I`m planing to buy a used BSA majestic in .270Win. I`m now looking for a scope mount for this gun, because I`don`t like the Parker-Hale mount, which is with this gun.
Can I use the mounts for Rem. 700?

If as I think it is, the Majestic is the first model after the BSAs with the dove tailed reciever then the answer is yes, all the later BSAs seem to have used the Rem 700 profile.
Steve.

Some opinions about the rifle?

When the Majestic was first made it had, like the BRNO a 19mm grooved bridge and receiver.
These were, in my view, some of the best rifles BSA made. I think there was a later version which had an action like, if not the same as, what was later named the CF2. From what you are saying Monastry you are looking at the later version ie a none grooved variety, is that right?

I had one in 30-06, not sure why I sold it. It was quite light with a very pleasing slim stock that fit me perfectly.

The mounts are integral the rear ring has a stud in the bottom that meets a depression in the receiver. I had the Parker Hale rings too.

I'm possibly getting confused with the Monarch which was the predecessor of the CF2. For dovetailed receivers, either go for Parker Hale rings which clamp straight on, if they're available, or go for weaver #28 bases which are a flat bottomed base which would need the top of the BSA dovetails drilled & tapped. Nice pic of your Majestic there richj, they're a favourite of mine & very popular here in NZ. Feel free to post any others you have.
Steve.

Monastry.
My BSA is what was called the Standard Weight BSA which is much the same as the Majestic with one important difference,the Standard weight has, like the Mauser, control feed. It is heavier than the Majestic with an action of the correct length for the 7x57.
It's interesting that rifles which in one country are seen as ordinary in another country are seen as highly desirable.
Here in New Zealand the BSA Majestic as viewed as being highly desirable.
They are well made accurate rifles and people of my age like them very much.
Mounts made for CZ rifles will fit the BSA with the grooved action. However mounts with the recoil stud which sits the the little recess on the left of the action bridge of BRNO will have the stud taken off before they will fit the BSA. It's a small inconvenience and can be easily done.
I hope this is of some help.

Hi,

I have a BSA Majestic featherweight in .30-06. My grandfather purchased it here in South Africa in 1967 (I think). A lovely little rifle which weighs little more than a .22.

It was purchased with a Pecar-Berlin 4x scope mounted with aluminum Parker Hale mounts.

Last year I replaced the scope with a 3-9x Bushnell, and had the action glass bedded, metal gun-kote'd and the stock sanded down to a oil finish.

We struggled to find mounts for it here in RSA.

Due to the sharp recoil, mounts which had an anti-recoil device that would fit into the hollow recess milled into the top of the bridge, were required. BRNO/CZ mounts which were modified in the manner mentioned above would allow the mount bases to shift after 3 - 5 shots having been fired.

Eventually, after 3 different sets of mounts were tried, my gunsmith put two studs into the dovetails which now secure the rings onto the bridges. Not quite sure exactly what he did though, as he concealed these studs within the mounts and the dovetails onto which they are mounted, and I don't want to take anything off to inspect, now that all is working fine.

Cheers

The P/Hale monts had a stud inlet into the one to be fitted to the bridge. The bridge has a pre drilled hole to take the stud.
Whilst not the best of mounts Parker Hale do the job.
The ones on my Viscount 7x57 are completely reliable but then the Viscount is heavier and consequently no effected by recoil as much as the same mounts on the Majestic. The Majestic is one and a quarter ponds lighter than the Viscount.

A Mate has a Viscount like mine in 7x57 and he has used the BRNO mounts, as described above with the recoil lug removed, and has not experienced any problems.

I've found this thread showed up my knowledge of BSA centre fires & so I got into the archive & google & refreshed things a bit. I had never realised that the Majestic was so similar to the Hunter/Royale series other than feed & ejection. I knew that the CF2 was largely an updated Monarch & after a tour of the BSA factory in 1984, not too long before they ceased production & sold the machinary to, I think, Pakistan, it was easy to see that the Hunter action were made very much the same way as the CF2 actions. It set me to thinking why the change to push feed rather than controlled feed. Was it just fashion or was there a deeper reason. It can't have been the cost of manufacturing the extractors as the BSA Hunter extractors, other than the very short action,222Rem, 22 Hornet, all used a surplus M17 Enfield extractor. So, was it just as simple as running out of the surplus extractors? Anyone know the answer to this?
Steve

Today I got the rifle, I mounted a Leupold 2,5-8x36 with Parker-Hale mount. I don`t like this alloy-mount, but it was with the rifle and the first results at the range were not bad. Perhaps I`ll shorten the barrel, so that this ugly and senseless muzzle-brake will dissapeare!

The Hunter Lightweight I had in 270 had the muzzle brake & came with a thing called an "All Range Adapter" which was a sleeve that covered the muzzle brake & clamped onto the barrel behind the front sight. It was about 3mm thick in the walls from memory & looked pretty inelegant but it did serve to cut down on the muzzle blast at the range which did nothing to endear these rifles to other shooters. I'm sure they were done for fashion but they stuffed an otherwise neat rifle IMHO.
Steve.

I have a Monarch in .270. It is becoming a favorite. Very light and highly accurate and the factory stock design is very comfortable (w/ a factory Wundhammer swell at the grip). I use the factory rings and find them entirely satisfactory. Bolt is a little sticky in the cycle but OK. In the US many BSA's were marketed by Herters' as the Herters U9. These were usally not as nicely finished as the BSA marketed rifles. Perhaps Herters were "seconds". I think all the BSA's have been under-rated and are great perforers. Just IMHI