Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors 99 Scope Mounting Problem

I picked up this 250-3000 with holes already in it and a junk scope and a see-through ring bases. Pulled the junk off and put a set Weaver bases on it.
Put my scope alignment rods in the rings. As you can see in the pictures the rear is about 1/16" lower than the front. I think it's way to much to lap out. Second thought would to build the rear up with JB Weld. Third would be to get a set of Burris Post-Align Zee Rings. Or do both 2 and 3.

Thanks Craig

I'd vote for the Burris rings with the adjustable liners.

Rod

Options;
File base
Shim base
Line bottom ring with thin tape
Sometimes turning rings 180� buys you some help
Done all of the above at one time or another with success.
On my scoped 99s, I prefer the loupi 1 piece base.Kinda puts everything on the same horizontal plane.

I know a lot of guys are super critical about scope alignment, but in truth is it really necessary? I never in my life checked alignment like that on anything, and that includes some pretty dodgy rigs in my youth. Never did I screw up a scope, or experience any problems whatsoever related to misalignment. Just wondering. I also wonder how many guys check the accuracy of their alignment gauges with precision v-blocks on a surface plate.

I believe most scopes are somewhat forgiving on alignment. I mostly use same method as shown above and lap em so if and when I remove scope, there aren't any nasty ring marks. No, I generally don't move scopes around on my shooting irons, but if I go to sell it to step up, it still looks market-able.

I'm with Gary on this. From the picture, it looks like it is a lot less than 1/16th inch off. It really might work just fine as it sits.

I suspect that Burris Signature Zees will be the easiest and best fix. I would not mess with any of the other fixes until I determined that the Burris Signatures won't sort the alignment issue out.

I seem to remember another post from a quite a few years ago where the alignment fault was isolated to the Weaver bases. Replacing the bases with another set appropriate for Savage 99s fixed the problem.

Here you go again. Off on your own little tangent. WTH is with you for cryin out loud. Everytime you open your trap you have to go an make sense. Had ya goin didn't I???? Actually I agree totally with you. The ONLY time I pay much attention to scope mounting is with a ring that rotates into position as does Leupold or Redfields. I get those on there and rotate till the scope drops in. I look under the scope with a light and when I can't see light shine through I tighten the uppers down. As fot the others, Weavers and Weaver type set-ups, I just slap 'em on tighten 'em down and start shootin'. Never have had any issues that I'm aware of and there's many a dead critter that would agree.

I'am a retired machinist, if I had my shop I would make a base.
As much as the alignment is off there is a good chance of bending the scope tube, because the action is not going to.
A Leupold one piece base holes are off.
There's not enough metal in the front base to dress down.
The way the rings are in the picture is the best way.
I've never used the Burris, do you need to get the extra liner kit?
Years ago I had a Pre-64 257 Roberts made in 1953, that I got for a steal. I had to get a set of Redfield gunsmith base to machine. Because of the same problem. Just don't have the machinery to do it any more.
I used a #19 and #14 Weaver bases

The standard inserts in the Posaline rings will be fine. Same offset problem will occur with a one piece base but folks dont notice when they torque down the screws and bend the base to fit. Even happens on factory drilled 99's. For the the type of shooting and ranges involved with 99's most would never notice the problems incurred with out of alignment bases. Same problem happens with Rem 700's and other rifles too.

I'm a bit critically anal when it comes to ring alignment and lapping. With that said, your 2nd picture is NOT very far out of alignment. That could just be the angle of the pic, I don;t know. With that little of a variance, I would lap the rings and put the scope in. If you're not comfortable with that, Coyotewacker, then the Burris Signature Zees will take care of it. They're my favorite rings for all applications, aligned completely or not.

gnoahhh and LBK said it all. Deal with it and go on with life. If it pleases you use a little shim to line things up. Now if we're talking an 1/8 of an inch or more then that's a different story.

You may wsant to look here for a reference...

Craig,

those particular rifles can often be a problem--and especially so when drilled and tapped by tinhorns. i've seen some where the holes are drilled nearly in a zig zag. aligning mounts with lateral issues such as that, can be very difficult.

using rings with eccentric inserts will assist you greatly.

also, in some cases you can get along by using a system such as the weaver sure grip windage adjustable rings. they will help you achieve alignment in one dimensional plane.

conversely, regarding a height disparity issue such as what it appears you have there in your photo, you can do the following;

with your bars in place as you show in the photo, put a short straight edge along the top edge of the higher bar, so that it extends over and above the lower bar. now, slide a feeler guage in between the gap made by the lower bar and straight edge, and get an exact reading. if it is in excess of .015, your need a shim under the lower base, or you need to machine the higher base--machine it down the exact amount of your feeler guage reading.

for everyday production scope mounting--such as in a gunshop or store--in my opinion the "criteria i consider to be excessive" is anything over .015, which is about 1/64 inch. when you get a few thousandths more than this, you will likely bend your scope. obviously, the closer you can keep your disparity to "zero", the better off you'll be. i like those disparity issues to be as close to zero as possible, and with most well made modern guns, and good quality cnc machined bases and rings, one will usually stack up below the .012 to .015 threshold--but rifles such as the sporterized military actions (enfields especially), usually have these disparity issues, which can end up being over the acceptable threshold, and in these cases fitting bases is a must.

regarding our better quality modern cnc machined bases and rings--with qc issues these days--at times you can get one with excessive error in it that will put you over the top of the threshold--where you can bend the scope, so it pays to take them out of the package and look them over for obvious problems, and better yet if you can measure them.

one has to have their very own criteria for anything though--

for example; in general, good gunsmiths consider any scope mounting job that ends up within 15 moa of mechanical center "to be a decent, acceptable job". a friend of mine likes his mount jobs to fall within the 8 moa threshold, while i prefer anything under 4 moa, and the closer to zero the better.

look at it as a fun problem to solve--like hunting a wise, old whitetail buck...

Good info, but the OP is using Weaver bases. I guess the bar would show any mis-alignment horizontally, but not vertically?

I did this before Hi_Vel made his post - his straight edge idea is what I was trying to get at - here is my post -



I got curious to why you though it was the rear that was out of align � did a quick and not very scientific test � I was going to try and explain in word what I did but decided a quick picture would be much easier. This shows a piece of paper that I tried to line up with the rear alignment tool, it then looks to line up with front of the front one. Working off a computer image is defiantly not real accurate but this suggests that the front mount is just tilted in relation to the rear. I do not see how you can line up mounts that are on uneven surfaces with out using a solid bar. I do not think there is one truly flat surface on a 99 to even check from and also there is a certain amount of hand polishing.

Gentlemen..... Thanks for all the good advise!
Well I went and found my shim stock, and had to add .027" to the rear base. That has corrected the alignment. With the cross hairs centered in the scope.
I'am going to get a set of Burris rings to correct the horizontal it's about 35" from center with my collimator.

I'm certain you know, but the eccentric inserts are available in .05, .10, and .20 offsets. If you use a .10 & .20 or 2 .20s you will be close horizontally.

now that you've solved your height disparity issue via shimming, and you already have the weaver cross slot bases on the receiver, you can solve your misalignment in the other plane by using the weaver sure grip windage adjustable rings, as with these you will be able to align both front and rear rings into a near perfect alignment with the axis of the bore. if used correctly, these rings can remove alot of lateral error, for they offer left/right windage adjustment in both the front and rear rings.

the only thing i do different with these types of rings is that i order the brownells fillister head torx screws--to replace the slotted screws, they are nicer to work with, and you don't have to try to cosmetically align your screw slots...

I hadn't heard of those rings, so I found them at Brownell's. http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=22915/Product/WINDAGE-ADJUSTABLE-SURE-GRIP-RINGS They will work. I would use the Burris Signature rings with eccentric inserts for two reasons; they are non-marring/non-slip and I have had great results with them over the years. Either method will solve the problem, user's choice.