What bases and rings will I need to mount a Leupold Vari X II c, 3 X 9 X 40mm on a Sako 75 Hunter? Thanks

The "bases" are built into your Sako with its tapered dovetails on the top of the receiver. Many rings made for it do not require bases, like the Leupold Ringmounts. They simply clamp on the dovetails. A "medium" height would be the proper one for the 40mm objective.

Other choices would be the original Sako ringmount which is no longer made but is readily available on ebay and similar outlets. The Millett Angle Loc ring works nicely on the Sako dovetail by using a couple of tiny adapters underneath the rings and extended "claws" to engage the Sako Dovetails.

Many other ring/base combinations are available. The classic Redfield-type turn-in rings can be used with Redfield/Burris bases which slide on to the rifle's dovetails. If you use these bases, also use the "low" rings as the height of the bases is added to the rings, so "mediums" are taller than needed. Conetrol and Buehler also make Sako bases for their own proprietary rings. Weaver also makes an adapter bases, but they are gawdawful aluminum contraptions that should be avoided.

Sako itself markets a ring/base combination it calls "Optilock". This mount is (1) very heavy, (2) excessivley tall, even in the "low" mount, and (3) outrageously expensive. Avoid it.

I own numerous Sakos and I prefer the clean, simple Leupold ringmounts or the original Sako ringmount. The Redfield base/rings are also a nice alternative.

Thanks for the info

I wont disagree with Stonecreek. But the Sako OptiLocks do work well. I had several varieties of mounts before yanking them all off and using the OptiLocks on my Sakos between .222 and all the way to .416 Rem. On my Sako AV .338 Win Mag the Milletts were not worth having.

There are a variety of sniggles with the Opti's. One being that getting spares, even -or especially, screws are about impossible to get from Beretta and expensive. I changed out a set of Optis and just kept those as spares - and I bought a new set just to keep for if I need something. The heads wont take a lot of torque - so I bought a torque screwdriver which again besides being expensive up front was a good tool to have around.

For your application I am pretty sure the Opti lows will let the 40mm objective clear the barrel.

+1 on what Stonecreek said. I have 3 75 models, 375h+H, '06, and 22-250. Go with the Leupold rings, when properly put on you won't have any problems.

quote:

For your application I am pretty sure the Opti lows will let the 40mm objective clear the barrel.

The art of the understatement is not dead. A "low" Optilock will clear a 40mm objective with enough room to stack a couple of midgets in between.

The key to satisfaction with any scope mount is proper installation. I've installed almost every mount made for a Sako (however I have only disinstalled the Weaver ) Any of them work nicely and dependably when installed correctly. Should you decide to go with the Redfield-type, drop me a PM for special instructions (hint: toss the set screws in the nearest trash can and never look back).

As you say installation is the key. As is selecting the right set up for the stock style and scope to be used.

I was not 100% per cent sure of the mount and clearance particular to the Sako 75 barrels.

All mine are the previous AV series which I know they clear. Actually with my Swaros 40mm, on especially the straighter stocks like the FiberClass, the Optis provide a very good (for me) low mounting position and an excellent cheek weld. With the Sakos I gave my son he preferred the Zeiss. With the 44mm and the low mounts it started getting much closer. As you say the mediums are a big jump though.

With the bigger 50mm scopes and on barrels with sights, and further when used in conjunction with the Sako stocks like the laminate with the Monte Carlo etc, (it seems that those are more head up style stocks if you will) then I use the medium rings and it works correctly. Yes it is high but you cant really get down as low on those stocks anyway.

My main point was really that the Optis do work well, and better than many, but they are more expensive than most.

I'm sure that the Optilocks work well, but it just seems foolish to have a rifle with integral dovetails like the Sako, and then still put up with bases, rings, screws, etc. ad nauseam. The original Sako rings (that clamp directly to the dovetails) are a much simpler, more elegant solution. The Leupolds are, IMO, the best of all. They are sleeker and less clunky-looking than the Sako rings, and if recoil is a concern, they allow for significantly more eye relief. Just my $0.02.

John

John:

How does the older style help with the eye relief? I have not used those but it would seem that they still have to lock into that recess and to locate at the same point under recoil to hold. If it provides another mounting position it might indeed help to move some scopes forward or back some to keep you from crawling the stock. But if not the eye relief would still be dictated by the scope used - or not?

I think that John was indicating that it is the Leupold ring mounts which provide more latitude in eye relief, which is true.

The old Sako ringmounts had a fully flexible position for the front ring (as far fore or aft as the length of the dovetail), but a fixed position for the rear ring (which had a small recoil lug that fit into a recess at the rear of the dovetail). With certain scopes, particularly variables with excessively long ocular pieces with a power ring in front of them, the fixed rear ring would force the scope too far rearward. This problem is easily solved by simply grinding the little recoil lug off of the rear ring, thus allowing it to position as far forward as the front of the rear dovetail. This in no way impacts the integrity of the mount in that when the rings are properly torqued down, they ain't goin' anywhere, recoil lug or not.

TexKD: Sorry for the delay in replying...I don't come on here too often. Stonecreek has it right. I was indeed referring to the extra latitude in fore-and-aft scope placement offered by the Leupold mounts. I also think they look better!

Stonecreek: Thanks for clarifying, and thanks also for that little tidbit regarding the recoil "lug" on the Sako mounts and the removal of same by grinding it off. I've often looked at that little sucker and thought about doing that, then chickened out...they aren't exactly the cheapest rings out there. I still think that the Leupold mounts are better, but your info may allow me to put my Sako rings to some use as well. Thanks again.

John

The little lug on the Sako ring was fine -- before scope manufacturers started putting oversized-overlength power rings on their variables. Most fixed power scopes will locate far enough forward with the original Sako ring, but the variables with thier extended eyepiece/power ring assemblies are often pushed too close to your eye for comfort unless you get rid of the little lug and move the rear Sako ring forward 3/8ths inch or so.