically if you have a droop free barrel and perfect scope, you still need about 4~5 MOA to zero the gun at 100. Lets call this effect the "inherent slope".
The inherent slope is more pronounced on 22LR zeroing at 50m, because it takes 0.15s to reach target and drops 0.112m, i.e. 8 MOA. add the scope to barrel angle which is about 3.5 MOA for 50m you need about 11 MOA to zero the gun.
The inherent slope can be smaller if the scope is mounted lower, or if the barrel slightly points upwards (never happens by design), but it will never be negative - because you never mount the scope under the barrel and gravity always pulls downwards.
Guns where barrel is not screwed into the action, instead, is sled into the action and held by screws, such as CZ455/457 and Ruger 10/22, have the potential of barrel droop. This further increases the inherent slope.
This is why I think MOA rails is not just for dialling snobs, it is also useful to anyone who is shooting rimfire and also to those running long and/or slim scopes (that tend to have limited adjustments). sloped rail entirely removes the possibility of running out of adjustments before zeroing the gun.
well thats not hard...... if your scope is centered,and your rings are centered and everything is lined up well,you dont need to use up any of available clicks to be on target...at most will use 12 clicks to raise point of impact .....and you will still have lots left....my .223 works like that. the scopes adjustment is just about dead center as the rings on it just work right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimitsu
also a level base is in effect just a piccy rail........ plenty of reasons for fitting one,like has been said often times it makes eye relief and scope positioning easier on a long action....lots of modern scopes dont fit a long action well,with stuff all wiggle room so eye relief or speed to acquire sight picture effected.
Just going back in time, like pre 90's when there were probably not even 5 companies worldwide making sloping rails. Everybody was using 0 Moa mounts. Worst case they would shim the rear to gain a bit of elevation ( at the risk of bending the tube).
The demand has evolved and so has the industry and there must be at least 20 to 30 companies if not more that offer inclined rails and some with all the options in between.
If machining a 0 Moa rail is resonnably strait forward ( more or less), as soon as you make a canted rail you multiply the number of operations.
Take a tikka rail for exemple:
At 0 Moa: top and bottom are parallel, and the screw holes and screw head recess are straight and 90 degrees to those parallel surfaces.
At 20 Moa ( or any other angle): your screw holes and head recess are drilled at 90 degrees to the bottom of the base , but all your picatinny slots are milled on a different plan parallel to the angle of the top surface. Which can involve a few more operations depending on what cnc set up is run.
Just that makes the price go up, or the manufacturer does not want to bother and just make and sale 0 Moa rails only and that is it.
But the majority of rails on the market are the same price for 0 MOA and 20 MOA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Friwi
It is cheaper if there is no rail and only built in dovetail or 2x weaver base.
Canted rails angle the objective closer to the barrel, which may mean you have to go to higher rings to get clearance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A 20 moa rail has a difference of height of about 1mm over 200mm of length.
So hardly more than a couple of mm for the longest scopes at the front objective end.
Sometime just by switching the brand of rail you can get that 1 or 2 mm extra of height and keep the same low rings for clearance Over the barrel.
A while ago I did a bedding job for a fellow member and when he dropped the gun of he asked if I could remove the 0moa rail and fit a 20moa. "You just keep it, maybe you can use it someday.
Bought a Delta Stryker for competition and thought "what the heck, why by a new 20MOA, I've got a rail, 0moa but still, it was free".
Much to my surprise I'm able to dail out to 1400m with ease.
Maybe I just got lucky, I dont know, I recon its made possible by the Deltas huge elevation capability.
Delta Stryker has 100 MOA of dial, that is 50 on each side. Assuming perfect parallel action and barrel, you would had about 45~MOA left to dial after 100m zero. 45 MOA would take a 6.5 Creedmoor to 1450 yards. With extra 20MOA, 6.5CM can go to 1750 yards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaco Goosen
It's best if possible to be near the scopes optical centre at the most common long range to be shot.
Also barrel indexing in a factory rifle is a lottery. It could end up at 6 o'clock ish which would mean some available elevation is lost.
And don't expect factory barrels to be perfectly straight in profile or bore centre to outer. Nor some custom barrels.
At least with a custom barrel fit it can be indexed to 12 o'clock which will aid elevation and give a best harmonics outcome.
Zero angle bases are easier and cheaper to make. Most centrefire rifles are never used beyond 300 metres and .22's beyond 100 metres so there is absolutely no point in fitting an angled base as those ranges are well within the adjustment range of all 'scopes. In the past I have made adjustable elevation bases for special applications but they were very few. Long-range shooting is really the only use for angled bases. Plain and simple works for professionals and bling sells well to the amateurs, a rule of thumb that applies to all technology-based endeavours.
Ah, bling...
Oh I have seen scopes that would not shoot to 100m on a 22lr. Scopes with less than 40 moa adjustment already unable to guarantee that it would zero at 50m, going from 50 to 100 meters neds about 9 moa which many scopes would run out.Quote:
Originally Posted by gundoc
While cheap guns are more prone to this problem, better guns and scopes are not immune.
I have a Zeiss V6 5-30 mounted on an anschutz 54ms. This scope has 60 MOA of travel. With 50m zero and a 30 MOA one piece mount, I have 40 MOA adjustment left. This means if I didnt have the 30 MOA mount I would have only 10 MOA left.
I have a Weaver GS 4-16 on my Lithgow. It's rated at 40 MOA E and W. With a 50 yd zero I have no trouble getting to 100 yds (Up 7.75) and still have elevation left. Haven't quantified how much though.
150 yds would be a test. Need ~ 9 MOA to get from 100 to 250. I can also use the reticle grid if needed.
And then another maybe 10 MOA to get to 200 yds. Mmmm, I don't think so for me.
Clearly there is a horizontal alignment problem between the receiver and barrel with your rifle to have to use that much adjustment to get a 50 metre zero. 10 MOA is enough adjustment for 230 metres so the angled base is needed in your case to correct the misalignment. The alternative would involve bending the barrel very slightly to achieve correction (it sounds drastic but is the proper way to do it, subject to having the knowledge and equipment).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimitsu
Yeah.. this is an Anschutz from 1995, shoots like a laser, so, I am not going to bend it.
My point is that many rifles have this "problem", if you call it that. Even the good ones.
My KIDD supergrade (first version) also has eats up a lot of adjustments before it is zeroed. This one is different to normal 10/22 in that the barrel is threaded into the receiver and the rail is part of the receiver (milled form one single piece of aluminium). so it doesnt even have the usual 10/22 droop.
I was shooting a Anschutz 1712 today, its owner complained that the scope only had 6 Mils left with a 50m zero. It is a Viper PST Gen 1 which has 20 Mils in total, 10 on each side. Zeroing it ate up 4 mils, which is about 14 MOA.
for 22LR shooting match ammo going from 50m to 230m takes about 33 MOA. I know cos I was shooting it just today. here is a video, excuse the bad quality it was shot with a phone (one with 5x optical zoom, crazy!)
https://youtu.be/Xiiz_wqnrMc