This may have been covered before, but it sure would be nice to have some sort of a reference. I am making this thread as a quick reference for myself and others that have had issues figuring out what mount to use on your model 70 rifle. This is not an extensive list. Just one with part numbers of parts I've used over the years and I know they all work well.

Standard and featherweight pre 64 model 70's requiring bases with the .860" (".865" according to Rule) hole spacings:
1. Leupold dual dovetail matte finish: Part # 50046
2. Leupold dual dovetail gloss finish: Part # 50045
3. Leupold PRW mount/base matte finish: Part # 49838
4. Leupold dual dovetail long rear mount standard front: Part # 40506
5. Leupold dual dovetail silver finish: Part # 57286
6. Talley lightweights (medium): Part # 940702
7. Weaver front base: #46
8. Weaver rear base: #47
9. Weaver front and rear set (matte): Part # 48468
10. Warne Maxima front and rear matte: Part# M902/924M
11. Talley steel bases: Part # 252702
12. Conetrol bases: Part # 70 series (70-1, 70H2, 70G2, 70L2, 70C2, 70F2)
Note: These bases work on post 64 model 70's as well, as long as they have the typical .860" hole spacings (front and rear the same spacing). This does not include the Express model or WSSM.

Pre 64 model 70 H&H models with factory drilled and tapped receiver requiring .435" spacing on rear mount. These may also fit the target model or national match model with .435" (.425" according to Rule) rear hole spacing and clip slot:
1. Leupold QRW: Part # 49836
2. Talley lightweight lows: Part # 930704
3. Warne Maxima matte finish: Part # M902/818M
4. Leupold "detachable accuracy mounts" (matte): Part # 50062
5. Talley steel bases matte finish: Part # 252704
Keep in mind, these do not fit post 64 rifles. They require a rear mount that has a different hole spacing (.330").

These are just some of the part #'s I have used. Except for the Conetrols, I am new to that mounting system. They look great and seem to be solid. The same can be said for S&K. If you can find either of these sets for under $200.00, you are doing well. With this being said, my suggestion is to generally use the DD's on the standard and fwt rifles and weaver style on the H&H magnums. Hopefully this is useful to some here.

This info just helped me with a '51 .300 H&H, thank you. Now, to find a scope!

A 300H&H would be damn nice. I have a couple H&H action rifles as well. I don't know what mounts you got. Assuming weaver style, as those work great on these rifles. I started a thread last year on a rifle I put some Warne mounts on. I did that because I was a little irritated that the mount extended out over the front of the receiver:

I ended up cutting that base and then rebluing it. Here's the thread:

Mounts for pre 64 model 70 H&H rifles

I've got Weaver bases and Burris Zee mediums, but have lows on order. I originally had all Leupold mounts and rings on my other Post 64's, but am slowly replacing all with Weaver style because of eye relief along with looks. Love the Warne customization.

Thanks Fuelman, it was pretty easy to do and looks much better now. I really like Weaver style mounts on the H&H actions, along with Burris Zee rings or Leupold PRW's. On the standard pre 64's, I run DD's every chance I can get. Good luck with your scope search.

Fuelman, I don't think I posted a picture of the PRW's in that link I posted of the other thread I started, but that is what I used on my 375H&H that I put in a Mcmillan swirly stock:

They require no mods and work great. They are steel and are very solid, as are the PRW/QRW rings. I have that set up on my H&H receiver 338wm semi custom now with a Zeiss conquest on top. Work great! Considering you like Leupold mounts and rings, you could always go that route too..

Stupid fn Warne. Their standard model 70 mounts are long as well. #10 in the OP. Had to cut the front one down today for my Classic stainless:




After filing and re-bluing you can't tell, but these companies are trying to cater to the tacticool crowd and I wish they would pull their heads out...

Had to do another set of those steel Warne mounts the other day.






Bumping this thread, since I know some guys are looking for rings and bases.

Any chance we can get this made into a sticky?? Super helpful info here!

Front base doesn't bother me.

Looks like crap to me.

That’s a 90 second fix.

Conetrol bases & Gentry 30mm rings. I think I like this set up.

S&K

Clean and classy.

Tough crowd here.Is this better? AK..it took 180 seconds

Much!
👍👍

@bsa1917hunter or anyone else that might know the answer to this question. I was trying to install Leupold scope bases on a custom pre-64 Model 70 I bought a few months back. The new gun is a 416 Remington, with a serial number 446xx. I had a 1-6 VX6HD on my pre64 in 375 H&H, with Weaver Rings. My plan was to move the 1-6 VX6HD and rings to the 416, and I had bought a new VX6HD 2-12 I was going to put on the 375, with new weaver rings.

So my conundrum. I bought the same set of bases I typically buy for my model 70's (Leupold 49838). They don't fit the 416 though. When I look at the package for the scope bases, it says "Pre 64 Win Model 70 Serial # Above 66,360". I'll be honest, I never noticed that disclaimer on the mounts in the past, so I must have not used them on any of my earlier model 70's.

My hope is to not buy new rings for the 1-6 VXHD I want to mount, so I'm hoping for a weaver style base. This is probably not accurate to hundredth of an inch, but my rough measurement shows the front base has a hole spacing of 7/8", which I believe to be pretty standard. But the rear base hole spacing is only 3/8".

Any recommendations on a weaver style mount that would fit my gun?

Those levers are on the wrong side of the gun

Looks damn good.

No Allen heads or Torx anywhere on my rifles, Allen strip too easily and where are you gonna find a Torx driver in an emergency ? Slotted head screws all the way !

What you have is a rifle that was not factory drilled and tapped. We don't even know if it's a true H&H receiver at this point. A pic or 2 would be helpful. A really good accurate measurement would also help tremendously. This is the problem you sometimes run into when you buy a rifle like this. They (smiths) used non standardized haphazard hole spacings back in the day, since the rear bridge was not drilled at the factory. The front bridge is going to be factory drilled and tapped with a .860" hole spacing. I'd suggest you measure the rear hole spacings with an accurate caliper. Your best bet is that it was drilled sometime past the middle of the 20th century and done so to match what Winchester was doing on the H&H receivers at that time. That would have been .425" hole spacing, as I said in the OP.

For part numbers, you may also want to reference that OP and look where it says mounts for H&H rifles. A smith should also be able to make you a custom mount, or modify one to work.

Furthermore, if you bought the Leupold 49838, that is for a standard model 70. Not an H&H receiver, which is what a competent smith would have used to build your rifle. The 416 came out in the late 1980's, but who knows when or who drilled and tapped the rear bridge.

Thanks for the input. I will have to measure it when I get back home. This was the gun I had inquired on here about a few months back. This was a gun that I'm 99% sure was originally purchased by US Military back in WWII. There are engravings on the receiver that indicate as much, and there are records with firearms with serial numbers on both sides of mine (very close) being purchased by the government. So with all that being said, I assumed it was originally born as a 30-06, but I guess I don't know that for sure.

I may just make a call to my smith to get the situation resolved. I was going to have him put in a recoil reducer anyway in the stock. So maybe I'll just have him make the mount as well.

As far as the original customization, I was told that the gun was customized by New England Custom Gun Service. I personally don't know anything about them, so not sure if they are known for quality or not. I don't claim to be as knowledgeable as most of you on here, but I do tend to gravitate towards the pre64 custom Model 70's (I have a few Biesens, etc.), and this one seems have been done very well.

Ah, you are probably right. So it probably has the stripper clip slots? The reason the rear hole spacings are short, like the H&H models. I vaguely remember the rifle, had etching on the receiver like a kindergartner did it. Here's a slightly better representation:

Boy those guys back then didn't give a schidt what it looked like, I guess??

I may be wrong?

Sounds like yours has had some extensive amount of work done to it, to make it a 416 Remington magnum. I'll bet your smith can get it scoped up for you pretty easily. Good luck with it.

New England Custom Gun Service was started by Dietrich Appel, Dietrich used to be involved with the Paul Jaeger shop. Their products are of high quality, I've purchased many items from them over the years.

A repost of my comment in the original thread…..

No source document, but, a long time Winchester Custom Shop employee shared that the crude electro pencil “US PROPERTY” marking was put there by the Winchester factory on guns sold under direct contract to the US Government. Not just on M70’s but M52’s etc. It seems likely that Winchester just pulled finished guns from inventory when an order was placed and scribed “US PROPERTY” on them before shipping (the electro pencil mark was applied after the receiver was blued).

Thanks guys. Here are a few pics of the 416. My smith said no problem making the mount. I told seller I didn't want the scope when I bought it, but no clue why he didn't leave the mounts on. Can't believe they'd be of use to anyone else with the hole spacing being what it was.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/KM8AXSjSBgpBdZAh6
https://photos.app.goo.gl/CNj4mXpFb5eCQJJb6
https://photos.app.goo.gl/k4irVd9pWrV7eJos5

The pictures kind of suck. I see the front mount, which is not the problem What was he able to scrounge up for the rear mount?

The pictures with the mount/scope are the pics from the seller. He kept that mount and scope when he sold/shipped it. The gun sitting on the vice is how it looks now in my basement.

Recoil reducer arriving this week, so I'll send a pic after I get new mounts and the scope put on.

Oh, ok. Yeah, those scope mounts looked semi custom. Not really eye appealing. Hopefully your smith can bang out a nice set. Who knows, maybe the pre 64 H&H mounts would work. I'd be giving those a try first. Wouldn't be hard to make something work though. Keep us posted. Thanks..

Those look like EAW quick detachable mounts to me. Quite pricey but said to return to zero perfectly. A good match for that rifle IMO.

Yes, they look similar to EAW's. However, not a great match IMHO. We all have our likes and dislikes. A simple pair of steel warnes, Leupold QRW/PRW weaver style mounts is all that is needed. Something less complex looking and not nearly as tacky looking as well.

No expert on detachable mounts, but I'd take function over perceived looks on a DGR and the EAWs have a good reputation.

I'd have to agree with BSA on the mounts. I think "less is more" on an old hunting rifle. I personally have never liked the quick detach rings. I've spent a boat load of $ trying them in the past, they never were perfect after testing them, taking the glass off and putting it back on. Took 5 shots to get it back where I started. I'd be leaking confidence if I was in Africa and had pulled the scope off for some reason, and put it back on, "hoping" that it was correct without getting a few shots to test it.

If I wanted to shoot without sights, I'd bring a double with me. If I'm bringing my bolt with me, I'll have an appropriate magnification mounted on the gun, and the scope will stay on the gun. Like my original post said, a 1-6 VXHD will be mounted on this one--which is just about perfect in my opinion for this gun.

I really don't like the 1-piece mounts on my Model 70s, because I don't like that ejector being covered at all. I think all but 1 of my guns has 2-piece mounts. But my smith said he might do a picatinny rail, and modify it (cut it) so it doesn't cover the ejector at all. We'll see. Undecided still on that.

Understood, if not planning to remove the scope to use the irons or for air travel, there are plenty of other mounting systems to chose from.