Bout to order my NF ATACR for my .338lm build. Plan to go with the NF 30moa base and their steel rings. Any reason i should use another brand?
Rifle Scopes NF ATACR: rings and base
- Thread starter BB KoncepZ
- Start date
Only reason I can think of is if you want to save a little money Seekins rings and bases are as good as any and a bit cheaper.
NF all the way, why save a couple of bucks when you just bought a beautiful scope. Just wondering why you want 30 MOA though
I personally don't think the 30moa base is necessary, but its not an issue. I'm assuming you are speaking of one of the HS Precision bases? As for rings, we are not making 34mm steel rings; only the UltraLights which are far superior to steel in my opinion. We do offer a 4 screw and a 6 screw variant. On a long action rifle with the ATACR, I would consider the 1.125" height as I don't believe you will have the clearance required if you go with the 1.00" height because of the shorter overall mounting length. On a short action the 1.00" work well.
HS base?
I need a base and rings for an ATACR to fit a 700 long action goin on an Accuracy Intl AX chassis.
Also, do you recommend the 4 or 6 hole?
HS base?
I need a base and rings for an ATACR to fit a 700 long action goin on an Accuracy Intl AX chassis.
Also, do you recommend the 4 or 6 hole?
You said you were going to use a 30moa NF base? The only Remington bases we make are 20moa and 40moa. We did however, produce some bases for the HS Precision rifles with differing taper, but they were also 8-40 screws, but they work on Remington actions. That is why I asked if you were using one of our bases made for the HS Precision.
The 30moa was not a must. I can do a 20. The base im runnin now is.an EGW with 8-40 screws if this helps hou any...
I just need what ever 20 or 30 moa base and 4 or 6 hole rings at whatever height and the ATACR for my remington 700p .338 lapua that is goin in an AI aics chassis(decided against the AX). Currently running a 20moa base with 8-40 screws.
The EGW base is aluminum. 338 LM would be better suited with a steel base in my opinion. If you have 8-40 screws, go with the HS Precision Base that we make or go with a Badger - 20moa with the ATACR will povide you about 70-80 moa of elevation travel from your zero. Both bases have recoil lugs. A recoil lug is important if the base is not pinned. The Aluminum base would most likely be fine if it were pinned.
The 4 screw rings that we make work plenty well, but I am personally fond of the 6 screw for the beefier looks - but they also require 100 inch pounds of torque to clamp them to the 1913 base. The 4 screw models require 68 inch pounds. I recommend going with the 1.125" height for the long action in the AICS.
the AX would require the 1.375" height.
The 4 screw rings that we make work plenty well, but I am personally fond of the 6 screw for the beefier looks - but they also require 100 inch pounds of torque to clamp them to the 1913 base. The 4 screw models require 68 inch pounds. I recommend going with the 1.125" height for the long action in the AICS.
the AX would require the 1.375" height.
Do u have a part # for the steel NightForce base i.need for my.8-40 setup
And i agree on the 6 hole rings lookin better. Is it a big deal that they require more tq?
And i agree on the 6 hole rings lookin better. Is it a big deal that they require more tq?
The base is the A135 which is the HS Precision Base that will work on the Remington LA or you can go with the A112 which is the Remington LA Base (20moa)base that has a larger recoil lug and have it drilled for the 8-40's since it comes drilled for 6-48's. Both solutions will work. The recoil lug on the HS base is about half the size of the Remington so that it will fit the HS Precision action. And my opinion on 338 is that larger recoil lug is better as it will relieve much of the stress placed on the screws.
Due to the wider clamping bar on the 6 screw rings, it requires more torque value to have the same clamping force as the narrower 4 screw rings. No issues at all. Just that most folks have Sekonk Pre-Set 65 or 68 inch pound T Handle torque drivers and 100 inch pounds differs slightly from what folks have been used to.
Due to the wider clamping bar on the 6 screw rings, it requires more torque value to have the same clamping force as the narrower 4 screw rings. No issues at all. Just that most folks have Sekonk Pre-Set 65 or 68 inch pound T Handle torque drivers and 100 inch pounds differs slightly from what folks have been used to.
You may need the 40 MOA base if you intend to shoot at extreme distances, run the ballistics out to 2000 yards and see what you need to dial. I just had to change my base to a 45 MOA because I ran out of elevation and I'm using a NF 5.5-22X50 NPR1
i am buildin a 338 edge at the moment for extreme ranges and opted for a NF 40moa base and ordered an ATACR last week. i am gonna try the nighfroce 6 screw rings
but just not sure which height. i am running an AMU contoured barrel which is pretty thick. will the 1.00 work or do i need the 1.125 00bullitt? i would like the scope as
close as possible to the barrel.
but just not sure which height. i am running an AMU contoured barrel which is pretty thick. will the 1.00 work or do i need the 1.125 00bullitt? i would like the scope as
close as possible to the barrel.
I'm most certain that with that thick of a contour, it will require the 1.125" height. #4 contour is about the thickest that the 1.00" rings will work with on a long action.
Is anyone making a one piece quick release scope ring setup with 30 moa or more of cant built in. Need to put a 50mm nightforce scope on an AR platform that has 0moa rail system. Prefer not to use an additional moa base to achieve this.
00bullitt, for the factory barrel on my 700p(forget exact.specs/contour). With a 40 moa base(a139) you think i will need the 1.125 rings? Or the 1"?
For a long action, I am reluctant to recommend the 1.00" height rings. The shorter length of the ATACR puts the objective right at the front of the action where it tapers. Short actions are fine for the 1.00". I know the 1.125" height will clear. It is a gamble to try the 1.00" as i have not yet confirmed it.
American defense I believe makes a base
I was able to confirm yesterday while visiting Accurate Ordnance, that the 1.00" rings work on an ATACR mounted to a Stiller long action on their base, but their base also appears to be roughly .080" taller than a NF base, so there still could be a clearance issue using a Remington action and NF base.
I ordered the 1.125 height
now thats what im talking bout. i ordered the 1.125 6screw rings for my ATACR. damn that looks good
+1 to 00Bullitt
I have a TRG-42/.338LM with a steel 20MOA base from Near and NF 1.00 rings: I just mounted my new ATACR- it is a thing of beauty.
I was able to confirm yesterday while visiting Accurate Ordnance, that the 1.00" rings work on an ATACR mounted to a Stiller long action on their base, but their base also appears to be roughly .080" taller than a NF base, so there still could be a clearance issue using a Remington action and NF base.
I have a TRG-42/.338LM with a steel 20MOA base from Near and NF 1.00 rings: I just mounted my new ATACR- it is a thing of beauty.
I don't want to hi-jack this thread but I have a similar question for you gentlemen. I'm installing a NXS 5.5-22x50 on a Remington SA and want to use the NF 20 MOA base but I'm torn between the UltraLight and steel rings. The build is a 7WSM so I'm assuming I can get away with the UltraLight rings but curious about the above statement "UltraLights which are far superior to steel in my opinion"
Just curious why and also wondering what the weight savings actually is going to the UltraLight.
Thanks for any help.
Just curious why and also wondering what the weight savings actually is going to the UltraLight.
Thanks for any help.
The weight of a single .885" height Steel ring is 7.25 ounces and the weight of the same height UltraLight ring is 2.86 ounces. BTW - .885" is the height that you will need.
UltraLight rings are every bit as strong as their Steel counterpart. The UltraLights are also non-corrosive due to the construction being 7075 T6 alloy and beta titanium . They will not mar the finish of the scope nor do they require any lapping.
The UltraLights will withstand the recoil of the harshest calibers and have been in use by NSW for more than 10 years with never a reported failure.
And....they are the same cost as the Steel rings.
I also highly recommend looking at the Direct Mount for Remington actions. Very light and a sleek option at a price much less than the cost of a 1913 base and a set of rings.
Last edited:
Do you think it would work on a Badger M2008 long action since it has a tall base? I can see from the photo hopefully that even if that was a MTU barrel 1.0" rings would still work.I was able to confirm yesterday while visiting Accurate Ordnance, that the 1.00" rings work on an ATACR mounted to a Stiller long action on their base, but their base also appears to be roughly .080" taller than a NF base, so there still could be a clearance issue using a Remington action and NF base.
atacr question
Also sorry to hijack this thread but need some advice. i just purchased an atacr it is in route, i would like to know if you have seen one on my configuration. i have a remington 700 long action
in 300wm with a badger 20moa base , mcmillan a3 tac stock with adjustable cheek riser and a fat mtu contour barrel, need advise on ring height and recommended rings, i want it to sit as low as possible of course.
any help greatly appreciated.
Also sorry to hijack this thread but need some advice. i just purchased an atacr it is in route, i would like to know if you have seen one on my configuration. i have a remington 700 long action
in 300wm with a badger 20moa base , mcmillan a3 tac stock with adjustable cheek riser and a fat mtu contour barrel, need advise on ring height and recommended rings, i want it to sit as low as possible of course.
any help greatly appreciated.
Similar boat here I got a Bartlien sendero contour in .338 edge. I will prefer a direct mount with the ACI/Level bubble.
