While shooting for the first time this season last weekend, I noticed I had to elevate my cheek slightly in order to see clearly through the scope. In order to get a good sight picture, I was picking up my cheek about 1/8" off the stock.

It goes without saying that this is less than ideal.

I've hunted with this rifle for some time (a .270 Win Featherweight with a 2x7 Leupold and low rings). And I can't say I've ever missed a shot because of the gun or scope.

What do you think I should do? I'm able to shoot it well, but was a little unnerved by this. And while I don't have a lot of cash to throw around, I'm wondering if I should restock? Or maybe there is another option?

Thanks for your help,

friar

Is your rifle a pre 64 without the Monte Carlo or a post 64?

There are lower mounts than the Leupolds and if the eyepiece hits the scope then there are scopes with smaller eyepieces.

You might want to consider a lace on cheek piece.

Savage,

It's a post 64. I think it would be difficult to find a scope with a significantly smaller bell diameter, no? The 2x7 is only 32 or 33 mm.

Maybe the lace-on cheek piece is the way to go? Can't say I'd like the looks of it, but at the end of the day it's about function!

Out of curiosity, what would a quality wood stock, properly fit, set me back?

Thanks again,

friar

Friar:

Try a boyds stock ( www.boydboys.com) from over in So Dakota.

Since your rifle is a featherweight, the barrel channel will be larger and it will definitely have a free floated barrel. A JRS stock from them will have a cheek piece.

If you stock is in good shape, I'd might even be interested in doing a swap with you for your featherweight stock.

They also have a thumbhole stock that might be of interest to you.

However, since you have had no trouble in the past, why the concern now. Actually I think a guy with a featherweight and a 2 x 7 Leupold on it would be a pretty astute hunter in my book as I would favor your choice of equipment.

I have also seen some of those leather lace on cheek pieces via Cabelas and the Sportsman's Warehouse. I know you live up in Brainerd, but they have a Sportsman's Warehouse down in St Cloud and one in Coon Rapids. Also you have a Cabelas in Owatonna. Go by one of those places the next time you are down that way and bring the old Winchester and take it into the store and let them fit one on for you and see how it fits you before you buy it.

I just wish all of those places were around when I lived in Minnesota all of those years. My ex wife was from Crosby, and my current wife's family has property over in Garrison on Millacs so I spent a lot of time up in your neighborhood.

Cheers and good shooting
seafire

friar,

There must be a bit of room under the objective bell of your scope now. The Featherweight barrel is the best for that. Sometimes the limiting factor is the clearance of the bolt to the scopes eyepiece and the post 64's are better than the pre's for that. Thus you may have some room if lower mounts were substituted.

If you have the Leupold copy of the old Redfield design then the Weaver system should be lower. This is the easiest way to lower your scope provided that there is space under the front and rear bells now.

Just get the standard Weaver bases and low rings. They are also detachable and lighter than the old Redfield design.

Weaver

Hey friar, The Weaver Rings and Bases are still excellent, just as Don mentioned. It should be easy enough for you to do a bit of measuring and see if the shortest Weavers will fix your valid concern.

Much less expensive than a new chunk of termite food and if your current stock is "stable" it would be a shame to have to gamble that a new one might be a constantly changing warper.

Your noticing the issue gives you a chance to correct it before it is a problem on-game. Best of luck to you.

So the cheap weavers are actually not bad mounts ??

Brownell's has some excellent stick on pads which can raise your comb as much as 1/4 inch. They are inexpensive and they work.

Thanks for all the help, fellas--I've got to get to work but will be thinking about these options as I have time...

You guys raise some good points about the stock--it is shooting well (was putting 150 A-frames into .5 moa on Saturday), and I do like the overall feel of the gun. The stock, Seafire, is in really good shape. Last summer I wasn't getting great accuracy, and I noticed the barrel wasn't fully free. About a month before the season I went out on a limb and chamfered out the barrel channel nice and smooth and sealed it with a polymer stain (can't remember exactly which one). I can easily get a bill under it now the whole way back to the receiver, and it's shot very nicely this year.

The rest of the stock in in 98% shape too!

Sportman's Whorehouse is my favorite! I go through St. Could a fair amount, and it's always my priority stop! I'll definitely take it in and see what the story is...

The main reason why this is a little higher in my mind this year is that I'll be hunting elk for the first time. I'll be going with a friend in Wyoming, and as the 270 is the only rifle I own, I want to make double sure I'm putting the pills where they need to be. I could borrow a bigger gun (I actually could have my choice of almost anything), but am a little concerned about something "happening" to it. What's more, I know my own really well, and like the idea of just shooting better instead of simply bigger.

Well, gotta go...talk to you a little latter about the scope set up...

friar

quote:

Originally posted by PC:
So the cheap weavers are actually not bad mounts ??

NOT at all. They don't look pretty but they sure are functional. I like the 4 x 4 mounts that are currently selling at WalMart for $8.96. They attach by screws on each side, so you don't have to spend all of that time getting your cross hairs to stay straight. They are still available in the low mounts.

Between those and the Leupold copy of the Weaver Bases for about $7.00,, I have a use for the Walmart sporting goods department.

Gal over there the other day told me that they had a close out on Remington ADL's, in all of the calibers that never sold, like 22/250s, 223s, 260s and a few others like Ruger 77s in 220 Swifts. They sold them all out in a day when they dropped the price for a new rifle to $150.00! If I spend less time turning my nose up at their sporting goods dept, I would have known about some of those deals!

cheers and good shooting
seafire

PC, the cheap Weavers are light, tough and cheap, and that's great in my book. The Picatinny rail is a copy of this system done up in steel. Unfortunately, they look cheap, but they work so well that I can overlook this. Also, the scope can roll when you're mounting it and then the crosshairs are crooked. You can avoid that if you slowly tighten the screws and alternate between them as you would when tightening lug nuts.

You will find two versions of them these days. The newer one is shown in Savage99's post. Notice that the screw running under the ring and clamping it to the base has a square cross section. This mates up with a square groove in the new bases. The older ones have a round screw/groove. Both types work fine as long as you don't mix new bases with old rings or vice versa. Also, the nut on this screw is much flatter and less obtrusive on the old ones. I frequently use the old nut on the new rings -- I like the flatter profile.

Friarmeier, my M-70 FW is a pre-64. It has Weavers because they were the lowest I could find in a true QD system. If a lace-on cheekpiece is too thick, try Galco's lace-on cartridge carrier. It adds just about 1/8" to the height of the comb, but I don't carry ammo in it because it throws the balance off.


Okie John

As you've discovered, most factory stocks are a "compromise" with a comb low enough to use iron sights (even if there are none as with your M70 Featherweight!). Unfortunately, it is a poor compromise, but one that is hard to break the factories of after all of these years.

You can get a Leupold "super low" ring that will help. If you don't care for the excellent, but not as attractive, Weaver rings, use the Burris Z-ring made for the Weaver base. They are all steel, very low, and of excellent quality.

I have a really nice rifle with a comb that is too low. With the lowest rings available, the occular housing (eyepiece) of the standard Leupold 2-7 interfered with the bolt shroud. I solved this problem by replacing the scope with a Leupold 3-9 Compact, which has a smaller occular housing.

quote:

Originally posted by PC:
So the cheap weavers are actually not bad mounts ??

As you can see from the other posters, people that have used them(me included) realize just how well they work.

I believe they were the first Bases and Rings I ever used to mount a scope. But, I might have that confused, it might have been Redfields.

One thing the other folks have not mentioned is how well they return to the same place if you decide for some reason to remove the scope. Leupold makes some Bases and Rings that do the job too, but at a good bit more expense.

For example, I have a small scope I put on a 444Mar when developing Loads and intend to use it during twilight conditions to draw in more light. But, during the day when carrying the rifle, I enjoy having the scope removed. I don't carry it where shots would be over 150yds. Removing and replacing the scope may move the Point-of-Impact 0.75"-1.25" at 100yds on this particular rifle from the tests I've run and that is not enough to concern me at the distance I'll be using it.

The Base also has another nice feature. It is designed low enough in the middle so you can still use Iron Sights with the Base(s) in place. In fact, the shape actually helps draw my eye into position for the Irons.

I've nothing to complain about when it comes to the "Aluminum" Bases either. In fact, they allow you to take a Large File with a toothed edge and create another CrossSlot where ever you need it. The above Rifle-Scope combination just did not allow the scope to set in the correct position for my old eyes. Did a bit of measuring to get the Turret so it didn't interfer with the Rings and just cut a new CrossSlot. Touched it up with a Marks-A-Lot and it looks like the Weaver folks did it.

Stonecreek mentioned the Burris Z-Rings and they are indeed very special. I like the Signature Series simply due to all the benefits of that design. I use the Burris Signature Series Rings on all my new rifles, except for the above 444Mar. I had the Weaver Base and Rings for it and just never changed them.

The only rifle I ever had a problem on trying to get the Weaver Base to fit was an older M7. The top of the Receiver curves down slightly at the Rear and the Weaver "Straight" Base for it just won't work properly. The Base needs to be higher at the rear. They wanted the user to install a plastic Wedge between the Base and the Receiver at the rear and cut the extended portion of the Wedge off. Just not the way to go.

Well, as with most things that are worth doing right, I see this won't be easy...

Stonecreek, it looks like I've got the superlow Leupold rings on it--they can't be more than 1/8" high; maybe 3/32nd. What's interesting is that the base seems to be a Redfield (etched into the base is a "R" superimposed on a scope recticle). The base is a one-piece and is easily 3/8" thick. If I could cut that thickness in half with a different base--problem solved!

I've got good clearance between the bell and barrell, and also with the bolt handle.

Didn't get much help on the Leupold, Burris, or Redfield websites. I'm thinking I'd use my time and money best by just going to a good Smith and having a thinner base put on, if that's possible.

Otherwise, a nice leather cheek piece might be the best solution.

Again, many thanks to everyone! You've given me some great stuff to work with

friar

p.s. If push comes to shove, maybe I'll go with the Weavers. I too, foolishly made the assumption that because they looked cheap they weren't worth much. But if it shoots well, I guess I can't quibble!