Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Pre-64 358 Winchester scope recommendations?

Bolt handle mark on “new” pre-64, obviously from previous administration. Fire contributor I got it from had gotten it from a friend. So, don’t have a lot of history.

Nothing like that on any of my scopes, none on any other rifle bolt in my safe.

Guess I could touch it up with cold blue or just leave it alone, the latter most likely. It’s minor thing.

DF

Depending on how stout the rounds you are shooting and the weight of the rifle, a 6x36 fx2 is small with ample eye relief. I am putting one on a Ruger RSI I am having rebarreled to 358.

Ten fo, I'm leaving mine alone too, that old fwt 243 is completely un-bubba'd and will remain so for as long as I own it, if it didn't shoot well, I'd Three Five Eight it like yours.

I have always used medium height Redfield rings to mount Leupold 2-7 & 3-9x scopes on my pre'64 M/70 FWT rifles. The .30-06 that's in the vault now wears this set-up, no problem with bolt clearance.

Probably not a bad idea. Low rings just look better and us Loony types generally pride ourselves with just how low we can mount our scopes. Some of us, anyway.

I have an FN Mauser I’ve posted here several times. It has a classic straight bolt custom handle and only med rings will work. Pre-64 handles are not that straight, but straighter than 700’s and others. So, low rings seem marginal for those.

This one is wearing low rings and they look and feel pretty good. The bolt handle/ocular relationship is pretty close, not actually rubbing. I’ll leave it like this. Don’t think the scope will be damaged, the rifle already has its mark. Working the bolt is pretty easy.

DF

Nice.

That one has a custom bolt handle, maybe a bit more “ocular friendly” than a std pre-64 bolt handle.

You do have some outstanding “toys”.



DF

Ed, what are those mount bases and rings?

-Chris

I am pretty certain that the bolt handle is factory, just checkered. The rings were made by Matt Williams (son of the Williams bottom metal guy) and ride a touch lower than Talley's. The bases were made by Michael Scherz.

Could be. Looked a bit longer, so I assumed custom.

Scherz bases are legendary, wasn’t aware of the younger Williams. I’ve used Williams bottom metal, top end stuff.

DF

Thanks, Nice looking.

-Chris

[Ours came with the low mount rings and bases - awesome if you bought it new in 1958 - lol

https://i.imgur.com/kEwy6xK.jpg

We kept the bases and just upgraded the mounts and rings

https://i.imgur.com/opVg0rI.jpg

Thats really common. Not really a major issue though. If it works, keep using it. For the OP, sometimes you may want to go to a taller ring if the mark bothers you. I like my scope to be as close to the barrel as I can get it, so I don't have to lift my head off the stock to look through the scope. I've found Leupold dual dovetails to work, as well as oldstyle weaver mounts and rings, Talley steel rings and bases, talley lightweights, Leupold PRW mounts and rings as well as Leupold standards and one piece mounts. However, the Leupold standards and one piece mounts are not my preference. I've found the windage adjustable rings to be weaker than other mounting systems..



Leupold DD's with Zeiss scope:



Talley lightweights with Swaro 3-9x36:



Talley lightweights with Zeiss scope:



Leupold DD's with Burris FFII 3-9x40:


Leupold PRW's and 3.5-10x44 Zeiss conquest:

Extra low and low talleys are going to be too damn low for your rifle.

Well, it came with Talley 30mm Medium and with a 50mm scope I had just enough clearance, we'll have to wait and see.

Ended up using the low Talley Lightweight mounts, sending the extra low back and getting a set of mediums.

The squatty body of the Leupold VX-3 2.5-8x36mm didn't give me a lot of room to play with. I also examined the bolt handle outside in the sunlight and it has the missing bluing from dragging across the ocular, so I ain't going to worry about it.

I would have loved to have it back just a little further, but this is the maximum I can get it to the rear. I may look at something in a 30mm tube and a 24mm objective, been eyeing the Sightmark Citadel 1 - 10 x 24mm, buddy has one and he's been very happy with it.

Here she is ready to head to the range for a little zero job and put some rounds down range. I picked this up out of the forums here.

Thanks for all the advice guys, I really appreciate it!

Surprised you might like it further back. Looks like mine (an older Vari-X III 2.5-8x36) is mounted slightly further forward than yours, eye relief on that scope is good for that... and that also gives slightly more clearance near the objective bell than your pics show...

Mine's a post-64, but I wouldn't expect that to make much difference... but then I have Warne bases (which don't look as tall as your bases)... and the forward reversible base might be giving me a bit more flexibility up there than you have. FWIW, I'm also using "low" Warne rings.

-Chris

Agree with Darryle, I like my scopes set back a bit, I don’t stock crawl. And, I don’t care for rails on hunting rifles.

Long actions, short scopes can be a challenge. Seems the newer scopes are getting shorter and shorter. The old vintage Weavers were plenty long. Conquests and most Swaro’s are pretty long.

Extension front base reversed can set the front ring back a bit, I just don’t like the look when the base extends into the action port. Flush is OK, and I have cut them off flush, filed a new groove for the cross pin (Weavers). Burris rings aren’t as wide, giving a bit more room. I like the way Weavers attach and detach, Burris not so much.

Sometimes mounting a scope can be a chore, even a PITA.

DF

+ 💯

My old pre ‘64 358 Win now resides in Quebec, but while it lived here it carried a Leupold M7 3X in Weavers. It was the only M7 I ever had and worked just fine on anything I hunted.

Ted

Darryle,

The leupold 2.5x ultralight has a smaller ocular lense diameter than most scopes. That's what I use on the 358. I've shot a lot of moose with the 358. For many years always put away moose meat that the lowest power setting on variable scopes. Within the range limitations of the 358, nobody should need much more than 3 power. I don't understand what's to be gained, overscoping a 358 with excessive magnification and scope weight.

The 2.5 x leupold is especially nice on the blr as well, gives yah more space under ocular lenses, to get your thumb on the hammer.