• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes It is driving me nuts

7

707electrician

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 13, 2011
109
1
36
Rohnert park, CA
A couple months ago I bought a used remington 700. When I bought the gun it had a 0 MOA 1-piece scope base on it. I had a bushnell elite 3200 that I put on it and got it zero'd with no problem, it was on paper right off the bat and zero'd within a few clicks.

Not too long after I bought a new scope, rings, base and stock for it.

I bought a Vortex Viper 6.5-20x50, weaver 6-hole tactical low rings, and a B&C A2 stock.

I put it all together and when I had a chance I went to the range to zero the scope. Well after a good 45 rounds I finally got it on paper at 100 yards and was able to get it zero'd after that but something didn't seem right. Looking at the windage and elevation knobs it looked like the reticle was adjusted more to the right and down and counting the number of clicks it was confirmed, I only had 55 clicks up (bullet impact up) and 181 down available with a 20 MOA base! The windage was also way off with 185 clicks to the left and 45 to the right.

I sent the scope off to Vortex for them to repair it and according to their invoice they sent me back a brand new one so I mounted it up and took it out this weekend and I am still having the problem. I had even put the 0 MOA base back on the rifle to eliminate that as the problem but when I was done zeroing it I still only had about 1 turn of elevation up on the knob and over 3 down available and the windage is still way off as well.

When I got home I took my scope and mounted it on my dad's R700 (also has an EGW 20 MOA base) and bore-sighted it by eyeballing down the bore on a street sign and mounted on his gun with the 20 MOA base I zero'd the elevation and was pretty much centered in the adjustment range while the windage was still way off.

Assuming that Vortex didn't send me back the same scope, I cannot figure out for the life of me what the problem is. I don't think it is the rings because I can't see anything that would cause them to be off and I tried changing the rings around (as in swapping them front to back and rotating them 180 degrees) but the scope stayed zero'd on the same point.
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Are you using the same rings that you used on the 3200? Have you checked the 3200 to see if it was off also?
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

45 rounds to get on paper???????? Do you just shoot and spot then adjust or do you do any type of boresighting?
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtv3062</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you using the same rings that you used on the 3200? Have you checked the 3200 to see if it was off also? </div></div>

Different rings. The 3200 is 1" and the Vortex is 30mm

The 3200 was pretty much centered in its adjustments. It is what my dad is now using
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jeff 03</div><div class="ubbcode-body">45 rounds to get on paper???????? Do you just shoot and spot then adjust or do you do any type of boresighting? </div></div>

It might not have been 45 but it was pretty far off. I shot quite a few rounds before I took the bolt out and bore sighted it
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: montana</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You put the 20moa rail on backwards somehow? The higher end goes to the back. </div></div>

No, it was on the correct way. Remember it was also off with my 0 MOA base
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you have clearance between the objective and the barrel? </div></div>

Yes, there is a good 1/4" or so
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe post a few pics of the setup? Profile and overhead views? </div></div>

I can do that. Give me a few
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Try and flip the rings 180 degrees and see if the recticule moves in the opposite direction
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Your rings are fully engaging the rail right? Your not hitting a screw head on your base or anything? I have seen some rings that won't fully engage the rail. Just a thought. Good luck.
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Pictures
IMG_4145.jpg


IMG_4142.jpg

IMG_4143.jpg

IMG_4144.jpg
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fieldman_.308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your rings are fully engaging the rail right? Your not hitting a screw head on your base or anything? I have seen some rings that won't fully engage the rail. Just a thought. Good luck. </div></div>

Yeah, the rings are sitting properly
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

where are u located? usually these probs are from the screw holes not being straight, but uve covered all the ez possibilites. mebbe someone near buy could drop another scope/set of rings on it and see if the problem goes away - if ur anywhere near frederick, md id do it
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Are you showing the gun with the 0 moa base in these pictures? If so how close was the objective to the barrel with the 20 moa base? I know your getting a lot of simple solutions from us but sometimes people miss the simple things. I'm included. How did the base set on the reciever? Did it fit flush, or did it have to pull down when you started to tighten them? Did you torque the rings to the rail to the correct torque? What did you torgue the rings to? If anything, going through the basic proceedures will eliminate any other errors. Hope you figure out something.
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fieldman_.308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you showing the gun with the 0 moa base in these pictures? If so how close was the objective to the barrel with the 20 moa base? I know your getting a lot of simple solutions from us but sometimes people miss the simple things. I'm included. How did the base set on the reciever? Did it fit flush, or did it have to pull down when you started to tighten them? Did you torque the rings to the rail to the correct torque? What did you torgue the rings to? If anything, going through the basic proceedures will eliminate any other errors. Hope you figure out something. </div></div>

The 0 MOA base is on in the pictures. The 20 MOA doesn't change the gap much since it is a little taller in the front as well. The 0 MOA sits flush. The 20 MOA I was actually having issues with there being a gap in the rear when only the front screws are installed, and when the rear screws are installed it pulls it down and pretty much keeping the same sight line as the 0 MOA base
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

How far off optical center was the bushnell when it was mounted and zeroed on the rifle?
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 2brothers641</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How far off optical center was the bushnell when it was mounted and zeroed on the rifle? </div></div>

I believe it was under 2 MOA
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Maybe the holes in the reciever to mount the bases were drilled off center (wouldn't suprise me honestly, it has happened plenty of times before...). It might not be enough to visually see, but maybe at your range the effects are amplified and produce these results? Or the other thing that comes to mind is if your barrel doesn't sit flush to your action (also sort of common) and again, the results are amplified at 100. Or even a combo of the two.

Have a smith look it over, it should be easy to tell if either of these two things are present.

HTH
-Dylan
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

I went to high school in Rohnert Park, CA. Rancho Cotate High School. Where do you shoot out there? Past the Coast Guard Training Base?
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

So, you have air gap under one end of the base? Then you torque it down? Doesn't this create an uneven plain (plane??) for mounting an optic, thus creating torque on the scope tubes?

Just clarification. I will have to re-read to make sure I read what I think I read...
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TerrorInTheShadows</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe the holes in the reciever to mount the bases were drilled off center (wouldn't suprise me honestly, it has happened plenty of times before...). It might not be enough to visually see, but maybe at your range the effects are amplified and produce these results? Or the other thing that comes to mind is if your barrel doesn't sit flush to your action (also sort of common) and again, the results are amplified at 100. Or even a combo of the two.

Have a smith look it over, it should be easy to tell if either of these two things are present.

HTH
-Dylan </div></div>

+1, it may just be me, but I swear in the pictures he posted the scope seems to be sitting off to the side a bit
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

I agree, I thought it looked slightly off as well. I think the fastest way to rule out the rings is to flip the rings 180, as someone else suggested, and see if it shifts everything to the opposite side.
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chadm</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree, I thought it looked slightly off as well. I think the fastest way to rule out the rings is to flip the rings 180, as someone else suggested, and see if it shifts everything to the opposite side. </div></div>

It does look a little off center in the picture but that may just be the angle of the picture. I did flip the rings 180 and also swapped them front to rear and it made no difference.

Im thinking it probably isn't the rifle because I didn't have this problem with my old scope and the 0 MOA base and mounting the scope on my dads rifle doesn't change the problem, so that would mean his rifle would have to be off kilter as well.

Also, if the holes were not drilled in line on the action that would only explain the windage problem, not the elevation problem.

Im going to try checking the rings again
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Sounds like your base to receiver interface is messed up, that's pretty common, esp. on Remingtons.

Remove the rings/scope and place a straight edge (a caliper beam works well) on top of the base. Hold it up to the light and see if there is any daylight anywhere under the straightedge.

Then check it across the opposing corners of the base to see if it is twisted.

Bet you have a big bow up in the middle (elevation) with a little twist (windage)???

Now look up some posts on bedding bases and fix it.

 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Mounted the scope back up and taking a look at it from the muzzle end it definitely looks like it is not in line with the bore
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Another curious bit of evidence. When both scope rings are facing the same way (i.e screws facing to the right) the scope drops in with little resistance, however when I flip only one ring 180º so that the screws are facing opposing directions, there is a lot more resistance when dropping the scope into the rings.
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Could the rear ring be pinching the erector and causing this issue?
Maybe move the rear ring back 1 slot and the front one a slot or 2.
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 707electrician</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another curious bit of evidence. When both scope rings are facing the same way (i.e screws facing to the right) the scope drops in with little resistance, however when I flip only one ring 180º so that the screws are facing opposing directions, there is a lot more resistance when dropping the scope into the rings.
</div></div>

Don't take this to mean anything.
Variances in base and ring dimensions can create this same condition with many different combinations of rings and bases. The manufacturers never intended them to be facing opposite directions anyway.

It does not matter that a particular base/ring combination results in a ring being slightly off-center since both rings would arrive the same distance off-center.....resulting in the scope being parallel to the base. It will not create the need for large windage correction values. Mounting them in opposite directions "could" do this.

The most significant problem you have come across is the poor base-receiver interface.
As someone else suggested, bedding the base could help.
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The most significant problem you have come across is the poor base-receiver interface.
As someone else suggested, bedding the base could help. </div></div>

This is only a problem with my 20 MOA base, my 0 MOA base sits nice and flush
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's better than niether of them fitting well!
laugh.gif

Same brand of base? </div></div>

No. The 20 MOA is from EGW, the 0 MOA doesn't have a manufacturer's name on it, it was on the rifle when I bought it.

Unfortunately the scope is off with either base.

Its almost like I need a 20 MOA base just to get the elevation zero'd at 100 yards
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Seems the one constant is the rings. Scope is fine on Dads gun. Same problem with the 0 degree base.
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Lets start from scratch and eliminate one thing at a time. You know the 0 moa base is good, the rings for the Bushnell were good and the 3200 scope. I'm also thinking that because that set-up gave you a pretty centered zero, that that rifles screw-holes were relatively true to where they need to be.

So, mount the rings and Bushnell on the 20 moa base. If that does what it is supposed to, you should have an extra 20 moa of "up" on that scope. Or, just by looking at it, that the reticle is way below the bore zero. If that's good it will also verify your rifles screw-holes are true. You've eliminated the 20 MOA base as your problem.

Next, mount the new weaver rings and Vortex scope (centered inside) on your dads bases. If his was good you've narrowed it down to the weaver rings or your Vortex scope.

*BTW, if you don't know how to center a scope, you can do it by counting clicks. The best way to center a scope is by mounting it just loose enough to turn in a set of rings. You can either use a boresighter on the front of your barrel or a fixed point in the distance. As long as you have the rifle firmly held in a cleaning stand or clamp. Turn the scope right 45 deg. and center the crosshairs, then left 45 deg and re-center them. Each time you turn the scope it will bring the crosshairs closer to the center. You are centered when the crosshairs don't change when you turn the scope.

Also, when you put the scope into the rings it should fit flush into the bottom. A telltale you have a ring problem is the scope won't drop down completely into the rings.

You should also take and level the rifle then put a smaller piece of round barstock in the rings and check and see that it is level with the rifle. Also, if you can see if it "eyeballs" true down the barrel. The round stock will roll in the rings and go to the lowest point. If it's not true that is more than likely your problem. If it is true and you drop the scope in the rings, look through it. If it's pointing somewhere off into space, then that is more than likely your problem.

Anything past those solutions take it to a gunsmith or someone you KNOW, knows how to put a scope on right.

-good luck

p.s. don't feel dumb about this. Machines have been going 'round the clock turning out gunstuff for the last 8-9 years. There is bound to be some bad stock out there. It's nice when we can go to the store and buy quality, but there's been way too much quantity for that. Eliminate what you can send the rest back in and get it right or your money back.
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 707electrician</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fieldman_.308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you showing the gun with the 0 moa base in these pictures? If so how close was the objective to the barrel with the 20 moa base? I know your getting a lot of simple solutions from us but sometimes people miss the simple things. I'm included. How did the base set on the reciever? Did it fit flush, or did it have to pull down when you started to tighten them? Did you torque the rings to the rail to the correct torque? What did you torgue the rings to? If anything, going through the basic proceedures will eliminate any other errors. Hope you figure out something. </div></div>

The 0 MOA base is on in the pictures. The 20 MOA doesn't change the gap much since it is a little taller in the front as well. The 0 MOA sits flush. The 20 MOA I was actually having issues with there being a gap in the rear when only the front screws are installed, and when the rear screws are installed it pulls it down and pretty much keeping the same sight line as the 0 MOA base </div></div>

Shouldn't the 20 moa base be shorter in the front and taller in the back to point the muzzle higher in relation to the plane of the scope tube. If the 0 moa base fit fine the 20 should also. You might have had the 20 on backwards. I know they are different makes but they should be made to specs of a rem receiver. Just a thought.
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 707electrician</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's better than niether of them fitting well!
laugh.gif

Same brand of base? </div></div>

No. The 20 MOA is from EGW, the 0 MOA doesn't have a manufacturer's name on it, it was on the rifle when I bought it.

Unfortunately the scope is off with either base.

Its almost like I need a 20 MOA base just to get the elevation zero'd at 100 yards </div></div>

Dude...
Read my post above, it's probably not your scope, or rings, or base.

Remington receivers are ground to contour BY HAND, many are way off.

Do the simple check I outlined in my post above, and it will eliminate 1/2 your variables. If the base is bowed, it's NOT the base that is messed up, it's your receiver contour. Here's a typical example......

DSC04933.jpg


See the big gap under the base?? The front base screws are tightened here. If you just put the screws in the rear and tighten them down, it will cause what you are describing.

It's an easy check, you can do it in 2 minutes.
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hellbender</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Dude...
Read my post above, it's probably not your scope, or rings, or base.

Remington receivers are ground to contour BY HAND, many are way off.

Do the simple check I outlined in my post above, and it will eliminate 1/2 your variables. If the base is bowed, it's NOT the base that is messed up, it's your receiver contour. Here's a typical example......

DSC04933.jpg


See the big gap under the base?? The front base screws are tightened here. If you just put the screws in the rear and tighten them down, it will cause what you are describing.

It's an easy check, you can do it in 2 minutes. </div></div>

While this could be the case, how do you explain that it centered well with the previous scope? If the receiver were screwed, why would one scope line up and the other have issues?
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Maybe the other scope had 100 MOA of adjustment and the new one only has 60, I don't know.

But why not eliminate a KNOWN problem (he stated above the base does not line up well) instead of chasing UNKNOWN problems???

Also the taller base (20 MOA) will be worse in this situation than a shorter one. If the base was 2 inches tall, you could see the bow/twist with your naked eye.
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hellbender</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 707electrician</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's better than niether of them fitting well!
laugh.gif

Same brand of base? </div></div>

No. The 20 MOA is from EGW, the 0 MOA doesn't have a manufacturer's name on it, it was on the rifle when I bought it.

Unfortunately the scope is off with either base.

Its almost like I need a 20 MOA base just to get the elevation zero'd at 100 yards </div></div>

Dude...
Read my post above, it's probably not your scope, or rings, or base.

Remington receivers are ground to contour BY HAND, many are way off.

Do the simple check I outlined in my post above, and it will eliminate 1/2 your variables. If the base is bowed, it's NOT the base that is messed up, it's your receiver contour. Here's a typical example......

DSC04933.jpg


See the big gap under the base?? The front base screws are tightened here. If you just put the screws in the rear and tighten them down, it will cause what you are describing.

It's an easy check, you can do it in 2 minutes. </div></div>

I have already done this and yes, if I tighten only the front screws on the 20 MOA base there is a sizeable gap in the rear HOWEVER, the 0 MOA base has no gaps either in the front or the rear and that is the base that is on it right now while I am trying to figure out what the issue is.



I tried new rings today but it did not help
 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Mounted the 20 MOA base to take pictures and measured the gap at about .015".

Here it is:
IMG_4149.jpg


Then I mounted the scope on the rail like this and without the rear screws in the base the scope is on target with no windage adjustment from mechanical center but it only puts the elevation about 5 MOA low, not the whole 20 MOA. This leaves me with 92 clicks down and 140 up (1 click=1/4 MOA)

IMG_4146.jpg

 
Re: It is driving me nuts

Now that you know the receiver is the problem and you have to bed the base anyway; you can easily bed it to gain back the 15 MOA you are losing (or more if you want it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

beetroot
Rifle Scopes I've been Vortex'd
Replies
89
Views
5K
Makinchips208
Makinchips208
Outlaw45
Rifle Scopes Maxed out windage on Razor LHT
Replies
6
Views
380
Outlaw45
Outlaw45
D
Rifle Scopes Mounting Help: Scope Rotates w/ XTR Signature Rings
Replies
33
Views
955
209jones
209jones
Zulu2022
Mystery mount identification
Replies
0
Views
210
Zulu2022
Zulu2022
3
Athlon ARES ETR UHD Windage Question
Replies
2
Views
373
303nickb
3
Top Bottom
Back