|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,098 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,098 Likes: 1 |
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
If you're not burning through batteries in your headlamp,...you're doing it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
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?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,098 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,098 Likes: 1 |
The bolt was hitting the eye-piece.
If you're not burning through batteries in your headlamp,...you're doing it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1 |
Honestly, I'm not one of those people that finds cheek weld height to be super critical. Thank you......me either...... If the distance from your eye to your cheek bone were static like mine, you might understand.
If you put Taco Bell sauce in your ramen noodles it tastes just like poverty
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,697
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,697 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
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-basesDoes 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.
Last edited by R_H_Clark; 01/10/18.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,697
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,697 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
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?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,697
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,697 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,098 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,098 Likes: 1 |
Is there any difference between the 84L and the 8400 receiver?....maybe that's it.
Dave
If you're not burning through batteries in your headlamp,...you're doing it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,329
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,329 |
Jordan,
Any/what reason for not using a one piece rail on Your Kimbers in the above pictures?
Thanks,
Jerry
Si vis pacem, para bellum
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,502
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,502 |
Jordan,
Any/what reason for not using a one piece rail on Your Kimbers in the above pictures?
Thanks,
Jerry
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,831
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,831 |
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.
Last edited by alaska_lanche; 01/12/18.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,098 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,098 Likes: 1 |
I see great minds think alike AL.
With the notable exception to your vastly inferior mounting approach of course.
Dave
Last edited by iddave; 01/12/18.
If you're not burning through batteries in your headlamp,...you're doing it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,831
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,831 |
Haha yes indeed. Gonna be a shame when the scope flies off the rifle on the first shot
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
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. 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?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,831
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,831 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,502
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,502 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
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.
|
|
|
|
575 members (10gaugemag, 1234, 10ring1, 007FJ, 06hunter59, 12344mag, 56 invisible),
2,610
guests, and
1,264
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,061
Posts18,482,433
Members73,959
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|