Piccatinney/Weaver Rails

[baldie]

Oh dear, well I am no gunsmith and I don't build rifles........................ yet but I am suspect of some of the points put forward by these Rifle builders and gunsmiths. These very ones seem to be the same ones who advocate using Remington 700 as the basis of the "custom" rifle. This alone is enough to make me steer clear as I rate the Remington 700 just above a Sten gun. Both being made from a bit of tubing with a touch of braze.

Now for UK stalking I can also see no point in having a Pitcanny rail especially one with 20 MOA of elevation built in........................................... for shooting a maximum of 200 yards . Oh come get real most deer are shot at well under 200 yards it's Stalking not sniping .

Now I have two rifles at the moment with Weaver two piece mounts which once finances permit will have those horrible mounts changed. Oh they work but look god-damned awful and cheap and they are cheap. As for returning to zero .......................... Big deal the Old Parker-Hale roll off mounts return to zero and usually much closer than the 1" quoted by baldy. Sorry about that

I am not that keen of the P-H roll offs and usually replace them on my P-H rifles. On the BSA's with the dovetailed action it's a bit more difficult so I try to keep a spare set or two to fit the next BSA that follows me home.

As for a one piece rail strengthenign or stiffening an action well your asking a lot of three or four tiny screws. To really be beneficial I would think that the base rail would have to machined to precisely fit into the opening and not just attached to the top with a drop of locite and three tiny screws! Either that brazed of welded in place.

The pitcanny rail has it's place where it was designed for Weapons systems to allow the fitting ao various handles and sighting devices. I have a friend in the US who has a Pitcanny rail with the 20 Mins of elevation machined into it on his rifle. He uses a scope and also Olympic target sights and shoots the rifle in 600 Bench Rest and Hi-Power competition to a high level. Not a stalking/walking rifle by any means as it weighs about 14lbs and looks about as comfortable as a plank of wood with it's huge square fore stock. In fact it reminds of an artillery piece and seems to me that it should be bolted to a concrete stanchion overlooking a pass or harbour .

Now the only real way to line up the scope mounts perfectly is to machine them in situ then lap to remove any imperfections.

You can swop scopes just as easy with the Std Weaver bases, the Leupold Q/R set up plus loads of others like the Apel mounts.. but pitcanny well i'll leave them to the tacticool crowd

Truly crap the remmy 700. Thats why virtually every action in use today, including the custom ones is a copy of it. Some of the most accurate rifles ever built for benchrest at all ranges have been, and continue to be built on it.
The american military, and also their police still use it as their go-to medium range sniper rifle.

I haven,t mentioned shooting at deer at long range either. I dont shoot deer, if i did, i would want to stalk in to them and shoot them at the shortest possible range.
My thoughts on PICATINNEY rails, stem from the firm belief that any rifle used on a living creature, be it a deer , or a man, should be as accurate as the owner can possibly make it. Whether by his skill, or by the constraints of his pocket. A chain is only a strong as its weakest link.
I really cannot understand the aversion to these rails amongst the deerstalking fraternity. I fully understand some customers comments that full length rails add unnaceptable weight....i then usually point them in the direction of a chap i know who makes them in a lightweight alloy, that has similar strength to steel, and they usually go for it, as the advantages are blatantly obvious.It does not take a genius to see that a long piece of metal bolted down across a large gap, is going to make that gap stronger than a small piece bolted at either end.
Of course , none of this is important for the deer test that just requires a rifle to put 5 rounds inside 4" at 100 yards.
That ain,t good enough for me.
I,ve already had pm,s telling me i,m out of line. Sorry guys, i certainly didn,t mean to offend anyone. I am only interested in accurate rifles, nothing more, and simply cannot understand why others aren,t the same, or strive for the best the gun can be.

 

[Sam]

Truly crap the remmy 700. Thats why virtually every action in use today, including the custom ones is a copy of it. Some of the most accurate rifles ever built for benchrest at all ranges have been, and continue to be built on it.
The american military, and also their police still use it as their go-to medium range sniper rifle.

I haven,t mentioned shooting at deer at long range either. I dont shoot deer, if i did, i would want to stalk in to them and shoot them at the shortest possible range.
My thoughts on PICATINNEY rails, stem from the firm belief that any rifle used on a living creature, be it a deer , or a man, should be as accurate as the owner can possibly make it. Whether by his skill, or by the constraints of his pocket. A chain is only a strong as its weakest link.
I really cannot understand the aversion to these rails amongst the deerstalking fraternity. I fully understand some customers comments that full length rails add unnaceptable weight....i then usually point them in the direction of a chap i know who makes them in a lightweight alloy, that has similar strength to steel, and they usually go for it, as the advantages are blatantly obvious.It does not take a genius to see that a long piece of metal bolted down across a large gap, is going to make that gap stronger than a small piece bolted at either end.
Of course , none of this is important for the deer test that just requires a rifle to put 5 rounds inside 4" at 100 yards.
That ain,t good enough for me.
I,ve already had pm,s telling me i,m out of line. Sorry guys, i certainly didn,t mean to offend anyone. I am only interested in accurate rifles, nothing more, and simply cannot understand why others aren,t the same, or strive for the best the gun can be.

For the record Baldie I dont think you are out of line. Not in the slightest, is people cant cope with a different view then tough sh*&t.

I like the Remington actions, and will probably end up with one in .223 or similar. I agree that they dont make a particularily good rifle, I dont know a single person who still has a factory stock on it! There will always be people who like a rifle to "look as a rifle should, blah blah blah", to me a rifle is a tool, and should be as accurate, maintanence free, and easy to use as possible.

My ideal mounts? Actually made of the same peice of metal as the action, on a stainless rifle with a synthetic stock.



Sam

 

[flytie]

I can understand where Baldie is coming from, the reason I took up reloading was to increase my accuracy. I have Optilok's on my Sako and have had no cause to complain. But i met a fellow forum member yesterday who had, the rubber liners were sticking out all over the place on his Sako 85 Finnlight. And other folks moan about them, just look on the web.

Aesthetically a Picatinny rail might not set off your Rigby too nicely, but if you were having a rifle built for accuracy or pratcticality, why would you not have one? I have seen people loading rifles by hand, when they had rails fitted, I seem to remember some having a scooped edge to facilitate loading. I have just been off and had a look on some rifle builders sites, it is truly amazing how many have rail systems fitted. And most use Remington, or Remington based actions too, sorry Brit

Now Muir and Brit like "vintage" rifles, and there were some very good and accurate rifles made before the advent of the rail, but some modern inventions do work well chaps, they really do, and they can make life easier too!

ft

 

[Brithunter]

Truly crap the remmy 700. Thats why virtually every action in use today, including the custom ones is a copy of it. Some of the most accurate rifles ever built for benchrest at all ranges have been, and continue to be built on it.
The american military, and also their police still use it as their go-to medium range sniper rifle.

The Military end up with what the puyers decide not always what's best and the buyers buy what makes them the most of freebies and back-handers as I said get real. The rem 700 is common like the Furd Escort because it's easy to bolts onto. There are oodles of bits for them most are needed to replace the shoody stamped out bits that Remington churn out. if you like it's more like "Pick N Mix" or a Meccano set. Not because it's good.

If it was any good it would not need stripping down and re-machining to true it up.

Benchrest rifles based on it are usually sleeved and the bit of tubing Remington uses is probably not even stress relieved as that takes a bit of time and costs a bit more. Now I have made bits for military weapons and the materials used was more often than not brought from the cheapest place possible to make more profit. For instance the steel for sight rail on the SA80 and the safety retainer came all the way from South Africa. It was cheaper from there than anywhere else. The fact that it was twisted and needed stress relieving didn't come into they just twisted it straight and did the little machining on it. Of course once the spot welder heated it up it went back to it's twisted original shape again .

The Police are the same even in America before the officer gets his hands on the kit it has to be brought and you can be sure than someone in the position of maknig the decision of what they gets has had some nice freebies and extras to smooth the way.

Oh and the Remingtom 700 is based upon the 721 which was based upon the Model 30 which was based upon the US Rifle 1917 which was adapted from the P-14 which was designed to appease the Bisley school and was based upon the Mauser. The much vanted "three rings of steel" was already in us by other makers by the time the 700 came along in 63.

Now shock horror an open top and two piece bases they cannot possibly produce any precision:-

Yet they do:-

Not only that but it uses a Rimmed cartridge .

Oh no another without a strap bolted on top:-

it too shoots well

Naw must have used a Biro (Oh the top three spread out and ringed in biro was with the Speer 200 grain bullet and the rifle didn't like that load as you can see) however it does like the Hornady 130 grain bullet .

Yeah I pulled a shot:-

again no top strap

I am only interested in accurate rifles, nothing more, and simply cannot understand why others aren,t the same, or strive for the best the gun can be.

So I suppose because they don't use your one piece straps that must make these rifle inaccurate?

Horse dung ........................ your talking out of your backside . I suppose you also claim a barrel has to be free floated and the action has to be bedded into a plastic stock as well . Well none of the above have floated barrels and all sit in wood stocks . Not to mentiion those rifles that lock up int eh bearrel and the reciever is only a bolt guide really and somewhere to hang the trigger and sights off.

Oh flytie the rifle in the first photo is only 11 years old being made in 1999 but you'll note it has a proper extractor unlike the "Much vaunted" Rem 700 and my Rigby only has No3 Vee Express sights no scope and never will have .

Now baldie it's obvious that you make money out of selling folks "customised" Rem 700's well good for you as long as someone is willing to pay you for them. However it would be a freezing cold day in hell before I have a Rem 700 in the house .

 

[flytie]

Oh flytie the rifle in the first photo is only 11 years old being made in 1999 but you'll note it has a proper extractor unlike the "Much vaunted" Rem 700 and my Rigby only has No3 Vee Express sights no scope and never will have .
.

My point exactly Brit, your sooooo last century

ft

 

[Muir]

Me too, I guess. But when the technology falls apart we'll be ready!! ~Muir

 

[baldie]

The Military end up with what the puyers decide not always what's best and the buyers buy what makes them the most of freebies and back-handers as I said get real. The rem 700 is common like the Furd Escort because it's easy to bolts onto. There are oodles of bits for them most are needed to replace the shoody stamped out bits that Remington churn out. if you like it's more like "Pick N Mix" or a Meccano set. Not because it's good.

If it was any good it would not need stripping down and re-machining to true it up.

Benchrest rifles based on it are usually sleeved and the bit of tubing Remington uses is probably not even stress relieved as that takes a bit of time and costs a bit more. Now I have made bits for military weapons and the materials used was more often than not brought from the cheapest place possible to make more profit. For instance the steel for sight rail on the SA80 and the safety retainer came all the way from South Africa. It was cheaper from there than anywhere else. The fact that it was twisted and needed stress relieving didn't come into they just twisted it straight and did the little machining on it. Of course once the spot welder heated it up it went back to it's twisted original shape again .

The Police are the same even in America before the officer gets his hands on the kit it has to be brought and you can be sure than someone in the position of maknig the decision of what they gets has had some nice freebies and extras to smooth the way.

Oh and the Remingtom 700 is based upon the 721 which was based upon the Model 30 which was based upon the US Rifle 1917 which was adapted from the P-14 which was designed to appease the Bisley school and was based upon the Mauser. The much vanted "three rings of steel" was already in us by other makers by the time the 700 came along in 63.

Now shock horror an open top and two piece bases they cannot possibly produce any precision:-

Yet they do:-

Not only that but it uses a Rimmed cartridge .

Oh no another without a strap bolted on top:-

it too shoots well

Naw must have used a Biro (Oh the top three spread out and ringed in biro was with the Speer 200 grain bullet and the rifle didn't like that load as you can see) however it does like the Hornady 130 grain bullet .

Yeah I pulled a shot:-

again no top strap

So I suppose because they don't use your one piece straps that must make these rifle inaccurate?

Horse dung ........................ your talking out of your backside . I suppose you also claim a barrel has to be free floated and the action has to be bedded into a plastic stock as well . Well none of the above have floated barrels and all sit in wood stocks . Not to mentiion those rifles that lock up int eh bearrel and the reciever is only a bolt guide really and somewhere to hang the trigger and sights off.

Oh flytie the rifle in the first photo is only 11 years old being made in 1999 but you'll note it has a proper extractor unlike the "Much vaunted" Rem 700 and my Rigby only has No3 Vee Express sights no scope and never will have .

Now baldie it's obvious that you make money out of selling folks "customised" Rem 700's well good for you as long as someone is willing to pay you for them. However it would be a freezing cold day in hell before I have a Rem 700 in the house .

Good for you. You stick to your rifles that you like. Nothing wrong with that.
Let me make you a few points now. Dont show me three shot groups....they mean jack ****. 3 shot groups test the shooter, 5 shot groups test the gun.
When did you last see a competition rifle built on mauser action ? Fine for what it was designed for, killing men and deer. I have a k98 not one foot away.
Dont **** up my back and tell me those two piece swing offs return to zero.
I,ve worked in the gun trade for over 20 years, and haven,t seen that happen yet.

Have a read through your post, and just see how many of your comments disagree with every other riflesmith in the world, regarding free floating, bedding etc. You have not one clue what you are talking about, and as for your opening gambit on eventually becoming a gunsmith....good luck to you. You will go hungry.

 

[Brithunter]

Ahhh baldie,

You have not one clue what you are talking about, and as for your opening gambit on eventually becoming a gunsmith....good luck to you. You will go hungry.

Let's get this straight:-

1) I never said I was going to be a gunsmith just build some rifles and you don't need to be a gunsmith to do that . They will be for me. I also have some blueprints here of a couple of muzzle loading pistols and I will one day get around to makign them, all of them from stock to lock, but I am not a gunsmith!

2) I would have thought that in 20 years you might have learned something sad it seems that you have not. I have noticed that anything aimed at the "Tacticool" crowd is generally more expensive so there must be a good mark up on them, now I wonder just how much flex is there in the rear of a front locking action?

3) I am sorry I didn't know that you knew every Gunsmith in the world . I will ask those that I know if they know you and their opinion. It should be enlightening .

When did you last see a competition rifle built on mauser action

Now let me see earlier you said :-

Truly crap the remmy 700. Thats why virtually every action in use today, including the custom ones is a copy of it.

Now let's see ......................... Hmmm the Grunig seems to be just as Mauser based as the Rem 700, then there is the AI and it's varients, oh and Shultz & Larsen. Most have bolt modifications to speed up the lock times but the layout can be traced back to the Mauser 92.

Let me make you a few points now. Dont show me three shot groups....they mean jack ****. 3 shot groups test the shooter, 5 shot groups test the gun

Actually it's 10 shots that test the gun not five, the English it seems used 7 shots in their trials fo some reason. Possibly to do with the then Lee Enfield's 8 shot magazine? Now this is 9 shots for a rifle which I am not happy with it's performance and once I can spare the time and can arrange an appointment with Mr Kershaw I will taking up to have it bore scoped and a more thourgh examination:-

It's stringing it's shots and with a Bi-Pod fitted POI moves several inches so there is a problem. I acquired it used in November and depending upon what we find will determine the course of action but there appears to be some shadows in the throat/leade area that need looking at before we do anything else. The action will require re-bedding but this will be done to give the normal fore stock bedding point with upwards pressure on the barrel. Now this rifle does have a Leupold Std one piece base and I cannot undo one of the screws that retain it in place. Not due to design but due to half a tube of loctite by the looks of it. I have had to scrape away an awful lot of it as it was all over the action top and all over the rings ................Yuk! Hopefully the "shadows" are just that and not surface cracks or crazing but we shall see. Now the whole 9 shots (Only 9 as that's all I had loaded) spread to 1.646" near as I can measure it. One dropped lower now whether that was me or just part of the problem we don't know as yet but the other 8 shots are MOA however I expect it to peform better than this and so until we can suss out what is really going on it will sit in the cabinet after all I have others to use .

Earlier you said you don't shoot deer so why frequent a Stalking site?

My target rifle is a totally different beast to my stalking rifles and they do a different job. A rail on this would not be out of place after all being a target rifle pure and simple it's not the best looking rifle. At present it only has the target aperture sights but I have wondered about fitting a scope to it. No doubt you would find it appealing as it has a three lug bolt that locks directly into the barrel very fast lock time, the reciever/action is just a tube that holds the rear sight and guides the bolt. It has only one aperture for loading the cartridge. All this and it's nearly 40 years old .

Now as I would like to be able to use either the aperture sight or the scope it will have to be of the Q/R type and a Pitcanny rail is not the answer as it would mean removing the aperture sight mount. So I am thinking a dovetail rail on the side of the action similar to that which was used and is used on some military rifles and the old stalking rifles by people like Griffen & Howe, Paul Jaeger Mannlicher etc. It would mean that only the wind arm would need removing leving the sight body and mount in place. However there is no mad rush so perhaps I will have to make something up as I cannot afford the prices of Griffen & Howe even if one of their mounts would fit.

 

[Sam]

Man up and agree to disagree!



Sam

 

[Brithunter]

Man up and agree to disagree!



Sam

Now Sam,

How can one agree with this:-

Dont **** up my back and tell me those two piece swing offs return to zero.
I,ve worked in the gun trade for over 20 years, and haven,t seen that happen yet.

Anyone who has used quality and properly fitted mounts such as the Apel EAWSwings or their Roll offs know that they do return to zero. For example I took the scope off my rifle when flying to the States some years ago and carried the scope in my hand luggage. On reaching my final destination we put the scope back on the rifle and it has thsoe Apel Roll off mounts fitted and checked the zero. The hunting season opened the next morning and the rifle shot as it did back in England and required no adjustments at all. In fact I often take the scope when cleaning as it makes it easier and I don't find it requires re-zeroing every time either. On one rifle I fitted some Leupold lever operated Q/R mounts to try and have not found that they fail to return to zero.

However I am not and have never claimed to be a Gunsmith. Now a lot of stuff that comes onto the market in shooting is like fishing stuff. It's aimed at catching the angler and not more fish . There seems to be a movement pushing "Tacticool" stuff onto shooters. Almost every magazine you see has it in. It's makes big money for someone and a lot of it is no more use than a not "tacticool" bit of kit.


It's like the "fashion" of matte finished guns they are not better than a properly finished and polished gun but they are cheaper to make. A quick pass through a bead blaster or Aqua-Blaster and Voila a matte surface that hides the blemishes that had not been smoothed or polished out a fine blacked or blued (if you like ) finish requires proper and fine polishing which takes more time and costs more. But the gunmakers don't reduce the price no they hype the matte finish up in the adverts and charge more for this desirable finish. What makes me laugh is the punters lap it up .

Now because I am not a gunsmith I am told :-

You have not one clue what you are talking about

Which must be right as a gunsmith or one who claims to be a Gunsmith has said so . Now if baldy wants to come and try my rifle with it's Q/R mounts then he is more than welcome to do so. I will get them put back on for shooting rather than just collection as they are at the moment (nope not my idea ........................... another idiotic notion from the Plods).

Now sam on this point:-

My ideal mounts? Actually made of the same peice of metal as the action, on a stainless rifle with a synthetic stock.

your out of time and it seems most shoots disagree with you. BSA machined the dovetails into the action and stopped doing so as the shooters wanted the choice of the mounting system. Ruger get flack for their mounting system as do CZ/Brno . I do happen to think that BSA missed a serious opertunity by not making an assortment of hi quality steel mounts them selves instead of relying upon the Parker-Hale rings. Sako managed it . Oh and plastic stocks just think of the carbon footprint they have .

 

[Muir]

The simple matter is that a deer rifle can be a 1.5 minute rifle and it will get the job done. A comp /varmint rifle is a different beast with a different set of requirements. Choose your game & choose your gun.~Muir

 

[finnbear270]

I have seen a couple of take downs with roll offs return to zero every time.

 

[Grouse Keeper]

I've just fitted a "Third Eye Tactical" Picatinny rail & rings on my newly customised Rem 700, I used Burris 2 piece mounts for about 20 years with no probems really, I have a Swarovski 8x56 bought at the same time time as the rifle. Like I said, I had the rifle rebuilt around the action, Border barrel, Jewel triggar, Macmillan stock, I sent the scope back to Austria for a referb, I thought I might as well go the whole hogg and get new mounts, do I shoot better?.........not much, do i feel better with the new mounts.........yes!!. I fully believe accurate rifle shooting is 90% in your Head & 10% equipment, if you want & can afford them, get them, you'll shoot no worse.
I can't reall see the "extra weight" as much of an argument though, the only weigh a few ounces!

Just reading some of your posts.......I shoot a .243 custom remmy 700 with a fiberglass stock & a picatinny rail.............some of you must really hate me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jcampbellsmith]

I've just fitted a "Third Eye Tactical" Picatinny rail & rings on....

GK. Can you post some photos? Thanks JCS

 

[Grouse Keeper]

GK. Can you post some photos? Thanks JCS

Aye, I'll try and post one over the weekend.