Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Scope mounting issue Winchester M70

I tried to mount an FX-3 6x42 on a Lefty New Haven Model 70 classic in 30-06 last night.
I used Leupold dual dovetail bases and burris singnature rings.
The scope was way, way to far forward when mounted as far back as could be. I had a Leupold 3.5-10x40 on the shelf that I tried to for comparison sake and it was to far forward as well, although not as bad as the 6x42.

I have since ordered the the reversable front extended bases from Leupold even though I think they will look funky hanging over the ejection port. I am not even sure these will give me enough distance to work.

Anybody ever run across this with a model 70? Any recomendations?

Thanks,

Josh

I had a NH M70 30-06 with LEU straight-up dual dovetails and a LEU 2.5-8 scope. I had to mill the leading face off the front ring and trailing face off the rear ring to just fit the shorter scope tube. But I don't recall having any issue with eye-relief, even at full-power. I did have the LOP set at 13.5-inches IIRC, which may have been a tad shorter than standard Winchester M70 specs. I no longer have that rifle to confirm, but I could see where a longer LOP could have caused me some eye-relief issues.

Best

Put your head down on the stock

Not just trying to be smart, but I've never heard of anyone having trouble with too little eye relief on a 6x42 Leupie. The usual problem is that it has too much and you can't get the scope far enough forward in the mounts.

This indicates that you either have poor stock technique or a much too long length of pull.

Thanks Gary, LOP is 13.5" on the 06 and 13.75" on the 300WM. Out of the couple dozen scopes I've mounted on rifles ranging from MRC to Tikka, Savage, Ruger, Marlin etc...I never have run across this issue.
Now I have it on two M70's. we'll see how the extended front bases do.
Maybe its the mounts, maybe its the ergos on the winnies or both. If no one else is having this issue guess i'll just use trial and error.

Dakota. Whatever dude but thanks for posting.

If I may suggest, physically measure the actual eye relief on your scope to rule out any issues within the optics. Look up the specs, it should be something around 4 to 4 1/2 inches IIRC, and make sure it's not broke. I thought I read something recently where someone had a scope come out the box with something goofed up like 2 inches eye relief. Not sure if it was one of those Chinese imposter scopes or not, but I'd double check.

If you confirm that your scope measured eye relief is in spec, take a physical measurement of your eye relief with the mounted scope when you properly shoulder the rifle with a good spot or cheek weld. You'll know right then and there how far you'd need to move the scope to make up for any difference.

Good Luck!

Gary,

I have been shooting mostly Rugers for the last few years and pulled one out for comparison. When standing side by side on a flat surface, two rifles with the same LOP, the Winchester ejection port and consequently the base mounting holes are a good 1/2" to 3/4" farther away from the end of the recoil pad than the Ruger. This seems to be the culprit. The front ring also mounts a little bit more forward than the Ruger.
If the extended bases get me back at least 3/4" to 1 inch im thinking problem solved.

It seems the ergonomics of the Winchester threw me off a bit. I suppose I could always cut down the LOP a bit too if I wanted, which I don't.

Thanks again for the ideas.

Josh

Post some picks Dude so we can see what's going on.

JM,

I've got it figured out now. But here are some pictures to illistrate what going on:



They both measure at 13.5" LOP. Of course the second Winchester not pictured with an LOP of 13.75" is that much worse.

The extended bases will be here next week. I should be able to get the scope mounted far enough back then.


Josh

I had the same situation with a 2.5-8x Leupold on a 30-06 Model 70. It fit with decent eye relief, for me, on a LA Ruger. The photo shows why.

3.5-10 VXIII, 6x FXII, 4x or 6x M8 Leupolds and some older scopes with longer tubes have worked for me on the LA Model 70 without extended bases or rings.

Wouldn't a 1 piece tactical base with cross slot design solve this?

Ie. Leupold Mark 4 (1) Piece base.

I have a 3.5-10 here that I also tried. It is longer so it worked a tad better however its going on the 300 WM which has a tad longer LOP. Maybe I just plant my cheek back farther than most, not really sure.

Without a doubt JM, that would work nicely in fact that may be plan B. The new bases showed up in the mail today...gotta love Midway!....i'll play around with them tommorow and see if they work.

Josh

Well Gents...I mounted the 6x42 on the 06 using the extended front base after dinner. I can live with the eye relief although with a heavy jacket on I will probably have to creep up the stock a bit. The overhang of the front base into the ejection port doesn't bother me to much, seems like it may work out after all.

I expect the same will be true for the 3.5-10x40 on the 300WM since the scope is longer which will compensate for the longer LOP. Thanks again for the ideas and input. I hope the Signatures will hold the scope put on the 300, we'll see.

Regards,

Josh