|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 343
Campfire Member
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 343 |
I've read that some model 70s made in the 90s had issues with the hole spacing for scope mounts. Does anyone here have any specific knowledge as to what the problem was? Were they not aligned or was it that the holes were too far back or too far forward on the receiver? I was looking at a model 70 and the rear base seemed pretty far forward (the base extended over the rear of the ejection port). I do not recall any of my bases doing that and was wondering if that indicated an issue with the spacing of the holes.
Any insight is appreciated!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,586 Likes: 1
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,586 Likes: 1 |
I never heard of hole space problems; that doesn't mean much though.
There are various hole spacings based on action length and cartridge length and era.
Standard long action from 1947 forward have .860 front and rear. There is also a standard distance from the rear front base hole to the front rear base hole. I don't thave that.
The pre 64 Magnum and Target hole space from 1947-1963 was the same for the front. The rear base spacing is .425" -.435" (depending on source) with a longer distance between the front and rear bases.
Post 64 Target and Magnum is .330" hole spacing for the rear base. I do not know if the distance between the bases is the same as the pre 64 or not.
Then you have the short action and super short actions which are another set of dimensions.
On top of that some base makers design them to fir flush, forward, or rearward of receiver surfaces.
PA Bear Hunter, NRA Benefactor Member
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 343
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 343 |
Thank you. I appreciate the response. I could be way off base here and can't seem to find my source for the potential hole spacing problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,377 Likes: 44
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,377 Likes: 44 |
Thank you. I appreciate the response. I could be way off base here and can't seem to find my source for the potential hole spacing problem. It has been said that some later classics had problems with the mounting holes being drilled off center. Just one of the problems you hear about with the 7 digit classics.... As far as the rear base hanging over the ejection port, that has nothing to do with where the holes are...
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,377 Likes: 44
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,377 Likes: 44 |
I never heard of hole space problems; that doesn't mean much though.
There are various hole spacings based on action length and cartridge length and era.
Standard long action from 1947 forward have .860 front and rear. There is also a standard distance from the rear front base hole to the front rear base hole. I don't thave that.
The pre 64 Magnum and Target hole space from 1947-1963 was the same for the front. The rear base spacing is .425" -.435" (depending on source) with a longer distance between the front and rear bases.
Post 64 Target and Magnum is .330" hole spacing for the rear base. I do not know if the distance between the bases is the same as the pre 64 or not.
Then you have the short action and super short actions which are another set of dimensions.
On top of that some base makers design them to fir flush, forward, or rearward of receiver surfaces. The short actions have .860 hole spacings just like the other model 70's. The express models (H&H) and target model (because of stripper clip slot) had different spacings (pre and post 64) like you pointed out...
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 343
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 343 |
Thanks fellas. I think I'm looking for issues where there aren't any.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,377 Likes: 44
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,377 Likes: 44 |
Thanks fellas. I think I'm looking for issues where there aren't any. Ok, if you say so..
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 343
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 343 |
Not quite sure what you're trying to say. I generally use Talley lightweights and they are flush with the ejection port. I was looking at a left handed model 70 and noticed that the rear base hung slightly over the ejection port. I am by no means an expert and did not recall any of my bases sitting like that so I wondered if there might be an issue. I figured I'd ask here as I recalled there being a problem with some model 70s. After a Google search I saw examples of bases that also sat slightly over the ejection port. Unless I'm mistaken it doesn't appear to be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
539 members (10gaugemag, 1beaver_shooter, 160user, 1eyedmule, 10gaugeman, 1100mag, 65 invisible),
3,680
guests, and
1,274
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,763
Posts18,535,773
Members74,041
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
