Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics M70/Leupold 2.5x8 Rings and bases

Bases hanging over the ejection port are ugly. It's a visual train wreck.
Gun is a Model 70, 30-06.. Scope is a lupy 2.5x8-36.
I called Talley and they said no, the scope is to short.
If you say yes it can be done, then show me some pics of your rig if possible.
Now, I imagine if we could get new bases, that would require new rings?
If we put on new rings then I imagine I will see scope marks from the previous rings.
By the way, I think the bases and rings in the pic are Leupold. Thanks, Ken

The mounting length on that scope is what has kept me from wanting to buy one of the new VX3 2.5-8s. Unfortunately, getting that scope on a standard length('06) model 70 with 2 piece Leupold bases, requires at least 1 extended base. How visually offensive do you find 1 piece bases?

I dont care for the 1 piece so much either.
I believe it is possible to mount this scope without the bases overhanging the port.
Several pics in the past on this site lead me to believe that
That is why I was hoping to see actual pics of these rifles.

If the scope in the picture is mounted to suit your requirement for eye relief then you may have a problem. Note how you have the taper from the objective bell right against the overhanging front ring.

If that iswhere that scope works best for you, it appears to me the standard bases, not the extended version shown in the picture would work fine.
Personally, I refuse to have any bases with windage screws. They don't grip the rings neaarly well rnough to stay put. E

E,

If the standard front base puts the ring between the screw holes there's no way the scope can stay where it is. Sure the extended rear could be eliminated.

m

Leupold dual dovetail bases - not extended but "standard' - will just fit on a .30-06 M70 with a Leupold 2.5-8X36 scope.

They may or may not put a slight ring mark where the objective bell meets the body of the scope. A gunsmith very lightly beveled the edge of the forward ring on one of my mounts to fit the objective but it wasn't needed, he did it just to do it. He didn't shave more than a few thousandths.

I have two M70 .30-06's and both have worn Leupold 2.5-8 scopes, though one now has a 6X36 which has a longer tube.

Jim, would you post some pics of the 2.5-8x36 on your model 70? I've always convinced myself that it wouldn't fit. Where as the 2-7x33 VX-II would, as it has just a smidge more mounting length.

Okey-doke. It might be a day or two but I'll get to it.

You have to use the Talley Extended (EXT). I put them on my Model 70 Stainless Featherweight 300 Win Mag to mount a Leupy 2.5-8x. Don't have pictures, but before I bought that set up I saw this thread: Timberline's Model 70

These are the mounts: Talley EXTs at Midway Of course order from this site, I just provided that link as it clearly shows the correct model!

Heres 2.5x8 Leupold in Talleys on a .338 Win mag Classic.

I'd just add that alot depends on where on the rifle you must have the scope for the easiest image aquisition with the shooting positions you use. This can be especially true if the magnification selector ring doesn't allow the scope to be moved far enough forward for long necked sorts who need to shoot quickly.
Frankly, what the setup looks like is way back in third place behind tough, solid design and ability to place the scope in the middle of it's eye box in my book. E

The gunsmith mounted the scope that way several years ago. I believe there is plenty of eye relief to move the scope forward.
To be honest, I didnt know that screw was for windage, I dont need that.

Would that link be for the Matte finish or Stainless? It claims both. Or is it a stainless with a matte finish. I want to stay with the stainless look.

Talley LW's work great on the Mod. 70, with the Leupold 2.5x8.
I happen to own that setup.

I guess the windage screws could loosen if you don't have the right screwdriver to tighten them with or didn't check them for 20 years or so, but the idea that they don't grip the rings hard enough to be reliable is ridiculous. I've used that style of mount (Leupold, Redfield, Burris, Buehler) setup on countless rifles since I was a kid and never had a speck of trouble. They're no more likely to loosen then the rail clamp screws on a Weaver mount.

Personally, I don't care about the bases overhanging the ejection port. I guess it would be better if it didn't but if the rifle ejects properly there are many more important issues, like whether the scope is in the right position front to back or whether it's mounted at the right height for quick sight acquisition. For my taste, that scope is mounted too high and too far back--a set of low rings and a much more forward position will take advantage of the nice long eye relief of that scope.

Train wreck............the rear base is not even mounted correctly.

Tally's & Conetrols, both with an EXT front, easily mount that scope.

You need a GS who knows what the hell he's doing, IMO.

MM

I have the matte black (as in the midway link).

Talley's website shows them in silver, S93X702 1" Model 70 (.860) Standard Caliber and Short Mag Extended (Low) (Silver).

Perhaps Rick has them for sale...I'd look here for the talleys before looking to Midway

"I guess the windage screws could loosen if you don't have the right screwdriver to tighten them with or didn't check them for 20 years or so,"

They might not loosen, but the screws will ride out of the dovetail recesses, causing the rear of the scope to move upwards.

What happens is, the scope stays in one place and the rifle tries to jump out from under it.

The system would probably work okay with a light recoiling rifle and a light weight scope, but with a heavy recoiling rifle and a heavy, variable scope, the scope is not going to stay in one place. A lightweight but heavy recoiling rifle is even more prone to jump out from under the scope.

The rings grip tight enough. It is the windage screws that will not hold in the ring recesses.