Rifle Scopes Scope base recoil lug?

[G17C]

I'm currently using a Leupold 20 MOA steel base on my Rem 700 in .308. Since the rifle is now apart I'm contemplating changing the base to something that has the integral recoil lug. The base was bedded to the receiver with no release agent so it was pretty solid. The receiver is now being re-barreled and Cerakoted so I don't want to "glue it down" this time.

So in this case is a new base with a recoil lug a worthy upgrade or just a waste of money?

 

[Fursniper]

IMO not needed on a 308 really but if you're concerned about scope rail movement, just have your smith pin it to the receiver, a simple task and allows you to use your existing rail. Most custom actions if they do not already have an integral rail, use pins which in effect replace the need for a recoil lug on the rail.

 

[spife7980]

I would test your current bases fit once the cerakote is on. If you have space due to the change in dimension then I may think about getting a new base just to avoid the hassle of chipping off the old bedding and putting on new but then again thats throwing away 60 bucks on the old base and then paying out 100 more for the new so maybe chipping isnt such an insurmountable task. If it fits nice then dont worry about it. Seems dumb that it was bedded without a release agent on the action though.

The recoil lug wont do much on a 308 though, generally speaking its not until you hit magnum forces that you really need to concern yourself with it. I personally have never seen a shifting base due to anything but improperly torqued screws but my personal experience only goes up to 3006, no booming magnums.

 

[G17C]

The base was removed and is not being coated. Though no release agent was used on the top of the receiver, it did get a wipe down with EWL Slip 2000 and then buffed dry. Once the screws were removed a single wack with a soft-face mallet popped the base off - all the bedding stuck to the base, none to the receiver.

Since the bedding is still perfect, my plan was to re-install it as-is and rely entirely on the properly torqued screws. But since this latest upgrade has already burned a $2k hole in my pocket, upgrading the scope base doesn't seem an extravagance.

 

[G17C]

Seems dumb that it was bedded without a release agent on the action though.

spife, just as an FYI - https://www.murphyprecision.com/Page/Scope_Base_Bedding

This was the procedure I used. The only difference is that I did not degrease the receiver - the bedding adhered to it but not so much that I had to use heat to remove the base. In fact, the top of the receiver was pretty clean when I popped the base off.

With the barreled action being Cerakoted, I am going to use release agent this time to avoid damage to the finish in the event I want to remove the base. Because of this I've decided to go ahead with the purchase of a new base with an integral lug. So now the next question - steel or alloy? I'm using Seekins rings (alloy) but am still undecided between these two;

http://www.seekinsprecision.com/par...e-parts/remington-700-20-moa-scope-bases.html

https://www.badgerordnance.com/remington-short-action-scope-rail.html

The steel BO is no doubt stronger but the Seekins has some interesting design elements, including the slightly oblong mounting holes that ensure the recoil lug is in full contact with the receiver when the screws are torqued down. Since I'm only going to bed the rear of the mount this time, this seems like a good idea. I suspect I won't go wrong with either but am interested in any feedback on alloy mounts vs. steel.