Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Short tube scope mount

I have a 1957 99F, factory drilled and tapped, wearing a K4 in weaver rings on weaver 2 pc mounts.

I wish to mount a Leupold 2x7 using the existing weaver rings and 2 pc mounts. A trial fit with the existing weaver combination and short tubed scope will fit but there is virtually no room to allow for any eye relief adjustment. I cannot move the scope rearward enough to accommodate my eyes.

I have read that some have used a weaver extension rings (reversed) which will allow some rearward movement. Picatinny rails are another option but I would prefer not to go that route.

I would appreciate your comments/suggestions re: reversed weaver extension rings use or any other mounting method.

Thank you.

Ps, the weaver K4 looks great on the 99 but my tired old eyes need some help.

You could buy 2 set of Weaver style extension rings and use both of the extended ones.

B-Square used to make inexpensive Weaver style rings, their Sport Utility line, and at least one height of extended rings. I have bought them from CDNN and you can probably find them on eBay.

That's not an unfamiliar problem with modern compact scopes on guns that were designed decades before they became commonplace. You also could use a Redfield/Leupold base with an extension ring facing rearward on the front. Or find a bit longer and perhaps bit older 2x7. Something with much better glass than the Weaver but long enough to accomodate. Say like an older Leupold or Redfied 2x7.

Wouldn't you know it, I sold two older Redfield Revolution 2x7's a while back. I have two newer (short tube) Leupold 2x7 collecting dust.

I am leaning towards at least a rear facing ring on the front.

I'll keep the Leopold/Redfield option in mind but I wasn't aware that there was an extended ring available for a Leopold/Redfield base?

Thanks

Edit: I found the redfield ext rings you mentioned.
Question, will I use the rings with the Jr model the std model?

Doesn't the front ring on the Redfield/Leopold one piece base set farther forward than the ring on a Weaver two piece base?

Yeah, come to think of it an extension ring would put the front ring pretty much where the Weaver base sits. Sorry I didn'tthinkofthat. Given that. If it was me I'd sell or tade off one of the newer Leupolds for an older but longer 2x7. I've had examples of older Redfield and Leupolds that seemed to work fine.

However, isn't there a one piece Picatinny/Weaver base floating around for the 99? Seems to me that would fix the problem.

Check this out on eBay:

Weaver Picatinny Mount for Factory Drilled & Tapped Savage 99 Models

Here's the seller:

NorthWoodsOutpost of MN (63669)

PS - I have no stake in this auction

I am not sure with I am following correctly. Is the above statement true when the extension ring is facing rearward? Thus no help with moving the scope rearward?

I was hoping to avoid a rail but thanks for the link.

Yes, the 1 piece Redfield style mount with an extension front would be where the Weaver base sets.

If you have Weaver bases go to ebay and buy some Weaver extension rings. There are several on there.

That was a mistake on my part. Rick 99 caught it. My apologies for that one.

Digging in my box of scopes/rings I found another scope, a Redfield Revolution 3x9. It's larger than what I wanted to use and it has a crappy Accu range reticle. It is further back and better for my eyes.

In the picture, that's the 3x9 on the rifle.
Above next is a K4, and on top a 2x7 the clearest of them all.

No apology needed. I was just confused. Easy to do. Thanks for your help. Everyone's help actually, its been an education!

I hear you on the one piece rail. For beauty they really don’t take the prize. However they can’t be beat for functionality. I do like Weaver rings on the 99. So if you go with the rail I think you’re getting 50/50 looks and functionality.

this works, Leupold or Redfield mount with offset front Leupold front mount. I got this one from Cabelas. the scope is a new Leupold 2x7

another rifle with the regular ring for comparison. the scope is a new Leupold 3x9

Looks like the Rentzschke is go'in hunt'in.

Don't scratch it, I want it when you're done with it.

I thought about it last season, but I love hunting with my EG 308. Maybe next season. It or the 99DE

Again, I got no dog in this hunt:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1040422599

I needed one of these so I made one, then learned (the same day) they could be bought for about $40, so I bought one. Since then, I have seen them priced from $38 to almost $100 for the exact same item. Go figure.

That on a classic 99 would look like a wart on a hairy mangy dog's ass.

Would look great though if the rifle was ceracoated and planted into a camo-painted stock, with a Harris bipod. And a flashlight taped to the barrel.

Geez, I didn't say it was a looker. But in a world of limited options it is a solution.

You got a point there...

I had a rifle that two piece mounts would not sit flat and in alignment. One piece Farrell steel base solved it.

Oh my, I was going to say that was a rather RASH statement, until I looked at the link.

yep


other side just so you can fully enjoy it

I find them very useful for developmental work; makes it easier to get the eye relief where I need it so I can test the weapon rather than its operator. When I am finished testing, I remove it and save it for the next wayward 99.

That seems to be a problem with Weaver bases these days. I’m not familiar with the Farrell mount. Got a link?

It's just a one piece pick-a-ninny rail.

Thanks

Thank you for the comparison pictures. It may be the camera angle making it difficult to judge, but it appears that by using your base system and an offset front Leupold front mount only fractional rearward movement is gained. I need to get my short tube Leopold 2x7 at least another inch further rearward as I tried to show below, Like the 3x7.

It allows about 1" of rear ward movement.