Hello fellow Model 70 enthusiasts!

New member here, and I want to start off by saying how helpful and impressive this particular board is, to me, because you guys don't just collect 70's, you love em enough to use them! So do I!

I'm having a local gunmaker build me a custom out of my good old '47 supergrade 270. It's my favorite rifle, and no collector's money can overshadow that, so I look forward to a lifetime of use in its new form.

Having shot the rifle in its original low comb stock and having been somewhat beaten, I'm becoming a bit manic about my choice of scope and mount. The replacement stock is a Mcmillan pre 64 Monte Carlo (aka. Synthetic factory duplicate of late 50's/ featherweight stocks).

I realize it has been frequently asked what scope is best for these rifles. I have my favorites just like everyone else, but I feel that whatever gets my face on the stock best is the scope I'll go with. I'd like to know what you've found to mount up lowest, and if you can, show me. I look forward to this discussion!

Many thanks!

I've never understood the reasoning behind mounting the lowest scope/ring combination possible and yet I see it preached non stop by people who should know better.
Answer me this.
Is your neck basically non existent, as in, does your head sit upon your shoulders with no extension?
If so,then by all means use low rings and build a scope /ring combination that puts that rifle dead on when you throw it to your shoulder.
If you are built like the other 75% of the population then consider medium or high rings to put the optics in line with where you will shoulder that rifle.
Rant over.
Now don't throw out that 1947 Super Grade stock....they don't make them anymore.

aggiecubpilot: I have mostly used Leupold scopes on my pre 64's,both fixed and variable and like Leupold DD's with low rings for mounting them.

I am not crazy about having any part of the mounts hanging over the loading port but once in awhile I have had to go with an STD mount,rear windage screw, to get things to fit.

The nice thing about some Leupold fixed power scopes is that the fixed 6x36, the old 4x28 and the 3X were all long enough to easily span the rings on a DD. Some variable will as well, but a 2.5-8X is too short.So is the current 4X...but if it fits at all there will be little room to tweak for eye relief.

Most any of these scopes, however, will mount in low rings.Weaver set ups mount a smidge lower.

I agree with matching ring height to your face and stock, etc, which is kind of a foregone conclusion but "low" fits me best with most M70 factory and aftermarket stocks. I tend not to use very many really large scopes for most of my hunting.

Hi, Aggiecubpilot, I have many hours in cubs and supercubs, my first cropduster was a 'C' model hutch wing ,260 horse Pawnee.I loved that plane and made many dollars with it.Only problem was it was a flying BBQ pit! You had the motor then a 37gal rubber bladder full of 100 LL avgas, then the 150 gal hopper. If you had a bad day it was a given it was going up in smoke in about 45 seconds! The Good Lord was kind to me!.
As to scopes I have settled on VX3 4.5x14 x40 AO, with the varmint reticule. It just does it all for me on my 70's.I am also a big lover of fixed 8,10 and 12 X scopes, they are bulletproof and if you have the rare problem Leupold makes it right. I am running a 30 MM side focus, 6X20x 40 MM on 3 & 7stw's one has the varmint reticule. very best WinPoor

These are my lowest and fit me well. Matt Williams rings and Michael Scherz bases. BTW, POPGUN is spot on.

Popgun- I understand where you are coming from in that low setups don't fit everybody equally well, however I'll take a little different view point in that an individual's neck seems like it would dictate stock choice first before affecting scope height. I see facial structure as being a dig determiner of scope height. I have a smallish face and high cheek bones, and my M40 stocked Rem with medium rings and Mk4 40mm objective leaves me "hovering" over the stock somewhat. I'm not a stock fitter but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Winpoor- I've heard less than stellar things about the Punee. But I guess purpose built Ag airplanes had to start somewhere. All Ive ever seen are being used as glider tows these days.

Great input, please keep it coming

Welcome to the fire. I'll post some pics tonight after work. Generally I agree with popgun, but probably won't on this issue.

I'd like to add one more thought and try to shed a little more light on why I desire a low setup. I will grant Popgun DOES have one really good point, and that is if somebody had to really goose neck their way down to the scope, it would be just as unpleasant as I pecieve the scope being too high.

I've seen sillouette shooters with setups such that the gun is brought into alignment with the shooter's build naturally standing and head erect, rather than the shooter conforming to the rifle.

I have no problem getting my head (cheek) on the stock's comb, comfortably. I would like the scope to meet my eye there, and I feel that a low comb to scope arrangement fits my eye to cheek relationship.

But like I said, I'm not an expert. I'd love to know more from those who think I'm mistaken.

I have two pre 64 fwt- both with straight 4X- one with Talley and the other plain old Weaver lows. The Weaver set up, while not as classy, keeps the scope a tad lower but both fit me very well with the slightly higher factory stock. I had both Kimber 84 Montana and 84L Classic and really liked them but didn't keep them as I had a hard time getting down on both stocks. Everyone seems to brag on Talley lows and even exta lows but I had to use mediums and even then, I could have used more height. I must be way out of that 25% of the population but have to go with what fits!

As promised, here are some pictues of my set-ups. I prefer. Only because they fit me well. I keep my face glued to the stock. Always have and after shooting competition trap for years, theres a reason for it. You lift your face off the stock and you miss. Not nearly as prevalent with a rifle/scope, but will affect parallax to a certain degree if you don't mount the rifle the same way every time. Keeping you face down on the stock comfortably is the best way. If you find yourself lifting your head off the stock, something is wrong.

Leupold DD lows 338 Akaskan:


Leupold DD mediums. 270 fwt with Zeiss 3-9x42:


Leupold DD lows. Burris FFII 3-9x40:


Talley lightweight lows. H&H magnum receiver 338 win mag custom. Swarovski 3-9x36:



Leupold PRW mediums. 375 H&H magnum. Zeiss conquest 3.5-10x44:

BSA- thanks for the photos. All look like prime pieces!

I have the same issue with high cheek bones , and like BSA , after shooting sporting clays and 5 stand (like trap but difficult ) I am just conditioned to keep my cheek resting on the stock. I used talley 1 piece lows with a VX 111 2.5 x 8 on my pre 64 featherweight.

BCJr and BSA you both speak my language- I'm a sporting clays puke myself

Finally, someone who know what the fu ck I'm talking about . Keep your face on the stock!!! Follow thru!!! Trigger control!! Sustained lead or swing thru....

Excellent. I think we will get a long quite nicely here

Mr. Aggiecubpilot, I ran across this picture in another thread. These rifles are set up quite nicely. The one on the left is owned by our very own BobinNH and the one on the right is his friend bro's:




Bob could have went with some regular ol DD's instead of the extended rear that overhangs the port, but otherwise very nice.

I don't think you can get much lower on bro's rifle. That's usually the way I like them on most of my rifles. However, drop at the heel and comb and bolt handle clearance are the deciding factors in the end. Generally getting everything right is done by a little trial and error..

Back to Bob's rifle with the extended rear base. If I were going to use a Leupold 2.5-8x36 with it's massive ER, I'd have to use that type of rear base. Trust me, I've been there and done that:



I was getting this one set up for just that purpose, but ended up going a different route. Decided I didn't want the base hanging over the ejection/loading port..

Excellent discussion. I'm glad the subject of sporting clays was brought up as I too have busted a few of those.
My original point applies the same to shotguns as well. Possibly even more so.

Take 3 new Browning 725's off the rack.
One is a low comb fixed, the second is a high comb fixed and the third is a fully adjustable comb.
Now have 5 different shooters use each gun to break 25 targets with each gun.
Low is best for some, high is best for others and somewhere in between with the adjustable comb may be the answer for another.

I think the old low comb Model 70 stock cries out for a low mounted scope.
A high monte carlo on todays new custom is another story.
That stock is designed to raise your line of vision to match a scoped rifle.
Medium or high rings don't hurt you there.

You will always see better looking thru the exact center of your pupil. Think of how your head is positioned during an eye exam. There is a reason for it.

Whichever height allows you to come closest to looking thru the center I is the correct one. Neck proportion definitely plays a role.

Face shape/cheek plumpness also comes into play.. What I like to do to trial fit my scopes is mount with my eyes closed. Open my eyes and see if you get a full sight picture. High rings definitely don't fit me on pre 64 model 70's. Everyone is built different though..

Lot to be learned from this video that has been shown her often.
I would guess he had his rifle fitted to him with the same care some give to shotguns. I'm also thinking he is looking thru the center of his eye and it is obvious for him low scope mounting isn't the best. One shot in particular shows his head is relatively erect compared to what we normally see here.

Seems that most here strive for as low as possible, but as you said face shape and neck proportions play a significant role if you want to get it right.

The kid is smart and fast and deadly!! I wouldn't want him shooting at me...

Me either!
Plus I'm about 35 mph slower than those hogs.

Once again, thank you all for the remarks and kind input!

Popgun & Battue- I see all y'all's viewpoints- I may be in the minority of facial structure. Either that or I love old rifles that happen to have lots of drop at comb.

I'm using the old pre 64 Monte Carlo profile, which still has a significant amount of drop at the comb. I was playing with an older featherweight in Cabelas (1.5-6x 32 Leupold in medium rings) recently and I was surprised that I did still have some cheek weld, but very lightly so. I have always striven for a firm cheek weld and for my eyes to meet the sight when they arrive with my face on the comb

Perhaps dual dovetail lows might be the ticket for me. My gunsmith told me that if I wanted, they could tweak the bases to a custom height to suit me best. I think on a custom rifle like this it's worth the effort, if there's enough meat on the bases to mill away and still be secure.

Again, this has been a wonderful thread!

Get it the way that works for you but remember; never shoot unless the game is standing broadside.

bsa when that rifle was put together I was not sure about a scope but suspected it would get a fixed 6X. But of course not knowing I wanted a bit of flexibility in mounting so Gene installed the DD's with the extended rear base.

You don't want to mount a fixed 6X with the rings too far back or you can break the reticle tightening the rings,because of where it's positioned in the tube....so the extended DD provided some fudge factor.

My own view on hitting moving game is that it does have a lot in common with shotgunning. I have never shot sporting clays but have done a lot of grouse and other bird hunting. Like shotgunning if your face is leaving the stock as the shot breaks you're doing it wrong and it's the same with a rifle.Follow through is essential.Which for me includes maintaining cheek weld.

IMO such shots should be done with scopes of modest power and both eyes open,because excessive recoil can jar you off target,and in heavy cover (or in the open) staying with the animal after the shot is important.A small FOV is not a help. I have noticed that when it has gone smoothly for me I have seen the animal react to the shot, watched them collapse(usually down) through the scope,much the same as an upland hunter will see the grouse collapse in mid air....or a clays shooter will see the bird shatter. It's much the same.

Rookies lift their heads,lower the rifle, to admire the shot or see results. They likely blew it on follow through.

Amen Bob. I love your style!!!! I couldn't have said it any better and agree completely..

The issue with Pre '64's is that the bolt handle often hits the eyepiece before the objective is even close to touching the barrel. I am a fanatic for low mounted scopes. A scope to consider is the Leupold 3-9X33 ULTRALIGHT. This has a smaller diameter eyepiece that will completely clear a Pre '64 bolt handle with very low mounts. This scope has 5.5 inches of "ring spacing" as Leupold defines it. This is a little tight, but better than the 2.5-8x36 at 5.1 inches. I do not know if it will work with two piece bases. I used a one piece base.

You can use the Leupold SUPER LOW rings. These are so low that you will probably have to mill or file a bit off the base between the rings (NOT UNDER THE RINGS!) for the turret ring on the scope tube to clear. Some just barely clear, and some just barely touch. Some other mounts, such as Weaver style, might get a bit lower. Some Weaver style bases are really thin.

I believe the scopes with the smaller diameter eyepieces will allow you to get as low as you are going to get a scope to mount on a Pre '64 M70.

Extraneous information deleted.