|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,401
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,401 |
I'm thinking a gloss FXII 6x36 would look perfecto on that pre 64!
“There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot.”
ALDO LEOPOLD
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
GWOOD: I don't know what is up with that set because I have used the Tallet LW on other rifles with good results,but these extra lows don't wanna fit.......thought about trying to lap them but not sure I could do that.
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
I really like that rifle EricM! I can understand the featherweight confusion because your supergrade looks like it has a 22" long barrel in the photos. even though it is obvious it is a standard weight contour which should be 24" maybe its just the picture.
trying to pick mounts can be tough. I have Conetrols on my Pre 64 '06 and 270 featherweights and leupold made redfield style two piece bases w/low rings on my 270 standard rifle.
I would like to try Tally steel mounts. Thanks 1911a1! It is 24" but I think it's just the angle of the shot. Plus it's a National Match barrel which has a lower front sight than what you normally see.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 817
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 817 |
What a beautiful rifle! Lots of good suggestions here, seems like everyone has their own personal preference and just about every one would look good on that rifle. I have a similar vintage rifle that has an early sixties 2.5 x 8 B&L Balvar on a Buhler mount. I love that scope, not so much the mount, but it works.
John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565 |
My 1953 30-06 wears a Leupy Vari-XIII 2.5-8x36. I think it is about a perfect match..... ![[Linked Image]](http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/2muchgun/100_0174.jpg) ![[Linked Image]](http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/2muchgun/100_0173.jpg) My bud has a 1954. His sports same scope in 3.5-10x40 that I sold him......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
2muchgun,
I'm curious why you swapped out the 3.5-10x40 for the 2.5-8x36? Was the 3.5-10 overkill?
It does look like a perfect match for that rifle!
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
So... I bought a Leupold VX3 2.5-8x36 scope for this pre'64 1955 Winchester M70 in .30-06. I also bought Leupold STD rings (low) with a 2-piece scope mount base (reversible rear). My gunsmith told me: "The mount you ordered is not for the rifle. It requires drilling the mount. The mount also does not fit the countour of the action (rear). Front mount is fine.
The mounts that were sent in are reversable. Holes in each mount have the same hole spacing. Your gun has the same spacing on the fwd mount but the rear holes are closer together so brighter mount will work in the rear position" . What mount will work? Below is what I've ordered, including a recent order of extension rings which I now think I probably don't need as it's a mount issue, not a ring issue?... Thanks for the help!! Eric LU-MT-RING-STD-49898 Leupold STD Rings $22.99 LU-MT-BASE-2PC-50021 Leupold Standard 2PC 2-Piece Rifle Scope Mount Base (Leupold riflescope mounting system) $16.99 LU-RS-VX-3-25-8x36-66340 Leupold VX-3 2.5-8x36mm Riflescope $389.99 LU-MT-RING-STD-49910 $27.99 Leupold STD 1-inch Extension Ring, Low Matte Black Variant = LU-MT-RING-STD-49910 (+$5.00)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 746
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 746 |
So... I bought a Leupold VX3 2.5-8x36 scope for this pre'64 1955 Winchester M70 in .30-06. I also bought Leupold STD rings (low) with a 2-piece scope mount base (reversible rear). My gunsmith told me: "The mount you ordered is not for the rifle. It requires drilling the mount. The mount also does not fit the countour of the action (rear). Front mount is fine.
The mounts that were sent in are reversable. Holes in each mount have the same hole spacing. Your gun has the same spacing on the fwd mount but the rear holes are closer together so brighter mount will work in the rear position" . What mount will work? Below is what I've ordered, including a recent order of extension rings which I now think I probably don't need as it's a mount issue, not a ring issue?... Thanks for the help!! Eric LU-MT-RING-STD-49898 Leupold STD Rings $22.99 LU-MT-BASE-2PC-50021 Leupold Standard 2PC 2-Piece Rifle Scope Mount Base (Leupold riflescope mounting system) $16.99 LU-RS-VX-3-25-8x36-66340 Leupold VX-3 2.5-8x36mm Riflescope $389.99 LU-MT-RING-STD-49910 $27.99 Leupold STD 1-inch Extension Ring, Low Matte Black Variant = LU-MT-RING-STD-49910 (+$5.00) that is unusual for a post war 30-06 to have different front/rear hole spacings. the only ones I was aware of were the Target rifles that had stripper-clip slotted recievers, in which case the rear spacing is 0.435" and will use the same rear base as the 300 H&H and 375 H&H rifles edit to add: I just saw your other post It is 24" but I think it's just the angle of the shot. Plus it's a National Match barrel which has a lower front sight than what you normally see. If it was a National Match barreled actionl it most likely does have the stripper clip slot and the 0.435" rear hole spacing
Last edited by free_miner; 01/17/11.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
I bet you that's it - the National match barreled action.
Will I need to reorder bases, or just the rear?
Any help on Leupold model #, would be very much appreciated!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 746
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 746 |
I bet you that's it - the National match barreled action.
Will I need to reorder bases, or just the rear?
Any help on Leupold model #, would be very much appreciated!
no idea if Leupold sells individual parts. The front is definitely the same. If you are happy with the turn-in and windage adjustable bases, I'm pretty sure I have some around, I will look tonight and if I locate them I will send them to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
Free Miner, Thanks so much for the offer. That is very kind of you!  Would those bases accept STD rings? I sent an email to my gunsmith to confirm the measurements when he gets back from the Shot Show. If you're right on the .435" rear measurement, it looks like Leupold does offer bases in QR style (#50062 or 49836). Update to follow. Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,468
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,468 |
I just measured the mounting points on my '55 300 H&H the rear holes are indeed .435 the fronts are .865. The bases are Leupold QRW and are availalbe. Not sure if they are sold seperate front and rear, check the spacing on the front and see if the pre64 300H&H set will fit. I use a Zeiss Conquest 3X9X40 on mine as it allows me to keep the stock iron sights installed with a scope.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
Thanks for the input, Smithrjd.
What's better, the QR or QRW (Weaver style) bases?
Since the scope is a 2.5x8 I'd probably have to get extension rings (?)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,468
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,468 |
If I remember correctley, the only bases available at the time when I scoped the Winchester (willed to me never had a scope!) were the QRW type. To clear the bolt I had to use mediums. These are the style that have the levers to release the scope. I do have an extra Weaver one piece base and medium rings that I am not using that I got from John Barsness. It is setup for the magnum spacing. .435rear/865front
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
Smithrjd- Very cool! It looks like it's probably the magnum spacing .435 rear/ .865 front. I'll have to confirm once my 'smith gets back from the Shot Show. I also need to see whether ring extensions are needed to accomodate the 2.5-8x36. Oh the joys of owning an old rifle. LoL! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022 |
I think some vintage Weaver tip-offs with the large knobs would look correct. Exactly what I have on mine with a early Weaver variable (3-9x40) that has a burnished SS finish and external windage/elevation turrets.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 746
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 746 |
EricM, I was half right, I have two Redfield Jr's marked 70-AM Both are tapped for the Redfield flip-up peeps, and the spacing from the two furhtermost holes is 5.090". That is a 2.5-8 in the picture, so the ring spacing will work. Anyways, they are dust collectors, so if you can use them you are welcome to one. Numrich has the peeps for $8.95 if you wanted to put one back on as well. ![[Linked Image]](http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo41/rgv/DSC05014.jpg) ![[Linked Image]](http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo41/rgv/DSC05015.jpg) and how's this for period correct? Unidentified by maker, but they are 1' and the rear ring screws to the receiver sight base holes on the left side. Made for the pre-war and M54 rifles with undrilled rear bridges ![[Linked Image]](http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo41/rgv/DSC04784.jpg) ![[Linked Image]](http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo41/rgv/DSC04782.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
Free Miner & Smithrjd, Thanks for the kind offers. You guys seriously rock!!  I love this place! After a call to my gunsmith (his assistant measured the hole spacing at .435rear/865front today) and to Leupold, I decided to opt for Leupold QRW 2 piece bases (#49836) with matching rings in Low (#49853). If for some reason that doesn't work, I'll circle back and consider the one-piece bases - which will probably work just as well. If you need any Leupold standard bases or rings, or extension rings, let me know as I have some on hand. LoL. Cheers, Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
Not to resurrect a dead thread... But after much trial and error I finally found a combination that would let me mount a Leupold VX3 2.5-8x36 onto a pre-64 M70 National Match rifle. I used Talley steel bases for the Winchester Model 70 (.435) Pre 64 Long Action Magnum (Double Extended Front) - 25XX704 - and 1" Screw Lock Detachable Rings in Low / Matte - M200003. The Leupolds would not work with the hole spacing and short scope tube of the 2.5-8. I think it's a perfect combo and am happy with it. Here she is: ![[Linked Image]](http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss275/ebm1973/P1000611.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
534 members (10gaugeman, 12344mag, 10Glocks, 160user, 1936M71, 007FJ, 68 invisible),
2,491
guests, and
1,251
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,445
Posts18,489,603
Members73,970
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss275/ebm1973/5.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss275/ebm1973/10.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss275/ebm1973/13.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss275/ebm1973/14.jpg)
