For those of you who use pre-64 M70s in .375, which mounts will give the proper spacing for using low-power Leupold variable( i.e. 1 or 1.5 to 4 or 5) or possibly fixed 3x Leupold. Looking for options in mounts for this rifle. thank you.

I use buehlers with a short tube eiss 4x. Plenty of eye relief and adjustment since all actions are the same length.

Leupold QR's will work nicely; the rear is reversible.

This isn't my .375 H&H, but it perfectly illustrates my favorite mount, the Griffin & Howe double lever side mount. Instantly detachable, precise return to zero and leaves the top of the receiver completely uncluttered and open for the use of open or receiver sights.

In the 21rst Century we prefer this QRW set of bases shown below on a .300 H&H action from 1958, M70,
that was re-barreled to .375 H&H and then .395 H&H.
Above it is an MRC M1999 X2 "26 Nolser" rifle:



Note that the proper hole spacing is 0.330" on the rear base of the Pre-'64 M70 of H&H length, different than on the .30-06/.458 WIN actions.
The ring spacing this allows will handle any of those scopes you mentioned.
Fits a Leupold 2.5-8x36mm very nicely also.
Not to mention rings of many sorts are available to fit those bases,
including extension rings, or a Picatinny with custom fitting for the close spacing on the rear bridge holes, etc.

Those QRW bases on the Pre-'64 M70 are attached with 8x40 Torx screws and J-B Weld.

Rip ...

Oops, I got mixed up on the 2.5-8x36mm Leupold.
I had to use the longer-tubed 3-9x40mm Leupold on the Pre-'64-H&H action pictured above.

THIS is what will fit it on the Pre-'64-H&H action, just as it does on the M70 Classic .416 Rem. shown here:





Those are Burris Xtreme Tactical, steel, Weaver-style bases.
The scope is a Nikon 1.5-5x20,
but even the very-short-tubed Nikon SlugHunter scope will fit onto that at shortest ring spacing.

The rings are Burris XTR Signature medium height.
I would prefer the Burris Xtreme Tactical rings in low height, whenever I can use them instead.

I used to worry about overhanging the loading/ejection port,
but not after seeing Ross Seyfried's "Professional's Rifle" with the rear base sticking more than an inch forward over the port.
I now call that the "Seyfried Schtick" and I go for it.



Rip ...

The Leupold Mark 4 Picatinny that fits the M70 standard length action (.338 Win.Mag. above) can be modified to fit the Pre-'64-H&H or M70 Classic H&H actions,
becoming a Seyfried Schtick base if you take a hacksaw to it:



Cut on dotted white lines:



Just one extra hole is needed:



Rip ...

One more Pre-'64, originally a .30-06 but rebarreled to .458 WIN with a take-off CZ .458 WIN barrel:



That action is the same as the H&H, except not opened up in length of magazine and action port.
And it has the greater hole spacing on the rear bridge.

Those are Warne Maxima steel bases, with two cross-slots on front base,
and the rear base just has one cross-slot.
I do not remember if that rear base also has the extra hole for the H&H action spacing.
I'll try to remember to look.
If not, just one extra hole is all you need.

I do have a picture of the front base handy:



The Warne 6x48 screws were replaced with 8x40 screws and the bases and screws were J-B-Welded to the rifle.
It is a bugholer .458 WIN and I am quite proud of this "parts rifle."
It weighs 8 pounds and 2 ounces, dry/empty, iron sights only.

Here it handles the short tube of a Nikon 3-9x40mm SlugHunter, if it will handle that, it will handle about anything:




Rip ...

One more thing.
The old Pre-'64 bridge height may be a little lower than on the newer M70 rifles.
Even if the hole spacing matches, you might have to shim the rear base:





I sectioned and hammered out the side wall of a Magtech (Cowboy brass) 12-gauge shell to make a great brass shim.

The Little Leupold 2.5x20mm (here with QRW QD-lever rings) has more tube length available for mounting than the SlugHunter:



Rip ...

Rip, lots of good info except pre 64 H&H is.425" on the rear. Post 64 H&H is .330"

quote:

Originally posted by airgun1:
Rip, lots of good info except pre 64 H&H is.425" on the rear. Post 64 H&H is .330"

Thanks for the correction.
I get confused sometimes just looking at my
old pictures scattered all over my disorganized
collection at imgur.
I need to go look at them in the flesh,
with calipers.
Anywho, it can be done even if the base needs a new hole
drilled in it or a shim under it.

Rip ...

Hey RIP, since you appear to be the resident expert ...

Some years ago, I came into my grandfather's 'pre-war' (1942) pre-64 Model 70. Got it from an uncle who no longer hunted with it. It came with a Lyman aperture rear sight attached on the left side of the receiver. As I understand it, the Lyman rear sight was a factory installed unit.

It also has the safety that swings left and forward over a flat spot on the back of the bolt, not like the later typical pre-64 3-position safety. Caliber designation on the barrel says, ".30Government06," not 30-06.

Anyway, the receiver is drilled and tapped front and rear. The center-to-center hole spacing of the rear holes is .604, and Weaver does make a rear mount with that spacing (#79); however, the real problem is the off-set in height between the front ring and the rear of the receiver where the #79 rear mount would attach. In other words, the rear mount would need a sizable amount of shimming, plus longer screws, in order to get it elevated and level with the plane of the front Weaver mount (a #46, with a hole spacing of .860).

Any suggestions for what to do about getting a rear Weaver-type mount with .604 hole spacing that would sit level with the front mount?

Surely mine can't be the first early (pre-war) Model 70 that someone tried to get set up for mounting a scope.

Are there any custom mount makers that make, or can make, a rear Weaver-style mount that is the correct height relative to the front ring?

Thanks!

Talley has always worked for me

quote:

Originally posted by Zephyr:
Talley has always worked for me

Ditto

I have used both Talley and the old Kimber bases on the Pre-'64 M70 of mine as .375 H&H, re-barreled from .300 H&H original, 1958 model.
They were 8x40-ed and held up OK on something as gentle as a .375 H&H in a 1-pound Brown Pounder stock.
But I switched to the Leupold QRW bases as shown above, for many reasons.



That is a 1962 ad.
Pinnell & Talifson started guiding in 1953, I think that was the first year for Alaska-regulated PH's.

Member devere, OP, has sent me some pics of him admiring, and shooting, Morris Talifson's circa 1950 vintage M70 .375 H&H.
He said I could post them here, maybe he will comment, or correct anything if I get it wrong:







Devere said he wrote the article about Pinnell and Talifson's rifles in this issue of SPORTS AFIELD:



The old aluminum Weaver bases, steel strap Weaver rings, and Leupold 4X Long-Tube scope held up very well.
Amazing that the rifle looks so good after a half century of Kodiak weather, nearly 70-year-old rifle.
It has killed at least one bear this decade, this century, shot by the current female owner on Kodiak Island, a resident hunter.

Seems I remember that SPORTS AFIELD. I gotta go dig through a pile at home, and measure some hole spacings.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Adams:

The center-to-center hole spacing of the rear holes is .604, and Weaver does make a rear mount with that spacing (#79); however, the real problem is the off-set in height between the front ring and the rear of the receiver where the #79 rear mount would attach....


Surely mine can't be the first early (pre-war) Model 70 that someone tried to get set up for mounting a scope.


Thanks!

Pre-War Model 70's were only drilled and tapped for scope mounts on the receiver ring. The holes in the bridge were added later.

You might consider plugging one hole and adding another to create the correct spacing for the correct height base. I doubt that you would be destroying any collector value.

Weaver 48 is the proper base for a 1942 (preWar) As stated they weren't drilled on the rear. You will need to have at least one new hole drilled.

my .375 is a 1952 with the receiver bridge factory drilled with the narrow spacing. At this point I'm open to options: Tally aluminum ultralights have worked well on one of my other M70s, but then like Rip says, the old Weaver 2 piece bases with Weaver strap rings worked just fine for 40+ years on Morris Talifson's .375. Just want to know that what I get will have proper spacing with the low-power Leupold variable.

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Adams:

The center-to-center hole spacing of the rear holes is .604, and Weaver does make a rear mount with that spacing (#79); however, the real problem is the off-set in height between the front ring and the rear of the receiver where the #79 rear mount would attach....


Surely mine can't be the first early (pre-war) Model 70 that someone tried to get set up for mounting a scope.


Thanks!

Pre-War Model 70's were only drilled and tapped for scope mounts on the receiver ring. The holes in the bridge were added later.

You might consider plugging one hole and adding another to create the correct spacing for the correct height base. I doubt that you would be destroying any collector value.

Nick,
Sorry I skipped over your post in my excitement over digging up the 125th anniversary SPORTS AFIELD.

Anything xausa says about the Pre-War M70 can be taken to the bank.

I would grab the bases with proper hole spacing and wrong heights (Weaver or whatever) and use them as templates for the hole spacing on some custom Picatinny rail.
Have a gunsmith contour the bottom of the Picatinny properly.
Some of the Picatinny's like the Leupold Mark 4 have a lot of metal, stand proud, higher than needed.
Plenty of room to shave the bottom of the rail at front instead of shimming it at rear,
or a combination of lowering the front and raising the rear, etc.
A virgin Picatinny rail may be the best bet if you have a gunsmith who can properly contour it.
Also as xausa says, you may plug a hole in the bridge and drill another one,
or some combination of all of the above.
You can then have the Picatinny left as one-piece,
or have it cut into a 2-piece set with cross-slots where you want them.
Even Seyfried-Schtick style.

Rip ...

devere,

I found your article in the next magazine after the one posted above, cover, off the internet.
That one was the issue preceding the official 125th Anniversary issue, sitting next to it on the bookshelf at home.
Both are worth re-reading:



If you want any excerpts from your magazine article "reviewed" let me know.

Here are some more Pre-'64 bases pictures. I have rigged them for 1950, 1952, and 1958, as well as the later Classics and an FN/SC, with proper hole spacing noted this time, best I can tell:



8x40-ed and J-B-Welded, as shown above.

Next, you can make the .30-06-length action's bases work, by drilling another hole in the rear base, and shimming as needed.
You will have a little overhang of the top side of the action port,
Seyfried-Schtick style:



Post-'63, a circa 2012 .375 H&H Alaskan:



Connecticut RUM actions that were re-barreled and re-stocked:



8x40-ing and J-B-Welding never hurts, IMHO:





Leupold, Warne, Burris, and Weaver steel, cross-slot bases are my favorites for big bores,
but obviously the aluminum-alloy Weaver bases are plenty good for a .375 H&H. Must have some titanium in them.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Adams:

The center-to-center hole spacing of the rear holes is .604, and Weaver does make a rear mount with that spacing (#79); however, the real problem is the off-set in height between the front ring and the rear of the receiver where the #79 rear mount would attach....


Surely mine can't be the first early (pre-war) Model 70 that someone tried to get set up for mounting a scope.


Thanks!

Pre-War Model 70's were only drilled and tapped for scope mounts on the receiver ring. The holes in the bridge were added later.

You might consider plugging one hole and adding another to create the correct spacing for the correct height base. I doubt that you would be destroying any collector value.

* * * Anything xausa says about the Pre-War M70 can be taken to the bank.

I would grab the bases with proper hole spacing and wrong heights (Weaver or whatever) and use them as templates for the hole spacing on some custom Picatinny rail.
Have a gunsmith contour the bottom of the Picatinny properly.
Some of the Picatinny's like the Leupold Mark 4 have a lot of metal, stand proud, higher than needed.
Plenty of room to shave the bottom of the rail at front instead of shimming it at rear,
or a combination of lowering the front and raising the rear, etc.
A virgin Picatinny rail may be the best bet if you have a gunsmith who can properly contour it.
Also as xausa says, you may plug a hole in the bridge and drill another one,
or some combination of all of the above.
You can then have the Picatinny left as one-piece,
or have it cut into a 2-piece set with cross-slots where you want them.

Thanks for the reply, RIP.

Yeah, I'm not interested in drilling additional holes in my granddad's rifle.

But I think the idea of using the two holes in the Weaver #79 rear base (.604" spacing) as the template for fashioning some sort of custom picatinny mount is the way to go.

It appears to me the 'smith would have to do a lot of shimming to bring the Weaver rear #79 base up level with the base on the front ring.

I guess I could also live with keeping it as is and shoot it with the iron aperture sight.

You can buy Weaver base stock and a smith can mill it to fit.

The picanney bases are backwash from the AR milsurp rifles IMO..I suspect they work, but I would opt for a set of Weaver bases for Weaver rings on a big bore, mostly because the Weaver base clears the rear sight picture..

M choice of rings and bases is claw mounts, and H&H type side detachable scope rings, but expensive as hell..

Talleys QDs are outstanding scope mounts, and work with the Talley QD peep sight

Leupold QD are as good as they come as long as you have testosterone control..Just finger snug is perfect..Those that use pliers, hammer and punches condeme them..the duh crowd.

Lots of good none detachable, Redfield, Leupold and many others, I love those old Redfields..and keep in mind they all have extension bases to allow for short or long scopes..

I like the 3X, 4X, Leupolds best for big game hunting and I have a few 2.5x8, 2x7x28 and 3x9s and they are OK, on some guns but for myself I much prefer fixed power scopes, guess that comes with age!

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_Helm:
You can buy Weaver base stock and a smith can mill it to fit.

Source for that?

Brownell's, steel or aluminum

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:
Brownell's, steel or aluminum

Yep that is right and just google Picatinny rail for sale and you will find others, stainless, chromoly, aluminum,
in inches and feet of length.
Aluminum is good enough for traditional .375 H&H and lesser whomp, and makes for lighter weight.
There's a noticeable weight difference with a full rail Picatinny, between steel and aluminum, maybe a couple of ounces.

The ready-made two-piece bases and one-piece rails are nice if you can make them work by drilling a hole here and shimming there.

Getting this straight in my head:

Weaver-style, steel, 2-piece bases, I have used:
Leupold QRW has one cross-slot on front base.
Warne Maxima has two cross-slots on front base.
Burris Xtreme tactical has three cross-slots on front base.

There's more than one way to skin this cat.

Rip ...

Regarding hole spacings, my best guesses using calipers on my rifles and internet hearsay,
any corrections appreciated from sumbuddy who know:

Pre-War M70
Front: 0.850"
Rear: Custom drilled, such as 0.604" on standard action, and ?.???" on H&H action

Pre-'64 (Post-War) M70
Standard action:
Front: 0.850"
Rear: 0.850"
H&H action:
Front: 0.850"
Rear: 0.425"

Connecticut Classic M70
Standard action:
Front: 0.850"
Rear: 0.850"
H&H action:
Front: 0.850"
Rear: 0.330"

FN/South Carolina/Portugal M70
Same as Connecticut Classic M70

The short/super-short actions are above my pay grade.

Rip ...