I have a pre 64 mdl 70 .375 that came with bueler mounts. When I tried to mount a leopold 3.5x10 vx3 everything fits perfect but the bolt just barely hits the rear scope bell when working the action. What mounts would give me clearance but not be to high??

Mamba---

You have the best mount made. Just get a set of medium rings.

JBelk,

Are you saying the Buehler mount is the best made in terms of build quality, design, or some other factor? I never cared for the looks of these and only owned one set (which came on a used rifle, and which I promptly removed).

Please share your thoughts on these mounts, as I'm curious to learn more.

Thanks,
Kurt

Moleman--

The Bueller mounts are probably the most accurately fitted and machined scope mount ever made commercially. They have an internal recoil shoulder (no need for bigger screws), the offset between front and rear are machined to locate off the front ring and the rear is shimmed and bedded so the scope isn't bent. (Seems so right, but so rare now days.....lapping the rings on a bent base seems so stupid by camparison)

Bueller mounts are NOT for the ham-handed backyard hammer mechanic that cinches down all the screws with locktite and calls it good. They were designed and built to be fitted *right* and perform better than anything else on the market......and they do.

They're very strong, light weight, good looking, and have the best polish and blue of any mount on the market, too.

I'm ALWAYS looking for the two piece bases for a small Sako.

JBelk,

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't care for the look of the vertically split rings or the front base overhaning the ejection port, but I have to admit the finish was superb on the set I had.

Kurt

JBelk
Where would talley fit in your opinion?
Jeff

JeffP---

Talley rings are great, but they need to be put on custom bases to take advantage of their excellent workmanship.

You SURE CAN'T count on factory rifles to be made accurate enough in dimensions to work with two piece bases made in one size. There's just NO way to do it unless you measure the bases then grind the action to match.

JBelk
So either way buehler or tally the bases should
be machined to fit the action?
Jeff

JeffP----

Bueller bases were made with the contour cut for the front ring exactly square with the mounting holes. That means the one piece base will be parallel to the bore when the two front screws are tightened. The REAR portion of the base was cut a smidge too deep. That means the rear of the one piece base usually doesn't touch the rear bridge. Use plug gauges or feeler gauge stock to MEASURE how far above the bridge the base is. THAT'S the thickness of shim stock required to make the mount solid to the gun.

Of course most don't check this and just haul off and tighten all the screws which bends the base, offsets the rings so that they're no longer in line.....which, of course, also bends the scope.....THEN some honyock will insist on lapping the rings which ruins them.

Very early Redfields were machined the same way.

It takes a certain amount of analytical skills to attach parts without stresses.......those skills seem to be largely lost from what I see posted and written in the popular literature.

It's frustrating.

Or you can try the simple approach to all this and build a set of rings and bases that have what we in tha aerospace industry call manufacturing joints. They are features that allow tolerance buildup while still maintaining a stress free, slop free joint.

Sako's already done it with the Optilock. The dovetail takes up any longitudinal tolerances, while the spherical insert takes up any radial and transversal tolerances.

Machining everything to fit up perfectly went out with Eisenhower.