Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles best mounts for a NXS on a Montana??

RH,

Here are a couple of pictures I snapped of my set-up last night. These are "medium" Mountain Tech rings btw. I tired the "low" rings and while they JUST cleared the barrel on the objective end, but the bolt handle was hitting the eye-piece on the back end. I suspect that is a function of the Talley two piece bases sitting considerably lower than most pic rails.





Maybe the eyepiece is smaller on the Nightforce than the LRHS and will allow you to run the lows. If so, I suspect scope caps will be out of the equation.

Dave

Thanks a bunch Dave. With the MT lows,was the bolt hitting the scope ocular ,not allowing you to use that scope at all,or just hitting your rear scope cap?

The bolt was hitting the eye-piece.

If the distance from your eye to your cheek bone were static like mine, you might understand.

I've got a set of the Kimber two-piece picatinny bases and Seekins rings (low) for a couple Montana's.
One (8400) has a LRHS 3-12x44mm scope mounted and the other (84M) has a Leica ERi 2.5-10x42mm mounted. Might swap the Leica out with a SWFA SS 3-9x42mm.

idddave and Foesteology

Help me figure this out please. idddave says his LHRS wouldn't clear the bolt with the Warne Mountain Tech lows. I called Warne today and was informed that their lows are .86 tall.

Fosteology is using two piece bases and even a lower ring. The Seekins low is .82 tall

Fosteology, are those picatinny two piece bases that much taller than the Warne,weaver bases ?
Is this the two piece bases.
http://store.kimberamerica.com/84-two-piece-picatinny-bases

Does that mean they are as tall as a one piece picatinny base, but the weaver two piece from Warne would not be?

I have warne,weaver steel bases already. Several picatinny rings will fit that base without modification including Burris XTR and the Warne Mountain Tech. I like the one piece for strength and adjustability, but not sure it wouldn't get in the way loading and unloading the Montana.

Just trying to get this worked out to have the lowest mount set up but still have good objective and ocular bolt clearance.
Thanks,and sorry for all the back and forth.

I don't have a set of Warne bases on hand to compare, but based on memory I'd wager that the Kimber two-piece picatinny bases are indeed taller. I have no issue/problem with the bolt clearing the LRHS ocular. I even took it off the 8400 and mounted to the 84M, and again, no issues.

Another option (one which I haven't gotten around to) is to do what Stick did. Take a one-piece picatinny rail and cut out the center portion and smooth up the cut edges.

With the Seekins low rings and two piece picatinny rail,are you happy with the height, or do you wish it was even lower for a 42mm scope?

If it was lower, the bolt would likely not clear the ocular. Honestly, it's not that high. It's just a tad higher (maybe 1/8"+/-) than a comparable scope mounted in the Talley two-piece LW low rings.

Is there any difference between the 84L and the 8400 receiver?....maybe that's it.

Dave

Jordan,

Any/what reason for not using a one piece rail on Your Kimbers in the above pictures?

Thanks,

Jerry

Yes,I would also love to hear from anyone using a one piece rail,or anyone that has used one. I'm concerned if loading is difficult with the one piece rail.

Weight and scope mount height, though those rifles could get rails in the future to standardize my mounting systems across rifles, and make scope swaps easier. As with the Barrett, I doubt the loading port will be a problem. We’ll see, I may just leave them as is, since I don’t intend on moving those scopes around at all.

I have one piece rails now on all but just 2 rifles now. Just simpler when I want to do scope rodeo and such and really no down side aside from a couple fractions of an oz. Loading and unloading is certainly not an issue here for me with a one piece rail. Granted its not an NXS on there so maybe that part would be different. Though putting the SHV 3-10 or NXS 2.5-10 I would be well under 7 pounds, but for this rifle I am ok being at just under 7.25 pounds. If I want to go lighter I have other options.

I see great minds think alike AL.

With the notable exception to your vastly inferior mounting approach of course.

Dave

Haha yes indeed. Gonna be a shame when the scope flies off the rifle on the first shot

Thanks a bunch for that info. What rail and rings did you use on that one? Wondering about the rings so I can know the height in that picture. Just wondering if there is any quality difference in the rails in your opinion between the Talley,Nightforce,or EGW offerings?

I used a EGW on this rifle. I have a Talley on my Barrett, and my Tikkas all pretty much have Mountain Tacticals.

Those rings are NF lows as well. I am not sure about quality differences of rails sorry.

Just off the top of my head, I’ve had EGW, Talley, USO, NF, Weaver, etc, pic rails. They all fit and functioned just fine, but my preference, just for peace of mind, is a rail with an integral recoil lug.

Jordan,I've heard of a recoil lug in picatinny rails but I don't understand how it works. I guess I've never seen one.