I've finally bought a Kahles 1.1-4x24 to put on my son's old .30/06, which we may rebarrel to 9.3x62. The sporterised FN Mauser still has the raised stripper-clip boss and I prefer not to have it ground off. Though I realise the new FFP scopes are less likely to leave you with an out-of centre reticle than the old system, I would want lateral adjustments to help get the mounting done properly. Also, the rifle has a side-mounted Parker-Hale peep sight at the moment so, since I would prefer to leave its base in place, the scope mount should not be too wide.

So, what do you think is the best mount to use?

The Leupold and Lynx one-piece bases have caught my attention but it's years since I needed to know and may be way behind in these matters.

In case you think my question is a complete orphan, I've had a couple of replies as PMs, which suggested Lynx mounts are stronger.

There's a gun show on this weekend where Lynx generally have a stand, so I'll go and see them. That they have a bollard sticking out of the base would not be as conducive to use of the peep sight but, in the even of scope failure, either base would have to come off anyway, unless I replaced the front sight with a high ramp.

Get rid of the stripper clip boss (I cant imagine why you want to keep it)and use whichever Talley suits your application. If you are confident about the precision of the mounting holes in the action, use the Talley light weights.

Forgot to add : - the Talley bases (steel) for the detachable rings are probably narrow enough that they would not interfere with the peep base. They certainly wouldn't interfere with base for old Lyman peeps.

Thanks secondtry,
by coincidence I was just looking at the Talley mounts online a minute ago.

The reasons I would prefer not to mill off the boss are partly trouble/cost and partly aesthetic. Just as curlicues in old architecture engage the eye more than the severe practicality of modernism, I like the look of it and the historical mystery of why Mauser ever specified taking down the rest of the ring when weight or peep sights were not really part of the equation.

For some reason, however, the crenellation of the Piccatinny rail has the opposite effect on me.

Light weight doesn't worry me on this rifle but, if I can't find the right Lynx or Leupold set-up, I might do exactly what you suggest.

Well, I finally found a shop that not only had a Leupold one-piece mount but a Mauser action I could try it on.

What had not been obvious from website photos was that this mount has a generous amount of metal milled out underneath to allow for the charger boss and gives more than enough flexibility for my project.

In fact, to limit the scope's rear overhang, I've asked the gunsmith if the base can be positioned back from touching the boss by about 3mm, which still should allow for the aperture-sight arm.

here's the redfield 2 piece version. SR-M

I've had Redfield two-piece mounts on my .338 Sako for 33 years and they have never let me down. The bases are much lower than yours, though, richj. Using inverted extension rings, they were the only mounts we could find to mount the short barrel of the Kahles Helia-Super 27 on the long Finnbear action.

But as to the M98, I notice your mounts do extend forward of the charger cut-out and would have worked for me, too. I was happy to use the one-piece base, though, as it apparently needs only one screw at the back and I figured it would make precise mounting easier for the gunsmith.

Got the rifle with scope mounted back this morning. The aperture arm fits and everything looks good, so far. I can't see any
shims but it bore sights perfectly and the reticle is still in the middle when looked at through the front end of the scope.

Lucky I did not chance the low rings because there's only about 4mm clearance to the opened bolt's handle and less when the scope caps are on. The "new" low-scope safety would not have worked with lower rings, either.