On a M70 LA push feed if you reverse the front Talley 2pcs lwt base where does the face of the base/ring end up? Even with the port,hanging over it,or just behind the edge of it? TIA

I may have a picture of a classic or 2 with the front talley lightweight turned around. Here goes:



Here's another long action with the front turned around:



The FN BACO's are pretty much the same, as are the pre 64's and post 64 push feeds:



Keep in mind, the above rifles had regular ol talley lightweights. The extended front ring is totally different when you turn it. It will be flush with the loading port (or there abouts):


Hope that helps a bit..

The one in the last pic is what I'm looking for. THANKS!

EZEARL, that is the extended front base, turned around... It shortens up the mounting length or lengthens it, depending on which direction you turn it...

How it is in the pic is what I need to eliminate the 402 Weaver extension base. The ring is even with the port but the base over hangs it. Thought about cutting off the excess but not much material left to the slot.

Good series of photos from "bsa" - extended Talleys are a good option to have if your scope tube is short. It allows you a little more leeway in the eye relief department.

BSA, I was looking at this photo...





Is there a reason you did not turn the front ring/base around the other way? When I mount a scope I always space the rings as far apart as possible, so I would have put that front mount the other way. I think it adds just a smidgen bit more physical integrity to the system. What am I missing?

BTW that is a nice lookin rifle. Love the wood!

What you are missing is the fact that I didn't like the extended front ring. For some reason it did not work well with it turned the other way. I later went to a better set-up (Leupold DD lows):



A guy here sold me the set of talley lightweights I posted a picture of earlier and he didn't bother telling me they were the extended version. I spent a while trying to figure out what the fu ck was wrong with these rings. I didn't like them, but would use them just the way they are orientated in the previous picture to mount a leupold 2.5-8x36 in a heartbeat. As you saw, they were a wrong match for the longer tubed 3.5-10x40.. I later went back to a standard set (not extended) of talley lightweights and a better/more reliable scope:



Looking better? By the way, good eye...

I see now. I think te DDs are a better system anyway, and they're more pleasing to the eye to boot.

BSA said "What you are missing is the fact that I didn't like the extended front ring. For some reason it did not work well with it turned the other way."

I'm curious. How did it not work well? Rings misaligned? Wouldn't zero? Just wondering for future reference.

I think what BSA is saying is that when the front mount is reversed, the forward end of it overhangs the forward end of the receiver. That WOULD look a little funky.