I've mounted my Leupold 1.5-5x20mm scope on my .375 M-70 using Talley rings and mounts, and I think I have a problem. I had to mount the scope pretty far back so that I can see through it. Now the objective lens is well inside the ring. Posters here say this is bad, but I've not heard the solution.

What should I do? Are there offset rings? Or should I get a different scope (not my first choice)? Or some other answer?

Thanks, folks. You truly are a fount of wisdom.

Pertinax

Oops! You've gone and ruined that rifle and scope!

Just pack it up and send it me, and I'll send you a check for what they're worth as scrap.

Sorry, man. I don't use the 1.5x-5x scopes on my M-70s. Are you saying that you can't get 3.7" of eye relief at 5x with the scope mounted further forward?

George

Scrap? Hah! The gun shoots WELL. I mounted a higher-power scope on the gun previously, and it did actually shoot sub-one inch groups (something I claim about none of my other guns). The thing is a sweetheart. Without a scope, that stock design bruises my face, but with a scope, it's pleasant and hits exactly where pointed.

Besides, the bolt handle is probably on the wrong side for you.

I'm not sure what the mounting problem is. It's not really an issue at 1.5, but at 5X the scope needs to be that far back for me to be able to see the full field of view. Just something to do with the geometry of me, the stock, the scope, and the mounts. Frankly, I'd like to move the scope back another half inch or so, but I'm already at the point where the end of the scope is nearly flush with the ring!

BTW, a 300 gr. Hornady Interlock (the sub-1" load) did a number on a 6-pt. buck last month. Hit him about 4" below the spine toward the back of his lungs, and he fell like a wet towel. Never even kicked.

Pertinax

Pertinax,

I've recently mounted a Leupold 1.75-6x32 E on a .416 M70 using Talley with good results. This scope and your 1.5-5x20 are similar in eye relief. I do not think you should have to move the scope back abnormally to see through it. A big plus for the 1.5-5 is the generous eye relief. I think the scope is faulty.

B

The scope might be faulty. I bought it used, and it appears to be an older model. It currently has duplex crosshairs, but I want German #4, so I may be sending it to Leupold anyway. Presumably they would correct any problems at that time.

Anybody else got an opinion on this?

Pertinax

Hello Pertinax,

I don't think you're going to like my reply, but here it is anyway....

I too bought an M70 in 375 H&H (Stainless Classic), and wanted to mount the Leupold 1.5-5X20 scope on it. The length of the action precluded (at least to me) the use of "standard" rings and bases. I ended up using Warne matte steel Weaver-style bases, extended in front, regular in back, and Burris Signature Zee-rings. Works great and the front ring is spaced evenly between the turret and the front of the scope. The extended front base hangs over the front of the ejection port, but does not hamper function in any way. Eye relief is AOK for me.

I tried it with extended Warne bases both front and rear, but the rear base really covered up a lot of the back of the ejection port and put the rings too close together for my taste.

So, unfortunately, my "solution" is to forget the Talleys and go Weaver-style....

Good luck, let us know how it works out!

Bill

Pertinax- Trust me you want the leupold gold ring to be at least 1/2 inch in front of the rings. Otherwise you run a high risk of cracking the objective. The solution is simple. By a Warne extended base for your M70. You may have to buy a foreward and rear extended set. Make sure you get the correct screw spacing as this is different for Preand post 64 M70's. This easily solves the problem on the M70. -Rob

Pertinax,

I'm a lefty, too, remember?

Your 1.5x-5x may not have the 3.7" of eye relief @ 5x that current models do. It's possible that Leupold can correct that for you when you have the reticle changed.

I would check with Talley as to whether they have a solution (hopefully, extension rings, not bases; extension bases can interfere with ejection).

I use Leupold QR rings on my LH M-70 .375, and Kimber-style QD rings on my LH M-70 .470 Capstick.
They have worked just fine for me, and they may work for you if you cannot get the Talleys to work for you (in which case I'd buy them from you).

Rob,
Do the Talley rings work with Warne bases?

George

Robgunbuilder: OK, so I have a stupid question. Will the Talley rings fit the Warne bases? I assume not. Will any old ring do?

Pertinax

George:

I didn't remember you were another lefty. But you still can't have it!

You may be right about the eye relief on the scope. It really does look pretty old. Perhaps I'll measure it and see what I can find out.

I'll check with Talley about offset rings.

Pertinax

Pertinax,
I cannot understand your problem, I checked all my M-70's pre 64 and post 64...I am miffed...I have 1" protrusion in front and 1.5" extension passed the cocking piece, in the rear.. Now that is as far back as any scope should be set...All have Talleys and 1.5x5 or 1x4 Leupolds.

You have a problem I realize, but what is causing it disturbs me...wrong bases? stock too long? bases on backwards? scope out of adjustment? Improper hold of the rifle? could be the problem.

If you have a custom rifle builder or a really good gunsmith around, perhaps you should contact him or contact Talley and discuss it with them, perhaps send the gun to them....You shouldn't be having that problem.

Pertinax- Not a stupid question at all! I suggest you don't use the Talleys but buy Warne Rings instead meade for a weaver base. They are innexpensive and really work well. Sorry, but those Talleys are expensive aren't they.-Rob

BTW, those above measurments are from a Win. CFR in 416 Rem....

So, you guys that can't get Talleys to work with 1.5x5 Leupolds did something wrong...

I will be glad to email you a photo of the 416 if it would help...

Ray,

Can you see the full field of view of the scope with it set to 5X, mounted like that? Perhaps my stock is too long for me, but it doesn't feel that way. Thanks for the offer of the picture, but I don't think it's necessary, as your description is quite clear.

Rob,

I'm going to keep playing with this, before I give up and change away from the Talleys. I have Talleys (holding a Leupold 2.5X fixed) on my .458 Lott, and I rather like the idea of having interchangeable scopes in case of breakage.

Which brings up another point: do any of you gentlemen have a Leupold 2.5 in Talleys, in addition to the 1.5-5, on similar guns? Are they mounted with the same amount of scope "overhang"?

I can slide the scope forward, but I'll lose the ability to see the entire field of view without moving my head forward. That may be acceptable, at least until I send the scope off to Leupold for a reticle change and check-up.

Pertinax

pertinax - just a different thought for you as you may not have a real problem. I have a Mod 70 in 416 Rem and I installed a 2-7x Leupold on it with the regular Leupold rings/bases (narrow screw spacing on the rear base). This combination has virtually no adjustment of the scope fore or aft in the rings and the eyepiece is roughly as far back as the bolt. This is where I prefer my scopes to be located. Subsequently, when it is set on any power from 2x to 4x the field of view is adequate in my normal shooting positions, but on 5x and higher I have to crawl the stock a little to get a full field of view. Just my thoughts.

And I believe Rob is correct, you need the golden ring located about a half inch forward of the front ring to minimize possible damage to your scope.

While the Talley rings look real nice, in reality I've found the much cheaper Warne's to work just as well and you gain an enormous amount of versatility with their available bases and the available custom blank bases let you solve nearly every scope mounting delemma easily.
I've honestly only used talleys on really big stuff with Expensive scopes like Swarovski's etc. I like my scopes mounted as low as possible and with long enough tubes that I don't have to worry about problems like this.-Rob

Thanks, Rob. I'll keep that in mind.

I'll attempt to slide the scope forward before I shoot it again.

Pertinax

My situation is the same as what Guy reports, on the lower powers position is perfect but when set on highr you have to crawl the stock just a tad. The scope position like this suits me to.

Guy the 2-7 leupold I have mounted on my cz rigby in cz rings is set exactly like your .416 by the sounds of it.

Pertinax,
robgunbuilder is right about the ring being over the front lense. On My M70 416, with the regular warne rings,for it to be comfortable for me , the ring was right on the lense. After several shots it broke it. An extention on the front ring that moves the ring back into the scope will solve the problem.

I have a M70 416Rem with a new leupold 1.5x5 on it in Leupold steel weaver QR mounts. Yes at 5x you may lose a bit of FOV, but it seems to be meaning less to me,who looks at the edge of the FOV? I think this is actualy a good setup in that a shot with the scope on 5x is going to be a setup shot and you will tend to crawl the stock a bit but you can be sure you will never get cut by the scope. You may want to have someone watch you shoot the rifle and look at your head placement. Keeping your head a bit more forward gives you a good check weld and lessens felt recoil at least to me. Good luck with it.

Guy,

Sounds like you are using the standard Leupold B/R set with the rotating dovetail front and windage adjustable rear. This is what I'm currently using on my M-70 416. Detachable doesn't matter to me for now as Africa is still many years away.

My problem is the front base is one of those reversable kind with the dovetail's slot(hole) is not between the mounting screws but rather hangs off the end. In the reverse position, the front ring winds up over the ejection port, while in the forward position the front ring is out over the barrel. As a result when using a Leupold M8-3x scope, the front ring is too near the gold ring of the scope.

Has anyone used a "standard" front Leupold base that has the dovetail slot BETWEEN the mounting screws and will it work ok on one of the long express action? Is it height compatible with the rear base (narrow screw spacing) I'm using right now?

Pertinax,
the gold ring on my .
1.5x5 Leupold on my 416 is .350 or almost a 1/4" in front of my Talley front ring...I have a clear view of my scope at 5X and no problems..I have been using them for years on my Dangerous Game Rifles...

It appears to me that one or two things are taking place and that is you are holding your rifle improperly, with head back too far or the stock should be shortened by a 1/4" or so...remember it does not take a lot of stock shortening to make a big difference.

I believe a certain amount of stock crawling is necessary for proper rifle handling in the game fields...All the good game shots I have known crawled the stock to one degree or another...

It is important that the gold ring on the Leupold be well in front of the foreward scope ring. If you don't mount it that way, be assured it will eventually break. Depending on the rings , use either an extended base or have the ring machined back to provide adequate clearance. I would think the 1/4 to 1/2 inch would be optimum.
As far as crawling the stock, First question is have you mounted the scope as low as it can go? Many people make the mistake of using medium to high rings, which force you to hold your head up unnecessarily and contributes to scope cuts. You will crawl the stock to get a better sight picture at higher magnification in this situation.
Oftentimes, with the right ring and base combinations, you can get a scope incredibly far down I like mine to the point where I just have bolt handle clearance( maybe 1/4 inch) at the eyepiece. I will even grind down my bolt handles to achieve this clearance rather than use a med or high ring. If you use a long bolt handle this is not a problem at all. With a scope this low, I find three major advantages. The first is that recoil occurs more in a straight line and the gun torques up less. It's much much easier to shoot this way! Second you get a much better check weld. Third, you won't get hit by the scope,thus, avoiding those nasty little scars of honor!
The only minor difficulty you will observe with this set-up is that at higher magnifications, you can see the front barrel band in the scope which can be a little distracting till you get used to it and pay no attention to it.
You have to play around with a number if different combinations till you find one that works, but the benefits are significant! This is one of the reasons why some people can shoot real heavy big bores with no problems and others are scared away the first time they try one.-Rob

[ 12-09-2002, 00:12: Message edited by: Robgunbuilder ]

bjdoerr - I don't mean to hijack pertinax's post but to answer your question. I purchased two sets of bases to install the 2x-7 scope on my 416. The set that Leupold recommends for the "express action" Mod 70 has the extended front base which I did not like. So I purchased that set (for the narrow rear hole spacing) and also the standard set of bases that have the front dovetail located between the screws on the front base. This combination of using the rear of the express base and the front of the standard set of bases doesn't allow for any extra fore/aft location of the 2x-7 Leupold scope on an express action. But it does locate the scope were I usually set the scopes on my other rifles. We found this combination worked out well when we installed a 3x-9 Leupold on a Mod 70 Super Grade in 300 Ultra the same way.

I hope that makes sense.

Robingunbuilder,
I guess I caused that long post, when I said .350 behind the front ring, I ment behind the GOLD FRONT RING.

I have no problems with the 1.5x5 Leupold on any Winchester with Talley R&B's..No one will unless they hold the gun improperly or should I say differently...If one has a problem then he probably has an ill fitting stock.

If anyone is confused I can email photos to you showing how I have my scopes mounted..They are in Low rings, all of them..I use standard bases.

Rob,

I've got the low Talley rings for all the reasons you mention, and yes, I can absolutely see the front sight through the scope-- along with about 18" of barrel!

Ray may have this figured out. The stock may be too long for me. I need to play with that a bit before having it cut.

You guys have convinced me to slide the scope forward before I shoot it any more.

Thanks for all the advice.

Pertinax

Guy,

I didn't mean to hijack pertinax's thread, but you did exactly what I wanted to try with my 416. Your explanation is perfectly clear and I'll set about mounting my Leupold in a much more satisfactory manner.

Thanks,
Brian