Just edited my post to looking for a quality 2 piece mount for above rifle. Dont want piccatinny rail or weaver slotted types. Was told I'm better getting a mount that puts the front ring slightly back for shorter scopes. Is this true? Who makes such a mount. TYIA
It should be the same mount as the FN Mauser scope mount. Choose what you wish but I can't figure out a reason for a one piece mount.
It should be the same mount as the FN Mauser scope mount. Choose what you wish but I can't figure out a reason for a one piece mount.
+1
It should be the same mount as the FN Mauser scope mount. Choose what you wish but I can't figure out a reason for a one piece mount.
Absolutely destroys the use of a scope as a carry handle.
It should be the same mount as the FN Mauser scope mount. Choose what you wish but I can't figure out a reason for a one piece mount.
Straight alignment for stress free scope mount. I love one piece scope bases
I was hoping someone could help me. I just purchased the said rifle above and was wondering what 1 piece scope mount I could use if there is one. I haven't been able to find anything. Left messages with Leupold with no call back. TYIA
EGW make a one piece picatiny rail
One piece scope mounts can induce stress into the action if all the holes don’t line up or the surfaces mate perfectly together.
Ok guys, what 2 piece mount would you recommend. I'd like to stay away from the piccatinny and weaver slotted mount. TYIA
I've never used anything but a one piece mount, never had any issues introducing stress into an action.
The "less potential for stress" argument for the one-piece mount makes perfect sense to me from an engineering perspective. That said, I have ten or twelve Mark X and FN Mausers and none of them have one piece bases. I am a big fan of the Leupold QR bases and rings and use them almost exclusively with every rifle I own for which they are made (which for me is M70's, Rem 7, Rem 722, and of course, FN Mauser). Exceptions with my large ring Mausers - two have Redfield two-piece bases, one has a Jeager side mount.
For the M70s, and Remingtons, Leupold makes (or made) one-piece QR bases and I use them on those. For the Mauser, they only make two-piece.
I love the QR bases because I can carry a light 6-8 ounce back-up scope in my hunting pack, already sighted in, in case a take a tumble and bust up my primary scope while out in the field. That's pretty cheap hunt insurance. I lean towards Leupold 4x or 2.5x Compact scopes for my backups (and sometimes for my PRIMARY as well). When I got my first set of QR bases/rings, I mounted them on my 35 Whelen AI and shot a group from the bench where I removed and replaced the scope between each shot. Five shots went into 1.25", and I was convinced they work.
Cheers,
Rex
One piece scope mounts can induce stress into the action if all the holes don’t line up or the surfaces mate perfectly together.
And in the same situation, a two-piece mount puts the stress on the scope.
One piece scope mounts can induce stress into the action if all the holes don’t line up or the surfaces mate perfectly together.
A piece of 6061 aluminum is going to induce stress into a steel receiver?
One piece scope mounts can induce stress into the action if all the holes don’t line up or the surfaces mate perfectly together.
And in the same situation, a two-piece mount puts the stress on the scope.
Not when the rings are lapped, which is super easy to do.
I suppose in theory, that a one piece steel base mount could change stiffness of an action affecting accuracy one way or another. Possibly adding or removing a front sight could affect barrel harmonics. I have a new to me rifle coming next week with a one piece base and open Williams sights installed that I’m going to shoot as-is to check accuracy before I remove said mounts and sights for comparison. If something works well, don’t mess with it. I’m not a fan of one piece bases with blind magazine rifles. Happy Trails
One piece scope mounts can induce stress into the action if all the holes don’t line up or the surfaces mate perfectly together.
And in the same situation, a two-piece mount puts the stress on the scope.
Not when the rings are lapped, which is super easy to do.
Can't be much misalignment if lapping will eliminate the stress
Most of the truly accurate long range shooters use 1 piece picatiny.rails, they don't affect accuracy
Lot of those one piece rails are bedded to the action also.
I put screw detachable Talley rings with the extended front base on my Zastava, which is the same thing, just enough room for a 2-7 Leupold, weather you need the extended base depends on scope tube length an eye relief, with mine all the way back it works, just.
Not going with a cross slot base is going to limit your choices. Warne makes steel two piece bases with an extension front base that can be reversed but they are cross slot.
Lot of those one piece rails are bedded to the action also.
Insures a proper mating of the surfaces. It's a good idea
Burris rings with the “Pos-A-Lign” insert also reduce the stress on the scope. They’re a little bulky, but otherwise a good product
Warne bases and Burris Signature Weaver style rings with the inserts are the hot lick when you can’t get dual dovetail bases and rings for your particular rifle. Happy Trails
Choose what you wish but I can't figure out a reason for a one piece mount.
Maybe it's what HE wants, Not what others think he should have.
I have a rifle made on a Zastava, which is, as was said, the same thing as a MarkX. I bought the action off an auction I won on Gun Broker about 9 years back. It came to me with a Leupold one piece base. So Leupold makes one or at least made one at some point. However, it's the old Redfield style with a Dove Tail front ring and windage screws on the rear ring. A lot of people don't like those, but I've had great luck with them for over 40 years and I can tell you one thing good about them and that's they won't put any stress on the scope or the action. And you can loctite those windage screws and they never will move. And I also have confidence that Zastava or FN drilled those base mount holes true. Where you have problems with scope mount holes not well aligned is when someone has a Garage Gun Smith drill and tap your rifle. If you don't have a good solid jig you can easily drill holes out of alignment.
I've seen more than one rifle from a major factory with base holes out of alignment
Talley, got them on most of my rifles, can order with different off sets, to fit short scopes. I also like the Leuplod dual dovetail mounts.They are a tad bit lighter, speaking of witch I just to put a a set of the Talley LW on my Fieldscraft, and they seem fine. I didn't get then for weight reduction and I don't really care for aluminum but they are about I could find.
I've seen more than one rifle from a major factory with base holes out of alignment
Me too, bothers me for some reason more than it should! Makes me wonder about other alignments in the action. As a looney they find a new home.
Holy schnit!! 2 pages and the OP's question not answered.
I've been very happy with Weaver #48910 2 pc turn in bases for the 98 Mauser
I have Talley bases and rings in my Mausers. They look good in my opinion.
Talley, I really like them, got them on most of my rifles. I even have them on my Marlin X7 223. Scope and mount worth more than the rifle but it is a 1/2" ugly rifle. I like it, always in the truck or on SXS.
I have 2 Mark X rifles with Talleys on each of them.
I have a Zastava Mauser (Mark X, Whitworth, Chas. Daly) and a Mini Mauser. Both have Warne rings and bases. Actually all my rifles except rimfires and people-eaters have Warne rings and bases.
To the OP, if you are still set on a one piece redfield/leupold style mount please PM me. I have one taken off an Interarms Whitworth somewhere, which I could send you for free, just paying it forward.
For a one piece I like the plain old Leupold Steel. For two pieces I go the Warne Maxima Permanent.
The Leupy looks more traditional and old school if that’s what you prefer. Like stevelyn above I prefer the Warnes for most applications due to their strength / cost ratio.