Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors Mounts for a pre 64 M70 standard length action

I have several pre 64 M70 ‘s that I’ve scoped with Leupold vx 3 2.5x8’s. All are standard length actions. The stocks on all these guns are unaltered with factory LOP. On all I have had to use rear extended rings to keep from stock crawling to get the scopes full field of view. I don’t really like the extension look over the mag port and was wondering what others have used on their guns that combine function with looks….dual dovetails? Weaver style fixed?

I have other similar size scopes that have comparable eye relief as the Leupolds that I would like to use. I know I’ll use medium ring height. What works for you? Thanks in advance!

Talley lightweights offer some flexibility in mounting, std or extended. Lows are .400 high, mediums .500.

The 3-9x40 and 3.5-10x40 are much easier to mount up on a pre 64 model 70. For those, I use leupold DD's. Those look great and are still fairly reasonable in price. There are nicer, but they generally cost a lot more. Those would be the S&K and Conetrols. They are beautiful, but not worth the extra expense over the good ol DD's, for my needs and uses. In the past, there have been some guys state they use the Leupold 2.5-8x36 on their pre 64's without the use of an extended type ring. Those don't work for me: The first reason being you get no adjustment fore to aft in those rings. Guys claim they work just fine. No bueno for me though, as I like to have perfect sight picture as soon as I throw the rifle up. A 2.5-8x35 has a long eye relief, so I'd have to use an extended ring in the rear to push the scope forward enough to work. BTDT. If you can stand swaying away from Leupold and try a different scope, try the Burris FFII 3-9x40 in a set of Leupold DD's. I like the look and the functionality. That combo works perfectly for me:




Like I say, there have been a few guys say the 2.5-8x36 works in DD's, but I've measured the ring spacing and you don't get any adjustment. Those guys should post pics of their set-ups. Now lets look at another pre 64 application: On an H&H action, I prefer weaver style mounts:

The reason for that is because they do not stick out in to the ejection port. A big pet peeve of mine.


For the weaver mounts, I prefer Burris Zee-rings. They are clean looking and hold the scope very well. Along the same line as the weaver mounts, you can also opt for the Leupold QWR. Both mounts and rings are great. However the QWR ring is much more bulky than the burris Zee ring. Here is the QWR base though:

Again, they do not hang into the ejection port. Not even on this H&H receiver^^^^^

In a thread like this, I would hope others would post pics of what works for them. This not only helps the OP, but also lets others see what works well... As for Talley lightweights, you can use them, but they look like crap on a nice classic rifle such as the pre 64 model 70:


Here's the same rifle and scope, but with DD's:

^^^^^YMMV.. You'd also still have to possibly use an extended ring Talley. That would be on the front, where you turn it around and it lines up with the edge of the rear of the front bridge. This allows for a shorter ring spacing like the 2.5-8x36 requires. Keeping in mind the ring spacing on that scope is 5.1 inches..

Thanks for the replies gents and the pics are worth many words….

Be thankful I lost a lot of pics in photobucket, when they started charging. I had many more with Talley steel mounts and rings, Leupold 2.5-8x36's, Leupold 1.5-5x20's on my 375H&H etc...I wish I still had all the pics from those days. Hopefully you find what you are looking for. Maybe someone will chime in with just the right pics of their pre 64's with DD's and the 2.5-8. I'd even like to see those pics...

The pics are great, as well as the stated experience with certain scopes, specifically their tube length. I’ve heard from more than a few users that the Burris 3x9 is a solid scope. I’m certainly going with a longer scope with more tube length. Great info….

A few years ago I bought a M70 Fwt with a Leup 2.5-8 in Buehler 2pc mounts. As mentioned there is virtually no fore and aft ER adjustment available, fortunately however, it is a non issue for me as the sight picture is perfect when shouldered. For another person, and/or a different scope, this might not be the case.

My gunsmith put a set of S&k’s on my model 70 about 20 years ago, I hadn’t even heard of them. Nothing else looks as smooth in my opinion made in USA and you won’t find a lighter all steel mount. I won’t use anything else on a mode 70.

Model 70 Classic S&K Mounts

This one I have rear base facing backwards I think I like it better the other way and will change it when I get a chance. When it is the other way the flat of base lines up to ejection port only part that hangs over is radius/angle maybe a 1/4” total.

I have been happy with the S&K, 2.5 x 8 combination on my own pre 64s. No fit issues for me.

That appears to be a short action model 70, not pre 64. With that being said, I'd bet even with it being a short action and the way those bases are orientated, a scope like what the OP is inquiring about would not fit because of the spacing requirements. I believe the op is wanting to know about what works on a pre 64. The short action model 70 classic will easily fit a Leupold 2.5-8x36. You say you "won't use anything else on a model 70". How many model 70's do you have? Any in pre 64 flavor? Post your mounts with a scope, if you do... Had I not read the op, I could have just as easily said, go with a set of DD's on your model 70. They work just fine on my short action model 70:


The Leupold 2.5-8x36 is a wonderful scope and works exceptionally well on a short action model 70. However, for the pre 64, you run into somewhat of a conundrum for what works and looks good. tmitch posted pics of what can work, and they don't look bad either. The only problem there is Bueler bases and rings are sometimes hard to find. There have been others here say they run these scopes, but they don't post pics.

I have several stainless classics in various lengths as you can see in picture. This picture has the S&K’s on a 7 mag with back base the other way which is the way I prefer it. I don’t have pics of the S&k on the 270 pre 64 and it is apart while I am bedding it. Hadn’t switched the scope out yet on my other pre 64 243.

So now you have pics of S&k both ways for reference.

Model 70 S&K

mr. gbear: my 2 cents worth: Almost all my hunting is with original pre-64s in various calibers. All but one use the standard length action. I think you need to ask yourself what is most important to you, looks or function. I will give you an example: on my .300 WM that I've used mostly in Alaska, I wanted aluminum, not for weight, but for rust prevention on both the rings and mounts, so I've used the Talley lightweights. On my .220 Swift which is used mostly for coyote calling, I also used the Talley's but because of the weight issue. This Swift has a 26" barrel and I didn't want to add another 1/4 lb. or more of weight. Looks is a non-issue to me, so with a heavy recoiling caliber such as the .375, I think the old simple and ugly weavers might be as tough as you can get. Phil Shoemaker, the Alaskan bear guide, has used them on his .458 for many years with no problems. And as I recall, when I handled Morris Talifson's old .375, the famous brown bear guide from Kodiak, he had simple weavers on that rifle as well. I have a weaver set of bases with Burris Zrings on my .375 and that is because of good friend who builds lots of heavy caliber rifles and has spent lots of time in Alaska, told me the Zrings are tough. Then on my .270 which has been used mostly for coyote calling again, I've used the old Redfield one piece base. I don't care about the weight issue on this rifle and didn't want to buy another mount since this one had worked so well. My sense is that most of the guys on this sight are more about looks than I am and that's fine whereas my rational has been weight, moisture resistance, and reliability. And although you didn't ask, all the rifles I mentioned have, or still do, wear Leupold scopes: 2-7 (my favorite) 2 1/2-8, and a straight 3x on the .375, although I've not yet actually hunted with that rifle. But again, just my 2 cents worth. Good luck.

ruffedgrouse, the one piece mount works well. Even though most scoff at the old windage adjustable mount. They work fine, but I've found them to be weak. I've bent a few windage adjustable screws. That's not saying they don't work though. For a scope like the 2.5-8x36 that the op is mentioning, it works well for the most part. You just have to watch cranking on those windage screws too much. Guys have used those for years with no issues. They aren't optimum, but they do help with mounting a scope with a short tube mounting length. I had a set of Redfield under screws that I really liked. They are hard to find, but they are pretty cool rings. The screws are on the underside, which makes it look smoother IMHO... I wish I still had pictures of those I used on my fwt.

My long action winchesters have 3-9 s on them for this exact reason. You could try to find some Buehler mounts and see if it works. Or you could try a one piece leupold base. To me, that looks better then a two piece with one side hanging over.

This is a Pre '64 with a 2.5-8 in Dual Dovetails.

I faced off about .040" from the outboard sides of the rings and beveled the bores about .030 x 45 degrees.

Tight fit and no room to adjust for eye relief but they worked for me.

Great looking setup and very nice rifle there Rick!

Control on pre 64 with Leupold.

SK on pre 64 with Swarovski.

You don't see Buehler's every day. They are classy. Back in the day they were almost de-rigor for Weatherby's.

I have used a 2.5x8 leupold for years in Conetrols. There is no room to move fore and aft. I'm a stock crawler so it's works for me. It crapped out last year and I bought a muzzleloader 3x9 leupold and like B1917 says they are easier to mount.



My oldest Pre 64 FWT with Controls has a 3x9 Leupold. I've been using it since 1990.

Thanks for all the insight and pics fellas!