Rifle Scopes Seekins 34mm rings and Farrell Base

[mtang45]

Just finished bedding my Ken Farrell base to my receiver and started to mount my scope when it became painfully apparent that the Seekins rings don't fit the Farrel base. The lug on the bottom of the ring is to fat to fit in the groove of the base. Now I thought that picatinny was a standard; am I missing something here?

On a side note, the Seekins rings were purchased here used. There is nothing that positively ID's them as Seekins ... so maybe they are not.

Anyone encounter this problem before?

 

[TRAAV]

Re: Seekins 34mm rings and Farrell Base

Tag

 

[RotARy15]

Re: Seekins 34mm rings and Farrell Base

Do you have a pair of calipers to measure the lug on the rings and the gap in the base?

 

[Glen Seekins]

Re: Seekins 34mm rings and Farrell Base

some Farrell bases are made with a skinny slot instead of being Picatinny spec. They can easily be opened up. there are a couple other manufactures that do the same thing

 

[mtang45]

Re: Seekins 34mm rings and Farrell Base

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RotARy15</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you have a pair of calipers to measure the lug on the rings and the gap in the base? </div></div>

The ring lug measures .193 and the rail slot measures .181, so lug is .012" over the slot width.


Glen, thanks for the explanation. Does Farrell (and others) do this to accomodate the majority of ring manufacturers that make the lug way under spec?

 

[Glen Seekins]

Re: Seekins 34mm rings and Farrell Base

Honestly im not sure why its done that way. but spec is over .2"

 

[mtang45]

Re: Seekins 34mm rings and Farrell Base

Well I just looked up the specifications for a picatinny rail and just as Glen stated the Farrell is under spec by alot. The spec is (according to wikipedia) .206 + .008 this makes the Farrell slot .025" under spec .... I find that fact amazing!