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

This comes up periodically. Generally when someone asks, "which mounts and rings for my pre 64?", I'm the first to say DD's. Well, not for my H&H rifles. I tried them a long time ago and they hang over the ejection port. Well, the rear mount does anyway, so DD's are not an option for me. How about Talley lightweights?:


Yeah, well you get the idea. I've been of the opinion that Winchester thought those cut-outs for extra clearance of the longer H&H cartridges were put in the top of the receiver bridges for a reason. This is why I chose to use weaver style mounts instead. I will use steel mounts, meaning Leupold PRW:


Or in a pinch, you can use the Warne mounts. One word of caution though, if you choose Warne, the front mount is too long. It extends past the front edge of the receiver, and it looks like garbage. No thought was put into the aesthetics of those bases:


This is kind of a pisser, but can be remedied:




File it flat:


Polish it out and then re-blue:

Install the rings and scope and you are in business:

(1958 300WBY with Zeiss 3-9x42)
Now, I've seen guys use big ol rings on weaver mounts on their pre 64's and you might as well be running a one piece picatinny mount if you are going to run those big azzed rings. Just my opinion of course, take it with a grain of salt. So after years of trial and error, I've came to the conclusion that the weaver style mounts work the best on an H&H rifle, with smaller solid rings like the Burris Zee rings. This set-up allows for all the clearance in the world, you don't obstruct the loading port, so feeding and ejection are 100%. I have set-up all of my m1917 sporters in this fashion as well. Its a tried and true mounting solution that is rock solid and good looking as well:



Of course "YMMV"... I hope you guys had a great Thanksgiving

Why not a set of custom mounts for Talley rings?

I hate the vertical split rings. I've used them, but don't like them for a couple reasons. I don't even use them on std rifles. Much prefer the aesthetics and simplicity of the DD's. If someone has a pic of the steel talleys that don't hang into the loading/ejection port, please post them. The way Talleys are made, they have a notch cut out for the ring. There is no lateral adjustment for the ring. It is what it is and where it goes. On the .435" rear base for the H&H, it extends out into the loading port. Post pics if you have something different, as I don't think any modification will remedy this. I'll also add that the Leupold quick release mounts are the same way.

If you're still looking, Weaver Grand Slam or Burris Extreme 2-piece bases might not hang over the port... or extend forward past the front ring... But it looks like the bases in the third pic solve the problem (Leupolds?) as long as the spacing works with the scope.

(Yes, Warne Maxima front base either extends over the port or forward of the front ring. Not sure what their rear base does, for the .375-length ports.)

-Chris

Have a set of nib Redfield Duralite Streamline bases for the M70 Mag. Have yet to use them

I have a pile of NIB weaver mounts for pre-64's. You should have said something.

Did Weaver make any of those with gloss finish?

-Chris

Yes, I believe all of most are gloss and they are just polished aluminum.

Maybe yours are not the "Grand Slam" Weavers? I thought those were steel...

Would it be easy to post a pic?

I like the Warne mounts for doing the work, but I too don't like it all that much when the mount bases extend over the port or beyond the rings.

The Warne gloss bases I have are like those pictured above, although apparently they're only cataloging matte finishes these days:
https://warnescopemounts.com/product/winchester-model-70-w-860-rhs-matte/

But I think 2-piece bases for a Model 70 non-magnum action doesn't matter if it's pre- or post-'64? And my M70 is from circa '71...

-Chris

I was referring to the Weaver bases that are era correct for the rifle.

My first thought is also DD.

What about Conetrol mounts?

Did Weaver not make the Grand Slam versions then?

-Chris

I have pics in the OP that show what the steel maxima bases look like. If you read the op, I modified the front. The second post shows a good pic of my 300wby with the steel maxima bases and burris Zee rings. Take a look...

You are correct Chris. The pre and post 64 model 70's take the bases with .860" hole spacings. Mounting rings and bases on a standard action is much more straight forward, than they are on the H&H or "express" (post 64) receivers. Again, for those wondering why I didn't go with weavers, I think I stated I didn't want an aluminum base in the OP. Maybe I forgot to say that, but much prefer the steel bases on the heavier kicking magnums. I'm running the Leupold PRW mounts and rings on my 7 pound 338wm that is built on an H&H action. They work great. They are rock solid, but a bit bulky. Another reason I chose the smaller Burris Zee ring. They hold up well on my m1917's. These are just options I chose. That doesn't mean everyone has to go this route. I also figured it would be a good discussion because we don't talk much about rings and bases for our pre 64's, let alone our H&H pre 64's..

As I stated in my OP, the DD's hang over the loading/ejection port. Conetrols do the same. Go back and read the op. I know you like your fancy rifles, but to me, there's elegance in simplicity and function. Some guys will pay top dollar for conetrols and S&K and then post pics of them on their $4000.00 rifle and when it hangs out into the ejection port, it looks like dog chit to me. Sometimes the engineers get those rings and bases right and they are beautiful, sometimes not so much.

Saw that. Wasn't sure Conetrol did likewise.

Did you look at the Talley Signature Steel Bases, paired with their Screw Lock Detachable Rings?

https://www.talleymanufacturing.com/product/steel-base-for-winchester-model-70-435-pre-64/
https://www.talleymanufacturing.com/product/screw-lock-detachable-scope-rings/

I can't tell from their website whether the rear base would extend over the loading port or not...

But it looks like their standard (non-extended) front base might at least bet slightly better than having to machine the Warne front base. I might consider switching to these for my post-'64 standard action instead of the Warne system I have now. They have a gloss version of the rings, which would match my system, and it looks like they have the advantage of being detachable without having to completely disassemble the ring parts...

-Chris

I have recently bought a pre-64 300 H&H 70. I was wondering if the mounts are the same for the per-64 and the post 64 Super 30. A friend is sending up a Leupold set he has for a pre-64, but still wondering

Gripe: The newer scopes are trending shorter. I have a nice longer scope for my pre-64 375, but am concerned that there will be too much eye relief with the long action and the short scopes.

Not the same. Pre 64 H&H magnum have .425" hole space and post 64 is .330" hole space. I have either Weaver Grand Slam, or Leupold QRW / PRW steel bases on my 375 H&H. I don't remember which brand but they are steel and do not extend over the ejection port. I have a Leupold Vari-XIII scope in 1.75-6X on it. It fits and functions just great.