Originally Posted by Ranger4444
Originally Posted by 160user
Yes, I believe all of most are gloss and they are just polished aluminum.


Maybe yours are not the "Grand Slam" Weavers? I thought those were steel...

Would it be easy to post a pic?

I like the Warne mounts for doing the work, but I too don't like it all that much when the mount bases extend over the port or beyond the rings.

The Warne gloss bases I have are like those pictured above, although apparently they're only cataloging matte finishes these days:
https://warnescopemounts.com/product/winchester-model-70-w-860-rhs-matte/

But I think 2-piece bases for a Model 70 non-magnum action doesn't matter if it's pre- or post-'64? And my M70 is from circa '71...

-Chris


You are correct Chris. The pre and post 64 model 70's take the bases with .860" hole spacings. Mounting rings and bases on a standard action is much more straight forward, than they are on the H&H or "express" (post 64) receivers. Again, for those wondering why I didn't go with weavers, I think I stated I didn't want an aluminum base in the OP. Maybe I forgot to say that, but much prefer the steel bases on the heavier kicking magnums. I'm running the Leupold PRW mounts and rings on my 7 pound 338wm that is built on an H&H action. They work great. They are rock solid, but a bit bulky. Another reason I chose the smaller Burris Zee ring. They hold up well on my m1917's. These are just options I chose. That doesn't mean everyone has to go this route. I also figured it would be a good discussion because we don't talk much about rings and bases for our pre 64's, let alone our H&H pre 64's..

Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.

BSA MAGA