Purchased this rifle not long ago. It's a '56 Winchester pre64 Model 70 30-06 FWT. It came with the mounts below. Would appreciate any and all info on what these mounts are and how best to employ them mounting the Swarovski Z3 3-9x36, also shown below. If anybody's got a better idea, I'm all ears. Thanks.

I "think" the base mounts are Leupold QRW mounts. Product #49836.

If so, I'm hoping I can use the Leupold PRW rings 1" medium. Product #54149.
or the 1" lows. Product #54144.

I'm trying to find out if I can use these mounts, and just get rings to go with them. If not, then I'll have to go with another mount system.

Sorry about the crappy cell phone pics.











Best Wishes,
LD

Those appear to be the leupold QRW/PRW bases. You might have better luck with the burris Z-rings on those with that scope so you will have more lateral adjustability. If you use the PRW's, you may not have any adjustment for to aft. The leupold PRW's are pretty wide... Here's a picture to show you what I'm talking about:

BSA, that was exactly my concern.. not having enough adjustment fore and aft.
Are those QRW's on yours, topped with the Z-rings?

FWIIW, you can flip both the front and rear base 180* to move the groove. But the way you have it now has the two grooves closest together, which probably gives you the most flexibility.

I'm pretty sure Warne makes some similar bases, with some that have the groove outside the two screws (as opposed to in between them.) Those can give you more fore/aft options.

Doc, thanks for the input. But, checking the pics after your post, it looks like that would put the rings even farther apart.

The tube on the Z3 is short, shorter than any of my Leupolds that I can recall from memory.

If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

LD, your scope dimension from bell to bell is 5.35". A Leupold vx2 3-9x40 dimension is 5.6", so it is .25" shorter than the Leupold. If you use the medium PRW's and can get the scope to fit, you might be OK but you won't have any front to rear adjustment. Still might work though.

Talley lightweight's might give you more leeway and they are good rings, a one piece base and ring, and are offset so you can mount one forward and one reverse.

Another option, although I don't like them as well is to mount a picatinny rail and use Weaver type mounts.

Good luck

LD, When I wanted to mount a Leu. 3-9x33 compact (5 3/8" available tube) the only thing that allowed me to get it mounted properly without using a rail was to use the Leu. Dual Dovetail RVF (reversible front) base set #54241. The only downside to these is that the front base overhangs the ejection port slightly. With this set the ring mount slot is behind both of the front base screws, roughly flush with the forward edge of the ejection port.

No, you are not wrong. That is why I wrote "But the way you have it now has the two grooves closest together, which probably gives you the most flexibility."

Mostly, I wanted to make you aware of the concept. Some of the other brands I have seen with the grooves outside the screws will allow you to have both grooves behind the screws or in front of the screws. This keeps the rings close together for shorter scopes, but allows a large shift rearward or forward.

Those are QRW/PRW base and Leupold PRW rings. The Z rings will be much narrower and they fit the weaver style mount..

Good suggestions from the guys regarding the talley lightweights. I have a set on my 338 with a Swaro 3-9x36:



You can also use Leupold DD's. I'm sure that scope would fit just fine with a set of leupold low DD's...

BSA, that looks like a great setup on your .338.

Is that Talley Lightweight front mount reversible to allow any more aft adjustment, if needed?

The Talley lwts. are reversible, front and rear. The set on bsa's .338 also comes with the front offset rearward 1/4" or 1/2". The 1/2" offset overhangs the ejct. port by a little less than 1/4".
John

Yes sir, it is. You can turn either one like John said. I need to clarify something with this particular 338. It is built on an H&H action, so it may not be exactly representative of how it will look on a std. or fwt rifle.

BSA, both your bases front and rear look the same length. Is that correct?
If so, would you happen to know the model number?

Reason I ask, I went to BassPro today and tried the Leupold DD's. Mounted them on the rifle, but couldn't get the scope back far enough for a good cheek weld before it started to run up against the taper on the front bell.

BassPro here stopped carrying Talley's.

local dirt, you'll need 930702 if you are looking for the correct Talley lightweights for your rifle. Those are the low matte blacks.

Thanks, BSA! I'll check those out when I get home from work today.

Keep us posted. I hope you get that thing mounted, so you can show it off to us.. Those swaro's are damn nice.. I had some talley lightweights on my '56 fwt 30-06 for a while:


These are mediums which allow for the use of the big objective on this Burris FFII 4.5-14....

LD, You may want to consider that same exact set- LWT matte lows, but with the front ring extended back 1/4". It's Talley part# 93X702 If you flip the front ring around 180 degrees from bsa's photo, the leading edge of the ring will be perfectly flush with the front of the ejection port. Both rings turned inward will give you the shortest set-up you'll get without overhanging the bolt. Also, like with most any of the extendeds, you have to watch for the obj. bell hitting the foot of the base. That usually happens before the bell gets to the ring. I asked Gregg at Talley once if beveling down the leading edge of the LWT mount an eighth" or so would hurt the integrity of the mount (lead to cracks,etc.) and he said it wouldn't hurt at all. I've had to do this several times and just touch it up a Sharpie or blk. paint pen.
John

Great post/suggestion john. I was thinking the same thing yesterday as I was posting a picture of the std talley lightweights, but didn't think I could explain that as well as you just did. I have a picture to show what the extended front looks like on the model 70. Hope this helps LD:



You are also correct about the blocky design of the base of the LWT. They do create problems in mounting sometimes. They will not allow you to push the scope forward enough because of the power adjustment ring (as seen in the pictures) or the taper of the bell hits. Lex Webernick had Talley design a really nice LWT ring for his customs that I wish Talley would consider for some of the other manufactures (including Winchester model 70's). Here are a set of those rings on an old Ruger m77 tang safety round top:

Hey fellas,

Update:
1. Found a set of the 930702 Talley's on Amazon for $39.40 total, including shipping. Not real happy about Amazon's new tax policy for FL, though. I hear they're doing the same in 21 states now.

2. Scoured the internet looking for the 93X702 Talley's, extended version. EVERYBODY is out of stock.. except Midway. Picked up a set of those for $52.98 total.

Figure if one of 'em works out, I'm golden. And, no harm in keeping a set of Talley low's around, just in case.

Thanks again for all the help!

Best Wishes,
LD

You should be able to get one of those sets to work. Keep us posted as I'd like to know what works out for you incase I decide to switch my Swaro to another pre 64.

Will do, BSA. Chompin' at the bit to get that baby mounted on the FWT.
Never worked with a scope this compact before, but I'm really looking forward to seeing the results.

BSA, BTW, my gunsmith suggested I also take a look at a B-Square extended 1-piece mount setup, if the Talley Lightweight's don't work.

They are not unlike the mounts in your last photo.

I don't know too much about the B-square stuff except that I used a set on my dad's mauser 98 and stripped the threads on them. The aluminum was pretty soft if I remember correctly. Something I've never done with any other type of mounting system. I'm hoping one of the sets of Talleys work out great for you. Like you said before, if you end up with an extra set of talleys it won't be a bad thing. Just a heads up, either set will be very easy to sell here if you decide you don't like them. Good luck with it. Can't wait to see the scope mounted up. I love the glass on the Swaro's.

Damn, definitely gonna need the Lyman 16A. Got the bottoms of the mounts on tonight, but the rear spring sight that came on the rifle is hitting the front bell of the scope, no matter whether the scope is all the way forward or all the way back.

When I went to take the rear sight spring elevation mount off, it's frozen solid. Put a long handled right sized screw driver on it and some really serious pressure. All that did was produce a tiny burr on the outside tip of the mounting screw. Blasted top and underneath with Rem Oil and will check it again in the a.m.

Just ordered a Lyman 16A from Midway.

Oh well, nothing worth doing is easy sometimes.