Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Barret Fieldcraft scope mounting options

I picked up a second hand Fieldcraft chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor. It came with some 30mm talleys (low) and I am considering swapping to the talley pic rail and standard rings. Does anyone know if a combination of the base/rings can net a lower scope height than their standard "low" rings? The ability to be able to easily swap scopes on the rifle while maintaining zero is very appealing, but I would really like to keep the scope at the same height, or lower if possible.
Thanks!

Also... I noticed on Talley's website when on the Fieldcraft Picatinny Base they list four action sizes: Magnum, Long, Short, Micro. Barrett has teased a "micro" action but not released anything that I have seen yet. Hopefully this means something is coming soon! If they offer a 6.5 grendel I will definitely pick one up. Talley Micro Action Base

I wish they just made a low Picatinny base that I could put Hornady XTR Signature 30mm rings on, without adding all the height in the back. Similar to the Burris Extreme Tactical bases.

I know Big Stick (aka Boxer) is shooting the Hornady rings on the 20 MOA Talley base. Who else has experience with this set up? How's the cheek weld?

I'm not "stick", but from top down, those rifles seem to have ........

Top: Warn Maxima Rings
Middle: Burris XTR Sig Rings
Bottom: Talley Lightweight Rings

Hornady doesn't make any scope rings...........I'm sure you mean't Burris

In any event, these Barrett Fieldcrafts are intriguing. Seems like a clear friggin choice between them and the "sometimes troublesome" Kimber Montana's.

I'm excited to hear more about the Barrett's from those who'm have them.

Yes. Burris. I was multitasking, but not well.

I am running the Talley Picatinny and Burris XTR Signatures on a Fieldcraft in 6.5 Creedmoor, and I am quite happy with the overall package. I tend to tolerate a bit higher scope mount more than others, but nonetheless I think the setup is solid for most users, Picatinnys being what they are.

I'm using a Talley rail and Seekins lows on 3 Fieldcrafts. This setup is solid, gives the ease of changing scopes, and the option of spacing rings as needed to fit the scope, but I'm not sure if a ring combo can be found to mate with the Talley base that's going to come out as low as TLW's. Cheek-weld is ok but could be lower. I was on the verge of putting TLW's on the last one but had a scope already setup in rings so used the rail instead.

I WANT to use the TLW's for the lower mount and lighter weight.....but after having a couple of pairs crack, along with the fact that I'm using noticeably heavier scopes now, I haven't been able to talk myself into it.

Unfortunately there's no option for truly low scope mounting on a Barrett Fieldcraft at this time.

I've been very pleased with the strength of DNZ mounts on several rifles....don't always like the ring spacing but the 2 piece Huntmaster's with the Fieldcrafts multiple spacing options on the front of the reciever got me thinking. So I emailed DNZ asking about low 30mm Huntmasters for the Fieldcraft. Below is the final result from DNZ when I asked about making 3 pair of 30mm lows:




So there are options for low/strong Fieldcraft mounts.....but it'll cost ya!

It's Stick's fault. he always calls the Burris Sig rings "Horn" rings for some reason.

Talley Low:




Talley 0MOA pic rail and Burris XTR Sig Med rings (the rifle now has a stock pack to adjust cheek weld):

Jordan,

While I like the additional 40 MOA with the Burris and 20 MOA Talley option.

1. is it really needed? On the Ballistic software, the 6.5 Creedmoor 140 BTHP American gunner is only 31 MOA/9 MILs adjustment at 1,000 yards. It seems the regular Talley's would work with a 6x or 10x MQ.

2. If you have to add a cheek pad, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a very lightweight rifle? Or, even with the added weight, is it much less than a similar Montana, etc.?



Or, is that combo more about rugged than about extra elevation?

Well I'll be darned, that's interesting!

You're right about the ring spacing being less than ideal on DNZs, but they are quality mounts and do a good job of making low mounts that are actually low.

Needing a stock purse to achieve proper cheek weld indicates a design or setup flaw, generally seen as an issue in comb height or mount height. In the case of the Fieldcraft, the problem is mostly the latter. The pic rail is a nice strong mount, but for me the Talley rail is not worth it on a Fieldcraft, as it gives up too much in the way of ergonomics. I'm no fan of chin weld. Bottom of cheek bone hard against the comb with my eye lined up is where I want to be.

Pretty sure that rail comes in a "flat" version as well.

PSO252766

The 20MOA is PSM252766

Amazon has both.

The 0 MOA rail isn't much flatter in the rear than the 20 MOA.

The Burris Extreme Tactical Bases are about 1/2 as high off of the receiver.

I didn't realize Burris made a base fort he fieldcraft. I wish I could find a published height for it as well as the Talley base.

The lowest QD 30mm rings I have found are the Warnes which are .25" and Leupolds which are ~.23". Not much room to spare to exceed the .3" height of the Talley "low" rings.

Have to check those out.

Burris does not make a base for the Fieldcraft. I wish they did

I’m basing my observations on the height of the bases they make for the Rem 700.

Looks like Talley lows for me then. Got enough chin-weld rifles.

The concept of using high mounts to attain enough cant to shoot a mile on a rifle that weighs seven pounds just seems really bizarre, especially because in order to do so, you lose an important feature for everyday usage - decent cheek weld. It's the 2018 version of see-through mounts, but geared towards the opposite yardage extreme.