So opticsplanet still has a deal on the Burris Fullfield E1 3×9 40 ( I looked up a previous thread on the optics forum). I'm posting here because I'm looking for some model 70 know how. Will this scope present a problem mounting it on my 1950 .270? Any recommendations for bases rings, etc? I've never mounted my own scopes, but I'm willing to try.

I’d definetly try to find a more ‘period correct’ looking scope for a 1950 M70, as a scope 70 years newer than the gun may look a little off. Granted, there were not a lot of scope options in 1950, but to my eye 1970-80’s Leupold Gloss M8’s (either fixed power or variable) look very good and that’s what’s on all my scoped M70’s. As for mounts Leupold Dual Dovetails or a Redfield one piece mount would fill the bill.
YMMV

This one currently has a Weaver Micro Trac K6-1 in a swing away mount. I'm looking to hunt with this one quite a bit. Somebody sanded and refinished the stock and it's had a recoil pad added. The 30-06 I've got has a period correct BalVar scope. The scope is clear, so this is the one I'm more inclined to keep more period correct.

One way to find out. This is an instance where it is beneficial to take the gun to a shop where different mounts can be tried with the scope. To sit at a keyboard and predict objective lens clearance over the barrel and bolt handle clearance past the ocular bell with any combination of base height and ring combos is fruitless, unless the advice giver has actually worked all that out for the specific scope.

I'm not into "period correct" scopes, but that's just me. Free country and all that. I think you choice of scope is excellent, especially for a rifle you plan to do a lot of hunting with.
BSA has mounted a lot of Burris on Pre '64 M70's. Hopefully he will chime in. He will probably tell you Leupold dual dovetail.
That said, there is a lot more to proper scope mounting than many understand. Even some shops don't do it especially well. Things usually go more or less OK if everything lines up "to spec." The issue is when things don't line up and you do not have the tools and techniques to let you know there is problem and what to do about it.
Issues with Pre '64 M70, or even modern ones, are not uncommon, at least in my experience. I haven't done a lot of them, but I have encountered my share of issues with even the few I have done.
My advice to someone who has never mounted a scope before on a M70 would be Warne or Leupold steel Weaver style bases and Burris Signature Zee rings, medium height. Those Signature rings will fix issues for you without your even realizing you have issues.
There are other options that may be a bit more attractive, but they require you to have a bit more knowledge than you claim to have.

Hope this helps,
Gun Doc

It does help, thanks. I've watched some videos on mounting scopes, some of which show many specializes tools being used. I don't mind buying a couple, but if it's too expensive I might as well get a Smith to do it. I even asked a cousin who's considerably more knowledgeable than I am, and he said he doesn't mount his own scopes. So if I gather enough know how I'll try it.

GunDoc is right. I asked a similar question a few months back and got some good replies, here, especially from BSA who included pictures of pre-64 M70s with the Burris scopes mounted. The Burris will work just fine for your application.

I went back and found that thread, thanks. I ordered a Fullfield last night, I went with the plex reticle rather than the ballistic plex. I might order another one at that price in case I want to make a change on my 30-06 too. One of my cousins is interested in a .264 Win Mag, how do you like yours?

Good post gundoc. You are right, i have mounted and used many burris rifle scopes on just about all of my old rifles. However, the E1is not my favorite. I prefer the lines and aesthetics, along with the better reticle you can get in the FFII 3-9×40. My favorite reticle is the ballistic plex and you cant get the same reticle in an E1. The occular is also a lot bigger on the E1 rifle scope. Its more similar to the euro rifle scopes and that presents a minor problem for mounting and bolt handle clearance. As far as good mounts and rings, you are right, i will suggest DD's. Then weaver mounts with Burris zee rings. If you really want to spend money, you can always buy conetrols and s&k. To each his own. The main thing is to watch for clearance issues, front and back, tube mounting length of the scope and proper eye relief. Most days i avoid windage adjustable mounts because ive seen those adjustment screws snap and have seen many more bent.

^^^^^^^
BSA,

Good info on the ocular diameter of the E1 vs. the FFII.
I too loathe the Redfield style windage adjustable mount. Damn thing seems designed to bend screws. Plus the rear ring carries very little load.
We don't agree on rings. If I don't need Signatures, I like plain ol' Weavers. But hey, we agree on rifles!

I'm thinking of ordering a scope mounting kit and just going all in on mounting my own. I hadn't thought about the occular size.

Compared to the post '64 M70 rifles, the Pre '64 M70 can be a bit persnickety about ocular size. I luv me some Pre '64, but I am also a big fan of low mounted scopes. You learn to live with it. An extra 1/4" looks like a mile when you look at the objective/barrel clearance. But it really involves very little movement of your head. All that said, I wouldn't be a big fan of a large ocular on a Pre '64.

The scope should be in hand in the next couple of days and I'll have a chance to eyeball it a little bit. My eye likes where the Balvar is mounted on the 30-06, maybe that's a good frame of reference. I'm still recovering from a broken ankle in January and I'm having a hip replacement in a couple of weeks, so I have plenty of time to contemplate these things.

OK, I've got the scope and have spent some time eyeballing things. My concern with this scope is tube length and not being able to get the scope far enough back for proper eye relief, it's pretty close. The problem will be the front base/ ring. It's been recommended I call Midway and talk to their tech support, but my schedule through the week hasn't allowed it. Thoughts?

^^^^^^^
If you are using Weaver style rings, like the Signature Zee rings I suggested, have a look at the Warne M902 front base. It will extend into the loading/ejection port a bit, which is not the prettiest, but it will allow you to get the scope back a bit more.

Reasonable people can disagree, but I would rather an extended base than an extended ring. Plus, I don't think Burris makes extended Signature Zee rings.

That's the kind of info I was hoping to get, thanks. I'm going to have a whole lot of time to work on this for a couple of months, I'm learning.

What base/rings and scope did you get?

I got the Burris Fullfield e1 3x9x40. I haven't gotten bases and rings yet. If the Burris doesn't work out on this .270, I think I'm going to switch it over to Remington 700 .270 I've got.

Good luck with the E1. Like I said previously, the FFII is a much better scope that looks more traditional and will allow for proper bolt clearance. I've used them many times on my pre 64's... It should work just fine on your 700, but the pre is a lot more tempermental when it comes to mounting a modern optic on top of it.. Talley lightweights should be the ticket with the E1 on your 700..... I do run 1 E1 on a Tikka, and I hate the damn reticle. It doesn't subtend to the edge of the glass and it's tiny. The only reason I use it om my Tikka is because I've been getting some damn good accuracy with that rifle and I don't want to ruin a good thing, but eventually I'll pull the funky looking E1 off and replace it with a different burris rifle scope. Maybe an AR762 4.5-14x42...... Just in case you haven't seen these pics. They may help you in your decision on mounts. I lost many many more pictures when photobucket took a crap. It sucks because I had some good pics of Talley steels, Bueler mounts, weaver mounts, PRW/QRW for the pre 64 etc. etc.... All lost and gone, but I do still have pics of my Burris FFII 3-9x40 with ballistic plex reticle in DD's:

Leupold DD's (low) with extended rear mount and Burris FFII 2-7x35:


My favorite 30-06 with my favorite scope. That's a 20 year old FFII 3-9x40 with ballistic plex reticle:


338 Alaskan:




Medium height DD's with Zeiss 3-9x42:

Yeah, that sure was a clean 1957 270 featherweight. Probably the second finest 270 featherweight Iv'e had in my hands. It shot very well too... I'm not a 270 guy, so I have no ill feelings about getting rid of it...

A good option for you if you want to run that scope would be Talley lightweights with the reversible front. That would put the ring in the front right at the edge of the ejection port. I never have to go that way, but generally have to push the scope in the other direction. You must be a shortie....



The Talley with the reversible front will get you where you want to be. The standard lows are part #930702. The extended/reversible front is 93X702, I believe....

Here are some standard talley lightweights on my 270 fwt. These were mediums (part #940702)

You can see in the pic, that even the standard talley lightweight gives you more room to move back if you need it...

Those pictures are a really big help, Talleys were recommended to me by a friend who's in law enforcement. I'm going to get a Fullfield II as well and try them both. Those are some beautiful rifles, I've definitely got the bug. I'd like to get my daughter hunting with a 70 in .257 Roberts...

I like using pics. Its a lot easier than trying to describe something. Glad i could help.

FWIW, I believe the Warne base I suggested in an earlier post will get that front ring even more to the rear than the reversible Talley LW.

It may, but like you said in an earlier post, it may overhang the ejection port. The extended Talleys will be flush with the ejection port. I personally don't like my mounts or rings to overhang the ejection port at all.. It's aesthetically unpleasing and also could interfere with ejection and loading...

I'm getting a Fullfield II per your suggestion to do some comparisons. I'm in the hospital right now after a hip replacement so mounting will have to wait. I got the plex reticle on the e1, probably going to get the same on the Fullfield II

Interfere with loading, yes, at least to some degree. But I don't think it would interfere with ejection much at all. Even the old, fairly low, Weaver one-piece base usually didn't impeded ejection.
Aesthetically unpleasing, I agree.
A trade off to have the eye relief one needs. If it were me, I'd find a longer scope.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/103062.jpg

I did a dry run of mounting the scope. These are the Talley Lightweights, medium. I tried the reversible lows and the bolt would not clear. I've got a couple of other things I'm working on and then I'll mount for keeps here in a couple if days.

Sorry about just linking to the picture.