Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors Mounts for a pre 64 H&H

What about a rail? Is there one available that will fit a pre64 “classic” H&H action?

I’m surprised no one mentioned S&K.

Blasphemy.

Does anyone aside from Warne make 2-piece Weaver/Picatinny style STEEL GLOSS bases for the M70s?

Actually, I'm not even sure Warne still offers the GLOSS version. They work well enough, but the front base "hangover" -- happens whether installed in either direction -- isn't all that attractive...

-Chris

Needs his mouth washed out with soap...

I agree. Why they think that is appealing, is beyond anyones guess. As for your question, You can get weaver mounts in gloss finish. However, they are aluminum. Not that those are bad, I run them on my m1917's. Are you looking for mounts for a standard pre 64 or H&H? If standard, I'd go with the DD's and be done with it. You have much more options that work well on the standard actions vs. the H&H receivers: The main reason I started this thread. For those that mention the S&K and Conetrols. They hang over the ejection/loading port on the H&H receiver and to be honest, look like dog chidt..

It's actually for a post-'64 .338 Win Mag... but as I understand it, the hole spacing is the same as for pre-'64s except for the .300/.375 H&H versions. (Corrections welcome.)

The Weaver/Picattiny style is easier for my purposes, so I can easily switch scopes OR use a reflex (red dot) sight which needs W/P-style mount base. Looks like the Talley system I mentioned above could work for scope easily enough, but doesn't solve the red dot part. I may just bite the bullet and whack off part of the Warne front base like you did, polish and reblue, call it good. Or I may just bag the red dot part of the plan and switch to Talley's. If nothing else better comes up...

-Chris

You are correct in your assumption that your 338 takes the same mounts as the pre 64 standard actions. They have .860" hole spacings. Talley makes nice steel bases and rings. If you like the vertical split rings. A lot of guys do, but I don't like them personally. If you are so inclined to use a red dot sight, maybe go with a rail. Since it is a post 64, it won't be as frowned upon. To put one on a pre 64 would be downright sacrilegious.. You could look into the Leupold QRW bases. If you like the Burris Zee rings, Leupold also makes a clone of that ring (LRW), which is a lot lighter than the Leupold PRW rings. You can get Zee rings or the Leupold LRW in gloss finish. They look like this:



By the way, I have ran a rail on some of my Winchester model 70's. All post 64 models of course. One rifle in particular came from the factory with a 1913 mil spec rail:


If your rifle is more tactical looking/functioning, go with the rail...since you want to swap between your scope and red dot.. Not too many other options out there for the red dot...

Not going with a rail. That too would interfere with the loading port more than I'd like.

What I have now is Warne M902/924G (gloss) bases, Warne #200G (gloss) vertically split rings with one scope mounted, Warne #200LG (gloss) QD rings (with the levers) for the back-up scope... all my red dots are fully subscribed elsewhere just now... and I don't have too many brown bears or moose or what have you here in the Chesapeake region so it's not like I need an urgent solution. All looks good (and works well) except the front base overhang just seems a bit inelegant to me...

I'm of two minds about vertical split rings. The Warne #200G set isn't perfect, since dismounting also releases the scope from the rings. (I envision this would mostly be "back at camp" surgery, but a small Torx driver could solve it in the field, too... reverting to back up iron sights for the rest of a day.) Looks like the Talley "Screw Lock Detachable" vertically-split rings can be detached without disturbing the scope in the rings; better, I'd think. But they won't fit a W/P-style base, so it doesn't speak to the red dot.

And whether I really need a red dot on it is yet another mental debate I'm having with myself. I'm winning... but can't tell which side of me is the winning side. As usual, I'll probably just think on it for another several years, before doing anything constructive.

-Chris