egw picatinny base with warne permanent rings?
 

should warne fixed/permanent rings work on a egw picatinny base?

this is for my savage 220 slug gun.

the warne rings appear to have a narrower slot than the base of the egw base and when tightened up the can slide forward and back quite easily. I can't believe this is how they're suppose to be...?

it's as if the base has a 1/4" slot and the base on the rings use a 1/8" slot.

thanks.

I have the same shotgun I have a Leupold VX-II 3-9x40, I'm using a one-piece Dednutz 18200 (medium height) without any issues

Yes there is a little bit of space between the recoil lug on the rings and the shoulders on the base. It is suppose to be this way. When you install the rings push them forward so that the recoil lug on the ring is touching the base and tighten. Make sure both rings are pushed forward.

I'm gonna have to give them both a call, that recoil lug on the rings of the warnes is quite a bit smaller than the gap between the shoulders on the egw picatinny base.

I believe the Warne fixed rings are sized for either Weaver style or Picatinny bases. Weaver slot widths = 0.18" (4.572mm) and may or may not be evenly spaced. Picatinny slot width = 0.206" (5.232 mm) and all slots are spaced at 0.394" (10.008 mm). Picatinny slots often are numbered to make replacement (at the same position) easier.

+1, ditto, yes, agreed, ah huh,that's the way it is, for the kill, 10-4, affimitive, roger that :hail:

Simply put, this is how the recoil lug works by making contact with the foward slot in the base. With full contact, it will keep the rings from slipping to the rear.

I love it when someone asks a question and people take the time to respond and then they don't believe the answers given by long time members and people that generally know WTF they are talking about and decide to call the companie(s) any way. :bash::bash::bash:

Well the recoil lug being quite a bit narrower isn't the only problem now.

With the scope mounted to the rings and then to the rail, it still slides, even when tightened all the way.

doesn't make much sense either to me that the recoil lug on the rings would be that much smaller than the gap between shoulders on the rail.

may just end up buying a warne rail, but at over twice the price of the recommended EGW that's a tad annoying.

I had purchased the egw picatinny base, but before installing I saw a friends Dednutz one piece, and liked it. I returned the egw and have been very happy with the choice I made

give Warne a call. it seams that some of there rings are picky about bases. i had a similar problem with a scope base and they explained to me that the rings work on a cam action. they have a a very fine shelf or lip on the bottom of the rings if you look. sometimes these tolerances are off. they seemed to think they were powdered coated too thick in my case. i had a problem with a set of low rings but a had a set of highs and mediums that worked just fine on the same base. Warne sent me replacement rings that did the same thing so i have to believe the scope base is at fault as well as the rings being picky.i ended up coating the inside of the rings with black liquid electrical tape in the bottle.gave it a light even brush on and let it dry for an hour. i do this with my heavy recoil guns anyway. you have to know where the scope is gonna sit though. the dry liquid electrical tape wont hold up to alot of sliding back and forth.good idea to take measurements where the scope will sit when using the liquid electrical tape. any extra liquid tape that runs over the edges just rubs off when your done. the liquid electrical tape took up the slack in the rings and made them bite the base without any back and forth movement. after this episode and the fact i hate:devil: dealing with the locking key on the Warnes i will only use Leupold PRW-S for now on. i would get different rings.