Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles What Size Talley Lightweights on 84 Montana?

I need to know what size Talley lighweight rings suit a Leupold VXIII 2.5-8x please? Is low too low for bolt clearance?
Cheers, Chris

Lows are the ones you want. Heaps of bolt clearance!

Thanks 340Wby. Are these lower than the std Leupold mounts, that I think come with the rifle?
Cheers, Chris

My rifle didn't come with any mounts, but I use Talley lows with the same scope and it works fine for me.

talley LW lows on 3 kimbers, no issues with Zeiss objectives.

The Talley's might be a bit higher, but we're talking a mm or so.
Talley is meant to be bringing out the 'extra low' soon, come to think of it. It should be out now. But, I would not bother with the XL & the 84m. My 308Win was perrrrfect with a 2-7x33, with excellent cheek support!
2.5x8x36 & 3-9x40 will gel with the 'lows'.

Did I hear a rumor about Talley making a new super low? If so, then that's the way I'd go.

Dober

Sure would sit low & trim! In between QR 'low - super low' one would think. Those super low QR's gel nicely with some M70's.

I wonder if the bolt or power ring would cause problems using the extra low Talleys?

Lows are plenty low for me...

Thanks everyone, I will order the lows today. Then have the rifle cerrakoted, just have to pick a colour!

Be sure to post pics after it's done!

On most rifles the Talley lows are not really all that low. But because of the stock design of the Kimber I would be afraid the extra lows might be too much.

The reason Talley Low LWT's seem like actual lows on the 84M is because the receiver diameter is so much smaller than any other rifle around... because of that the rings actually do sit quite a bit lower to the bore/comb than on other rifles including the 8400.

The Talley Low LWT's are about model perfect on the 84M... not so much on the 8400 IMO.

The Ultra-Low lightweight Talley's are out for some applications. I have a set for M-70's for example. When I talked to Gary before Christmas he said that they were going to have the Kimbers, they just had run some of the others first. They may have them by now for the 84M........................DJ

The X-Lows won't allow the power selector ring of typical scopes to clear the base when the scope is pushed forward (max). For me, a big deal as a stock crawler. For a fixed X scope, however, they'd be fantastic, if the bolt handle will clear.

I just installed a set of the new LW Xtra low on a NULA with 4.5X14X40 Leupie with no clearence problems with the bolt or objective. The only possible issue is the power selector which may hit the rear base and not allow you to get the scope really far forward. I crawl my stocks a bit and there was just enough to get the scope forward enough so it was ok.

LC

Was thinking I had Talley LW lows on both my Montana's, but when I went to snap a picture tonight to give Rockdoc an idea of what the 2.5-8x36mm looks like mounted, I realized the .300 WSM has Kimber bases and Leupold DD lows.

.300 WSM, Kimber bases, Leupold DD lows, Leupold VXIII 2.5-8x36mm w/M1 turret



.223 with Talley LW lows, Leupold 3-9x40 Mark AR

Nice photos GreatWaputi, I like the elevation turrets. The lows look about right for the 2.8-8x Leupold. Allows a bit of ham-fisted bolt handling clearance! I'm impressed with my 260 Montanna, just need to get out and shoot it! Have reloaded for it from the start, factory ammo, if you can get it, is over AUD$60 per 20!. Cheers, Chris

Oh Great Waputi, those rings on your wizzum are not DD (dual dovetail), they are standard. DDs don't have the windage adjustment screws on the rear base. Thought you would wanna know.

I think Talley LW lows are too low on a Kimber 84M. I have mediums on mine and would not want them any lower due to the very high comb of the stock. It's not a scope clearance issue, but a fat face issue. YMMV.

-