HW100 Picatinny rail

https://www.amazon.com/UTG-Leapers-MNT-DTW145-Dovetail-Picatinny/dp/B01ABW7GS0

I have this exact one and it mounts similar to how BKL rings mount. Very good for the money and the finish on it is fine.

Yeah, I've seen those, and generally have no problem with UTG mounts and adaptors. The adaptor made for the HW100 appears to mount much lower and they are purpose made for the gun and would appear to fit both sides of the receiver (across the magazine opening) thereby possibly adding some support. That specific fit adaptor would make my high rings less "tall" than the UTG piece and would be better for my use. Thanks for the reply though.
 
my HW100BP came with a Picatinny rail, it fits over the dove tail rail and mounts to the back receiver block and the barrel / cylinder support, factory installed, it also houses the side lever.

1593472584_3185259775efa7648354f78.31791126.jpg




1593472611_2854023575efa7663be27d9.63603413.jpg


1593472650_12227502075efa768a527fe3.11320609.jpg


1593472669_18730654475efa769d00a7b6.20531326.jpg

 
are you talking about the Britannia Rail for the HW100, it has 3 grub screws front and back, slips on and the grub screws push it up locking it into place? I looked at that one, it does look nice but I don't like the grub screws digging into the top of the receiver, it will mark it up unless it had some kind of backing to protect the receiver.
 
Are you looking to make things more rigid by using it as a bridge? There is no evidence that the design is flawed resulting in any accuracy issues with the separation of the receiver if that's of any concern.

I'm a firm believer in simple. The fewer parts the better. Why add a rail to an existing rail? There are plenty of high quality dovetail rings. And as for adding support to the receiver, just not needed.

I have purchased a rail. Thanks for all suggestions. 

As I stated, I have very nice Sportsmatch picatinny adjustable rings on hand. I could purchase the same rings in dovetail but it is less expensive to buy the rail made for the rifle than to buy the dovetail adjustable rings. That is the main reason for the purchase. If there are any problems with the setup, I can always order dovetail adjustable rings if desired or use the UTG adaptors that I have on hand as well. The rail is something I wanted to try and was hoping to find feedback from someone with experience with that particular piece. As to whether support is "just not needed", an IMO might sway me but "just not needed" doesn't do it. I've read other opinions that it COULD be a weak area. Stating that their is no evidence that the design is flawed seems accurate but as stated I have read opinions to the contrary. Not certain personally as it is a rifle that I have no experience with. If the rail adds any support and is solid then no loss. If it isn't I'll report that here as well. IMO, of course.
 
are you talking about the Britannia Rail for the HW100, it has 3 grub screws front and back, slips on and the grub screws push it up locking it into place? I looked at that one, it does look nice but I don't like the grub screws digging into the top of the receiver, it will mark it up unless it had some kind of backing to protect the receiver.

That is the one that I ordered. Agree that the grub screw design might be problematic but I thought I'd try it to see.
 
Use Brass or Aluminum shim material. The HW100 receiver design block hasn't in nearly 2 decades. Only the latest HW110 is different but it's an entirely new built from the ground up model not to replace the HW100 but to be an entry level version. (To save only $100-$200?)

That was my thinking as well and I have plenty of shim stock around. I agree with those that say the rifle is considered to be very well made. Seems there is a long history supporting that. I still don't see how anyone can argue that a two piece receiver block is going to be inherently stronger or more stable than a one piece block. Stable enough? That seems to be almost certain based on the history. But the idea of a little extra support seems to be well within the range of consideration, even though it wasn't the primary thought on using the rail. Opinions do exist that the junction might be a potential source of problems, whether that is justified or not. If I thought those opinions were valid, I wouldn't have bought the rifle. Still, absolute certainty on the subject seems not to exist.
 
I have done a lot of work over the years in shimming scopes and mounts, and using distance compensating rails, and here is what I know, with absolute certainty. There is no way this two-piece receiver will move enough to cause a miss on an even small target at the distances at which I normally shoot. Assuming nothing is loose, there is simply no way that is going to happen. I would worry about something else. 
 
$100 rail to save money on new rings? 

If you have ever taken an HW100 apart you would see with certainty that there is no chance of any flex or movement between the two parts. Personally I would be more concerned with some slip on rail moving especially when you start wedging thin shim stock between the mounting screws. That's more chances for stuff to slip and slide. By the time I got it tightened down to where I felt it was solid, it would mark up the receiver anyway. 

But with your rings and a solid rail, you will have more flexibility on where to mount your scope, that will be handy. 

Lots of times set screws have a sharp cupped face that's designed to bite in. Sometimes not, just check em and see. Filing it flat and smooth will lessen the marring or even eliminate it. If that thing fits well there shouldn't be room for shim stock thick enough to prevent marring anyway. 

Have fun and let us know how it goes.
 
 

1593614380_18273049445efca02ccf4e23.36071079.jpg
1593614452_12060252155efca07451b177.40419171.jpg
1593614513_2981428185efca0b1629238.05580351.jpg


i used the umarex 850 magnum rail cut in two. this is the lowest rail i could find. super tight fit to the dovetail. had to use a rubber mallet to install. no screws needed.

Scott in Wisconsin


THAT is a useful post. Thank you! WHY did you cut it in two? Was it to make it easier to install, to gain clearance around the mag, or other (related to the "opinions" above)? It looks like there would be no interference with magazine if it were left intact.

elh0102-

"with absolute certainty." "there is simply no way that is going to happen"

My point about opinion made crystal clear. I will listen to anyone who has an opinion (and as noted I've read more than one that differs from yours). So to the above "stuff", no use to me.
 
bandg, is your primary purpose in looking at a rail for added rigidity, or the use of Weaver style rings? I see several options for two-piece adapters, but that would do nothing for stiffening the receiver assembly. But the good news, with a low mounting magazine, your one-piece rail options are numerous. I would be inclined towards the BKL rail (part 568), just because I've had excellent results with their rings. I have one of their one-piece mounts (which includes the rings in one piece) on a spring piston rifle, and it has been rock solid. If the ring height works for you, their 4", unitized mount might offer the ultimate in a rigid setup (part 360).