|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 114
Campfire Member
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 114 |
I had a 264 win mag built on a pre 64 action, but the smith destroyed the receiver and replaced it with an earlier model so my scope bases no longer fit. Originally it was a 1960 westerner action, he replaced it with a 1955 standard action and used my old bolt. Not happy with his solution but it is what it is. Does anyone have the Leupold part number for the DD mounts that fit a 1955 standard action?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,279
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,279 |
I think I may have a set of bases for the DD rings, let me check my "good [bleep]" box. email me please: Jkob60  msn.com I think the base will fit pre or post 64
+Professional member American Custom Gunmakers Guild
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,297
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,297 |
I think I may have a set of bases for the DD rings, let me check my "good [bleep]" box. email me please: [email protected] I think the base will fit pre or post 64 I think you’re correct, the post 64 bases seem to interchange on the Pre’s except for the long H&H.
Semper Fi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 114
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 114 |
Email sent Jkob. My action has a wider hole spacing for the front base than the rear one. The mounts I had on the old action were the same spacing front and rear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 47,959
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 47,959 |
Email sent Jkob. My action has a wider hole spacing for the front base than the rear one. The mounts I had on the old action were the same spacing front and rear. It shouldnt, unless he used an H&H receiver.
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 114
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 114 |
Email sent Jkob. My action has a wider hole spacing for the front base than the rear one. The mounts I had on the old action were the same spacing front and rear. It shouldnt, unless he used an H&H receiver. I just compared it to my 1952 30-06 and the rear hole spacing is much closer together on the 264 win mag. Could it be an H&H? In which case I’m stoked. I’d be happy to email pictures if you’d like.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 114
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 114 |
So after a bunch of searching, the action is from a 1955 30-06 target rifle and is slotted for stripper clips in the rear. Any ideas what scope mounts will work?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,564
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,564 |
I am fairly certain that pre 64 H&H Mag and pre 64 Target actions use the same base. These would be .425" hole spacing on the rear. They would be for pre 64 Win 70 H&H actions above 87,200 serial number or there abouts. Might be above 102,000 serials on the H&H. I have my rifleman's rifle on loan. Measure your hole spacing on the rear bridge. I think I have a set of those bases if it is .425" spacing.
ETA: I have a set of dual dovetail Leupolds for a 1955 H&H model 70 action. $25.00 shipped
Last edited by sbrmike; 07/06/20.
PA Bear Hunter, NRA Benefactor Member
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 114
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 114 |
Yes my rear spacing is .425, I’ll gladly take those bases off your hands as I already have the DD rings. Pm inbound.
|
|
|
|
|
551 members (222ND, 2003and2013, 10Glocks, 163bc, 16Racing, 1badf350, 59 invisible),
2,519
guests, and
1,318
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,675
Posts18,456,159
Members73,909
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
