Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Model 70 264 Winchester

Need ideas for a decent scope/ mounts. $500.00-$600 range for scope. Thinking a picatinny rail. I know that's not traditional. Ended up getting decent deal on rifle. Just a Featherweight 24" barrel.

Talley lightweight ring mounts and a leupold 6X

Dual dovetails. Next question please..

Anybody else have a thought? Pictures?

I've moved to Warne 2-piece bases on most of my rifles.

They use Picatinny style rings from any company, so they provide a lot of flexibility in ring height and style, but still don't have the tacticool look.

And the bases are much lower than most Picatinny rails.

Ok, thank you.

bullethole,

I get the impression you want to see various M70 setups to give you ideas. While not a Featherweight, nor at your price point, below are photos of my Winchester Weather Extreme in .264 Win Mag with a Zeiss Conquest V6 3-18x50. The scope is mounted with Burris "Weaver style" XTR bases (very similar to Warne 2-piece bases but with a different slot pattern) and Burris Signature 30mm rings (i.e., with the plastic alignment insert). May not be the sleek-ist mounting system, but it is a quick-to-install and robust set-up. With the Burris base/ring combination, you get a rock solid scope mount by just tightening screws, and which doesn't mar the scope tube. I will switch over to Talley Light Weights when I have time to do the install to include lapping the rings. I hope this photo-bomb is helpful.

shinbone, you should keep that set-up on that rifle, vs going to a weaker set up like the Talley lightweights. Just my opinion, but look at the groups that rifle is producing. That's what happens when you have a solid scope mount set up like yours. Those are all steel, not too heavy or too bulky. Good aesthetics and strength that you don't have to worry about. I'd leave that rifle as is. To the OP, I would not put a rail on a fwt, nor would I use Talley lightweights. I have in the past, but on a nice fwt, there are many great options. None of which you mention in your op. From time to time guys ask what mount and rings would you use on this fwt rifle and I have posted many pics. There are many threads along the same lines as what you are asking about. Do a search, and be enlightened... Also, "just a featherweight", doesn't give us anything to go on. Current manufacture Browning, pre 64, classic, pushfeed XTR??? What is it? Also, you don't say what your main use for said rifle is going to be. Close range, long range, dark timber etc. etc... Fill us in on your requirements for your rifle and we might be able to help you find a great set up in your price range. For most hunting I do, like I said before it would be Leupold dual dovetails and a Burris FFII 3-9x40 with ballistic plex reticle. If you want to go with steel warnes, that is also a great set up. I don't like the overhang of the receiver, so I cut the schidt off. Here's one of my pre 64's that I did just that to:




That's my only gripe about the steel Warnes. They are wanting to be too tacticool these days, when its not necessary. Leupold PRW's are a good option as well, if you like weavers. These are all steel and work great:


Here's a true "FWT" with DD's and Burris FFII 3-9X40 w/ballistic plex:


A pre 64 fwt with the same set-up:


Another pre 64 fwt with DD's and Zeiss:


Is your 264 a real "featherweight" rifle or just the moniker that actually has the sporter weight barrel? BACO is good for doing this. Some of their rifles are termed fwt, but don't use featherweight barrels. To me, that is a sporter weight rifle, regardless of what they call it.

Just asking, but was there a reason you mounted that front base in that direction?

Come on now. Some guy will be along shortly to jump your chidt because you want it to be aesthetically pleasing as well as functional. shinbones's set-up isn't perfect, but he did what he had to do to make it work. That overhang bugs the chidt out of me though. The reason why I posted pics of what I did to alleviate that issue. Its easy. About 10 minutes of work, but it looks much better. You and I may do that, but others would leave it just as shinbone did... To each their own.

I didn't want the "overhang" to be protruding over the ejection port. Below is a photo of the same mount reversed.




Best solution is to cut the overhang off, like BSA says, but then, it is not the quick and dirty option I was seeking at the time.



BTW, digging out the second front base for the photo made me realize that the bases on the rifle are the Burris "Weaver style" XTR bases, not "Warne" like I originally said. The Burris bases are very similar to the Warne offering, but not exactly the same. I amended my first post to reflect the correct base. In the photo below, the Burris bases are shown on top, the Warne bases are on the bottom.

Great post. I saw the warne bases laying below the rifle in one of your other pictures. No comment from Lee, but I totally agree with you on not wanting the damn base sticking out into the ejection port. To me, the best option was to turn it so it's facing forward:


That looks like garbage as far as I'm concerned. Warne had their head in their azz when they designed it. I don't mind if you tell the dumb mother fu ckers I said so either. If you ever decide you want to modify that Warne #902 front mount, you can do like I did. Its pretty easy. Just cut it, file it flat and then reblue it. Works great and then it does not overhang the receiver:

It is new, however Morgan, Utah Featherweight. Blue/Walnut. Hunt far northern Wisconsin. Can be thick cover to longer shots on powerlines. Have been looking at Burris.

bullethole, yours is basically a sporter weight in a fwt stock. New rifle, is it a matte finish or nice polished blue finish? I've seen both on the fwt's. If you are really inclined to put a rail on it, it would look similar to my FN PBR XP:



That rifle was made to shoot though. Mr Beretzs here has a rifle like yours. Hopefully he will chime in and tell us how he has his scoped and what rings he is using. Maybe even give you some good load data too. When I think of rifles with rails, I think tactical and something you are going to be dialing a lot. Look into the new Zeiss V4 rifle scopes, but those go over your $600 limit. I was looking at some the other day. Very nice glass and they track very well. I don't mean to try to sell Burris, but if you aren't going to be dialing, Burris makes some damn good hunting scopes. You just have to ask yourself what it is exactly you want to use your rifle for. An older Zeiss conquest in a set of DD's would be a fine set up as well and that would be at or below your $600 limit.. Like this model 70 stainless fwt with 4.5-14x44 on top:

Aha, gotcha.. Yeah, that base looked really odd and I figured it had to do with where the holes in the base were bored.... It even looked odd when you showed it reversed... Strange base, that... Thanks for the pics and reply..

Dont know about descent glass, but i went with S&K matte bases to match receiver and gloss rings to match a cherry new old stock Denver made Redfield 4-12x40 AO scope, they run 160gr Woodleigh PP Weldcores into less than an inch at 100 over RL-33 powder for 3000 fps in my pre-64 Westerner, any bull elk out to 500 would be on the poles.

Nothing special about mine. It’s got plain old Weaver bases with Leupold PRWs and a 6x36 with dots.





It’ll get a new scope this year and likely Leupold BCs, Warne MountainTechs or TPS depending on which scope I go with.



I use Retumbo and 140 Accubonds in mine.

Nothing special for mine, mine has the same barrel contour as yours. Magpro is my preferred powder. Talley lightweights 3-9X40 Burris ff2

I’ve cut down a set of Warne bases for cleaner looks as well. These are their Mountain Tech rings on a classic SS 300wizzum.

(drool)...