Want to attach a G&H Sidemount to a Mauser action.
Need details how the plane sideplate is adapted to the radius of the sidewall of the action.

Is the sidewall flattened or the plate radiussed ?

Picture from the bottom of an action so equipped would help.

I suggest you email Griffin and Howe directly.


www.griffinhowe.com

Best,

Jeff

On the two that I have, the base is radiused to match the receiver.

And then you drill and tap the receiver for the attach screws; another Mauser for the scrap pile.

So following your advise it would be better taking an action from the scrap pile for the intended purpose

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:
And then you drill and tap the receiver for the attach screws; another Mauser for the scrap pile.

I see you belong to the Roy Dunlap school of thought that the G&H mount is "fairly popular with the dilettante set of sportsmen, but is not considered strong or rigid enough for the dyed-in-the-wool shooter."

We dilettantes, however, never consider the negative side of "ruining" an action by drilling it for a G&H mount. The action is "ruined" only if you remove the mount base, and I personally have never seen the need for this.

In addition to my G&H sporters, I probably have a dozen more rifles with G&H mounts and have never experienced any problem with them. On the contrary, they are the only currently available mount which leaves the top of the receiver completely uncluttered for use of iron sights and allow a scope to be mounted lower than any other available mount, making the stock fit for a scope virtually the same as for iron sights. The return to zero feature is as good or better than any other detachable mount on the market.

(I stress the term "available", because the G&H mount is no better than the Noske and Niedner mounts which preceeded it, although it is decidedly superior to the AKAH mount which enjoys a certain amount of popularity in Europe.)

The G&H mount designed for the M1C sniper rifle was certainly rugged enough to hold up under combat conditions and is still the best solution to the problem of scoping the M1 without interfering with clip loading.

Yup!

For me with the G&H mounts it is not a question of strength or repeatability. I believe that they are well proved in those areas.

It is the fact that they are ugly as hell. When I shop for used guns, I consider a G&H side-mount a negative feature.

There are plenty of solutions to leaving the top of the reciever uncluttered by ugly mounting bases. Especially without permenetly drilling holes in the side of a perfectly good reciever. The G&H mount is about as inelegant as it gets. Just nasty.

Did I mention I think that they are fucking ugly mounts that ruin otherwise perfectly good classic rifles???

I realise some may disagree with me on this issue.

But friends don't let friends put G&H sidemounts on mausers.


.

quote:

Originally posted by TwoZero:
Did I mention I think that they are fucking ugly mounts that ruin otherwise perfectly good classic rifles???

I realise some may disagree with me on this issue.

.

Among those who disagree with you are the buyers of four Griffin & Howe sporters I recently sold on AR, all with G&H side mounts.

I've used the Jaeger side mounts for years on my favorite rifles with perfect satisfaction and perfect repeatability when removed/replaced. They're basically identical in function to the G&H and they even share some of the same dimensions including ring and base interchangeability. IMO Dunlap is wrong, wrong, wrong on this one, and also IMO his attitude reflects either ignorance of G&H's attachment methods or else blind post-war prejudice.

Here's my setup for grinding the inside of the blank base to fit the side of the receiver.

I first measure the needed height-from-centerline to clear the scope and then I mark it on the inside of the blank base in a series of parallel lines. I clamp the base in the lathe's milling attachment and grind the concavity with a Brownell's screwdriver bit grinding wheel held in a specially-fabbed fixture. The parallel lines help in keeping everything centered and at the same depth throughout the length of the base.

I have drilled the first holes for the side screws but have not countersunk them yet on the outside face. Also have not yet drilled for the locator pins.

G&H and most prewar installers used soft solder for attachment in addition to the 3 screws and 2 hardened pins; this is one reason that I say Dunlap is wrong. He sounds like E.C.Crossman, full of the Not Invented Here Syndrome (and its effluent, grin). Today many installers would use one of the stronger epoxies in additon to the screws and pins, some of them are measurably stronger than soft solder.

If you don't like 'em, fine, don't use 'em. But IMO a quality side mount will ALWAYS be my first choice for a 1903 Springfield or a Mauser with a Banner on the front ring or a Mannlicher-Schoenauer.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by TwoZero:
There are plenty of solutions to leaving the top of the reciever uncluttered by ugly mounting bases.

But friends don't let friends put G&H sidemounts on mausers.
.

I challenge you to show us some of these solutions. What have YOU PERSONALLY done to solve the problem on a Mauser Banner?

And perhaps more importantly, what solution do you offer that is affordable for most of us?
Regards, Joe

This is a pre-WW I Mauser sporter marked WAFFENFABRIK MAUSER A-G OBERNDORF AN U.S. 1906. It is caliber .30-'06, and marked "7,6S" on the barrel. When I obtained it, the bolt handle had already been altered as shown and the stock cut for a side mount base. The receiver had been drilled for a side mount, also.

I took the rifle to Griffin & Howe, had them mount an early windage adjustment side mount on it, using the existing holes, and received it back in this condition, with a vintage Unertl hunting scope mounted.

It had lost its collector value when the bolt was altered and the stock modified, but it maintains its value as a useful hunting rifle with the inscription on the receiver ring untouched.

From a European viewpoint ALL US top mounts of the Redfield "Turn In" type and really rubbish.

They give the illusion of being able to take a 'scope off, say for travel, but really are hopeless.

"Return to Zero"? You're having a laugh!

That includes the European APEL type mounts which are no more or less expensive variations on the Redfield theme.

The only decent top mounts are claw mounts. Period.

I, for one, applaud G & H for making sidemounts and regret that Pachmayr's version is now no longer available.

Holland use their own sidemount system of which the Prechtl is a good direct replication. And currently available (at a price). Better than the G & H in my opinion.

Churchill also used a sidemount that was pretty good. Again with an excellent "Return to Zero".

As others say, why would you ever take the sidemount base off the rifle?

I would not hesitate in putting a sidemount on a working rifle. If it's good enough for G & H (and Holland and Holland) I'll take it too.

Rubbish, I have and have had many rifles used daily with no pampering in the harsh conditions of wilderness BC and Alberta, that have worn various American mounts, the original Redfield design included. These are .338WM., .375H&H and 9.3x62 rifles and loaded with heavy Nosler Partition bullets at top, safe velocities.

I am of half British extraction, very "pro" British and have owned pristine "name" British firearms. However, I have often noticed that some or even many Brits have this attitude where they disparage American guns and those of other nations. This is a bit offensive from someone with 30 years as a "professional hunter" and both amusing and ludicrous when the individual concerned is some urbanite from a British city.......working rifle... in England, really?

Perhaps, take a look at "Old Ugly", the legendary .458WM on a MKX action used for decades by Phil Shoemaker in Brown Bear territory in Alaska. He used a Redfield bridge mount and with total success until he wore it out. Now, THAT is a REAL ...working rifle...

I had a gorgeous Oschatz custom 9.3x62 with correctly installed claw mounts, don't like them in wet BC conditions. I have a very sanitary Type B Oberndorf sporter in 9.3x62, as fine a dangerous soft skin game rifle as you can find and it wears EAW mounts, among the best I have used, of scores of different ones, over 46 years of packing rifles here.

I do not care for G&H sidemounts, sold a pristine P-64 Supergrade that had them; this is just me and others do like them. I use plain old Leupold QR 1-piece mts, high rings, installed steel receiver sights and Sourdough fronts or Brockman-Talley setups on my Mod. 70s and have for almost 20 years of horseback, backpacking, aircraft and boats and hav never had a single issue with these in all of that time.

I am not keen on British scope mounts, too heavy, too complex and far too costly, as with most "name" British rifles, as contrasted with the German, American and older Chech rifles in the same chamberings. I will take my P-64 Mod 70s over the H&H bolts I have shot and could have bought...and, I had the $$$$$, I just think they are overpriced.

As to ....rubbish..., very simply, the USA has and can make, dollar for dollay, the best rifles of anyone and has been doing this for well over a century. I will always take a P-64 .375 for a wilderness DGR over any British rifle I have seen as the utility/value is far better.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
I challenge you to show us some of these solutions. What have YOU PERSONALLY done to solve the problem on a Mauser Banner?

Claw mounts, and EAW swing off mounts do not have to cover the mauser banner. But then I'm not a stickler if the crest or 'banner" is covered because if you are altering a rifle that much - it's not a collector's item anymore.

I would have no problem installing two false square bridges and having a swing off mount attach to those.

http://www.recknagel.de/Joomla/en/catalogue-6.html
These guys have plenty of options. Scroll down and download part4: Mounts II - and you will see what I am getting at.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
And perhaps more importantly, what solution do you offer that is affordable for most of us?

"Affordable" is a very relative term, and depends a great deal on how willing one is to save to get what they want.

And if you read my previous posts I have never said that G&H style mounts didn’t deliver the goods. In fact I would suspect that they would not be around as long as they have been if they didn’t.

I just think that they’re ugly as hell.

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:
Among those who disagree with you are the buyers of four Griffin & Howe sporters I recently sold on AR, all with G&H side mounts.

WHAT???? You actually found more people who would probably disagree with me???

No way, dude. Say it ain’t so! That just tears my fragile little ego apart…

Oh, why oh why did I log on to AR!? My skin is so thin! My self-esteem can’t take the hit!

Damn you Xausa! Damn you to Hell!!!!!!


.

Hilarious!!!

And from an American standpoint, I really don't give a Fat Rats Ass What you and your pals think. There are more firearms owned in my town of 150 thousand than all of London. American firearms are made for the average man, who, unlike you in the UK and most of europe, Can and Do own as many firearms as they wish. And I would not be surprised at all if I own more English firearms than you do. The day of England being more than an blip on the screen of firearms manufacturing are so long past that it is not worth mentioning. I guess that psuedo-elitist attitude is one of the many reasons we kicked your Imperial asses out of here a long time ago. Have a nice day!

quote:

Damn you Xausa! Damn you to Hell!!!!!!


.

Does this mean you don't want to buy one of my Griffin & Howe sporters?

I am fortunate to own a pristine MS Mod.1952, which is generally considered as the finest of all turn bolt style rifles ever made, and it does indeed have a Griffin and Howe side mount w/ Unertl 4x Hawk scope and can't imagine anything more appropriate.(actually one does not have other good choices) The rifle, mount, scope is from G&H and the workmanship is excellent in all respects. I favor the G&H side mount so much am most likely going to thave my Browning Safari Grade FN Mauser fitted as well. Only negative to me is the initial cost of the system, but as always, the best costs more.

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:
Does this mean you don't want to buy one of my Griffin & Howe sporters?

Am I really that easy to read???

Damn...


.

quote:

Originally posted by MFD:
I am fortunate to own a pristine MS Mod.1952, which is generally considered as the finest of all turn bolt style rifles ever made, and it does indeed have a Griffin and Howe side mount w/ Unertl 4x Hawk scope and can't imagine anything more appropriate.(actually one does not have other good choices) The rifle, mount, scope is from G&H and the workmanship is excellent in all respects. I favor the G&H side mount so much am most likely going to thave my Browning Safari Grade FN Mauser fitted as well. Only negative to me is the initial cost of the system, but as always, the best costs more.

The M-S is indeed a fine piece and my current .30-06 carbine, the third I have owned since 1968, is scary accurate and shoots a 180NP at 2725 fps-mv. I detest side mounts on these, but, know others who have and like them....variety, spice, life and all that!

I have Browning Safaris as well and had others, I prefer Talleys on these and just sold an FN sporter which may also wear Talley's. I find the G&H mounts too bulky for these rifles, especially in saddle scabbards and I have used these Brownings for working rifles in Grizzly country, often solo for months in the mountains, since 1967. Again, just my preference.

I would not consider the M-S to be the pinnacle of sporting production bolt rifles; I think that the later Brno 21/22 and early ZG-47s, those with polished recievers, are the finest and the early FN C-rings are next...I have several of each plus Obie Mauser sporter, lots of P-64-70s, Dakota 76 and so on and this is my feeling....but, I would buy another pristine M-S in a heartbeat!

Man, look at the production rifles of 60 years ago and then, what we are offered now...enough to make a guy almost weep!

quote:

Originally posted by lee440:
And from an American standpoint, I really don't give a Fat Rats Ass What you and your pals think. There are more firearms owned in my town of 150 thousand than all of London. American firearms are made for the average man, who, unlike you in the UK and most of europe, Can and Do own as many firearms as they wish. And I would not be surprised at all if I own more English firearms than you do. The day of England being more than an blip on the screen of firearms manufacturing are so long past that it is not worth mentioning. I guess that psuedo-elitist attitude is one of the many reasons we kicked your Imperial asses out of here a long time ago. Have a nice day!

Number of firearms owned is not an indicator of anything except relative wealth and relative interests. Your ignorance is showing, too bad.

US scopes are the best IMO, but also IMO most US mounts really suck. The US scopes, unlike most Euros, usually have adequate eye relief and so can utilize many different sorts and styles of mounts. Most Euros don't and can't.

Ugly? You wanta talk UGLY? Just take any Weaver-style base & ring combination and compare it to anything else! Leupold QRs are good but their QRWs are flat-out ugly and their sharp corners are extremely irritating to me. Same with
Warnes, with all their sharp corners and awkward protruberances they look like they were designed by somebody in a third-world country! The Redfield with Pilkington QD lever is a joke if anyone ever tries to remove and replace the scope with any expectation of repeatability.

You don't mind covering up the Banner? Then I suggest you use a Spanish Mauser receiver, nobody will ever know the difference and you can claim whatever your little heart desires!

Talleys are good and also attractive. Early Kimbers are also good and they're basically identical to the G&H and Billingsley/Brownell top mounts.

Claw mounts? Not available in the US for any reasonable price. I personally think it's relative insanity to spend more on the mount than on the scope and I won't do it. Plus, most claw mounts are designed to mount the Euro-design scopes and so require lots of compromises for what most of us would consider a successful installation.

Yes, many side mounts are somewhat awkward in some applications such as the Kolpin Gun Boot or some of the cheaper unlined saddle scabbards. Yes, G&H's charge for their installation is more like ransom than a smithing fee. Yes, many side mounts require a little more than the usual knowledge to install properly. And yes, they were Not Invented Here.

So if you don't like the side mounts then don't use 'em. But some of you sound MIGHTY defensive of your (inferior, IMO) US mounts. And your defensiveness is quite understandable to me......

I DON'T think you'll see any Redfield or Weaver-style mounts on anything much more expensive or elegant than an assault rifle. Conetrol maybe, they are elegant and attractive, but they aren't removable. And I for one have had too many bad experiences in the past to risk a hunt without a backup sighting system.
Regards, Joe

With the availability of Leupy QRs, Talleys and I have a set of early Kimbers left of those I bought and mounted when they were introduced, I just do not see any advantage in the GH setup.

MY setup on Mod. 70s, the P-64 .300H&H and .375H&H rifles I have excepted, is inexpensive, very rugged and reliable and has worked for me since 1991. The Talleys simply kick ass and mine are setup to use the little Talley peep, which works fine, once sighted in and is "there" in your pack, if you need it....just as with the Lyman 48 slide beloved of JOC.

I had Conetrols on a pair of Brno ZKK-601s I customized in the early '80s, gorgeous mounts, but, for MY uses, the Brno/CZ-Talleys are better.

"Horses for courses", I guess and I agree on QRWs, but, I use and like them on my .375s and probably will on the Browning Safari .458WM I am maybe going to have Martini's customize for me.

...defensive..., nah, Joe, you are just kinda feisty this morning!

quote:

The only decent top mounts are claw mounts. Period.

.

I have claw mounts on my Krieghoff O/U double rifle, on my varios drillings and on two Oberndorf Type S sporters and a Mannlicher-Schoenauer 1910. They all work fine, but they have drawbacks.

First, the front ring has to be near the front of the scope. No problem with a straight tube scope, but with an enlarged objective lens, the body of the scope and the ocular are raised up to an objectionable level.

Second, claw mounts are generally placed to match a specific scope, and changing the scope for another of different power or other characteristics is often a problem. I have a Krieghoff combination gun with interchangeable rifle barrels in .222 Remington and .30-'06, which has two scopes mounted in claw mounts: a Leupold Vari-X III 1.5-5X for the .30-'06 and a Leupold Vari-X III 2.5-8X for the .222. The different length and differently shaped scopes require separate front bases for the claw mounts.

The Recknagel pivot mounts are better in both respects.

European friends tell me that claw mounts sometimes shoot loose, although I have not experienced this, even on my .458 Krieghoff.

That said, I'm not at all adverse to Weaver mounts, and have several on various "working" rifles, including the much battered pre-64 Model 70 .300 H&H, which has accompanied me on three trips to Africa and has accounted for about 90 head of plains game.

I don't much care for Redfields, having once had the lower part of a front ring separate from the upper part as a result of being installed on a rather heavy kicking .35 Brown Improved Whelen, but I do like Buehler mounts, which are much more robust in my opinion, but certainly not "quick detachable".

I like BRNO and Sako actions with built in bases, but BRNO bolt handles require alteration to allow scopes to be mounted low enough.

Chacun à son goût!

To return to the original question:

quote:

Originally posted by heavenknows:
Want to attach a G&H Sidemount to a Mauser action.
Need details how the plane sideplate is adapted to the radius of the sidewall of the action.

Is the sidewall flattened or the plate radiussed ?

Picture from the bottom of an action so equipped would help.

Griffin & Howe SIDEMOUNT Installation Instructions

Installation should be done only by a competent gunsmith.

TOOLS REQUIRED

#29 drill (#298)
#21 drill
#10 drill
#0 tapered reamer
9/32" counterbore

Remove barrel and action from stock. Mount scope into rings, and assemble sidemount together. Center base to loading port and clamp to action. Adjust to height desired and boresight. Top of base should be parallel to base of action and trued to perpendicular. Adjust scope so that rear on eyepiece is over the tang. Be sure to allow enough vertical clearance for the bolt to operate and clear the eye piece of the scope. Mark the front and rear of the base at the tangent point of the radius on the action.

Remove base and mill a radius in it to match the contour of the action. Clamp scope and mount to the action in desired position, aligning for parallelism, perpendicularity, clearance and location as above; then reboresight. In the set clamped position, drill 2 holes for #0 tapered pins with a #298 drill through base and action (see drawing for location) and ream holes with #0 tapered reamer and insert pins.

Drill 3 holes with #21 drill through base and action (see drawing). Remove base and tap the 3 holes in action with a 10-32 tap.

(For some reason the drawing didn't reproduce, but you can find all this information, including the drawing, on the Griffin & Howe web site)

Enlarge screw holes in base with #10 drill; then counterbore the holes so screw heads will seat flush when assembled. Trim any excess material from the bottom of the base, remove all burrs from base and action. Assemble base to action, fitting 2 pins and tightening 3 screws securely. Grind off any ends of screws and pins that protrude inside or outside of the action. Polish and reblue as necessary

It's interesting to me that apparently G&H no longer uses soft solder in addition to the screws and pins. Also there is no mention (here) of their past practice of finishing the side of the base so as to totally hide the pins and screw heads. I've seen the bases done both ways, with hidden attachments and with visible attachments, and to me the hidden treatment is preferable but not by much.

Here's a view of a side mount with one blank base (the lower one) for a Mannlicher-Schoenauer and another blank base (upper) relieved for a large-ring Mauser, along with the oversize screws I use for the 'hidden' application. BTW these are 10-36 rather than 10-32, really very little functional difference in the thread size.

Hope this further info will be of some help. Proper installation isn't as easy as with some top mounts but it's not beyond the ability of even the average craftsman here.

I personally like Talleys, Conetrols, QRs, Kimbers, Sakos and some claws. However the 'horses for courses' comment is very true, and not all rifles are adapted to the use of any of these mounts.

I cite the 1903 Springfield as perhaps one of the prime examples of this. How are you gonna mount a scope low enough on a 1903? Almost impossible without using a side mount. And how about a nice Mauser with a big pristine Banner on the front ring, are any of you seriously telling me that you'd drill & tap it and then cover it up with a Weaver base?

Please pardon me while I puke, your nickname needs to be Bubba.
Regards, Joe

My very nice 1937 vintage Type B, 9.3x62 WAS professionally D/T'ed to 8-40 screws and then EAW mounts installed. I use a Leupy 4x and it shoots sub-moa with 286NPs and 286 Hornady ILs to the same poi at 100m. This is in once-fired Norma brass over 66-Big Game and it should be going about 2500 at the muzzle; it kicks like my .338WM-250 rifles, too!

The "banner" is nice, but, this is a serious working rifle and I want the best sights I can get for my purpose; I was not going to spend $1500.00 on claw mounts as they are too prone to rust in wet BC and offer no superior performance over the EAWS. If, I did it again, I would use Talleys and I see no benefit to an undrilled, banner receiver ring on a hunting rifle.

I'm glad I'm not alone in not liking Redfield "Turn In" mounts!

To my mind the bases, because of the design, are just too high.

This means that fitting a 'scope to an older gun that carries iron sights either 1) Blocks the sight line on the iron sights 2) Dictates that the iron sights are replaced by a TALLER front and rear iron sight.

Also the system is too prone to wear on the pivot on the bottom of the front ring.

I have two of them, original Redfield "Turn In" mounts) on my Parker Hale M81 rifles (6mm Remington and 270 Winchester) but do I like them? No!

Will I change them? No as the alternatives at the same price aren't any much better. And still have those bases that are too high.

Apel mounts really are not more than the Redfield system with a few refinements but at extra cost. And you know what? That Apel pivot wears too.

The Mauser banner issue I don't really understand.

When Mauser made these things other gunsmiths fitting 'scopes AT THAT TIME would have had no issue covering the banner. So why worry about it now?

What I want is a mount system where I can take the 'scope off when the rifle is in transit and when I arrive where I am shooting put it back on with no loss of zero that can't be corrected with just three sighting-in shots.

Redfield "Turn In" mounts fail that test.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
The Mauser banner issue I don't really understand.

When Mauser made these things other gunsmiths fitting 'scopes AT THAT TIME would have had no issue covering the banner. So why worry about it now?.

AT THAT TIME they could always get plenty more Banner-marked Mausers, it wasn't anything unusual.

2 ways of looking at it, monetarily and aesthetically, both kinda tied together.

Monetarily we, the gun-buying and -using public, pay a somewhat exorbitant extra price for a genuine Mauser-made Mauser. One of the more desirable Mauser characteristics is their distinctive Banner on the front ring, also some of the better GB makers marked their rings with their own bespoke logos. When you compare the money value of a drilled Banner to the same action before the drilling took place, you'll quickly see the benefit of not defacing the ring.

Same with the aesthetics. A drilled Banner puts the action in the same class as any other common Mauser action in the minds of many of us. I'd hate to think that I wasn't smart enough to figure out a way to mount a scope without drilling the main feature that makes the action so unique and desirable in the first place!

Kinda like taking a nicely-case-colored-&-engraved original Parker shotgun action and then buffing and hot-bluing it. It's still the same action, isn't it? What difference does it make that the Parker name is now buffed?

If you don't know the answer to this then perhaps you need to go with Bubba and buy your rifles at Wally World. They sell Redfield mounts there too.....
Regards, Joe

Not to get flamed here, but why is it if you drill and tap the side of the receiver on a Mauser 98 it is ready for the scrap pile, but if you drill and tap the top of the receiver it is perfectly acceptable? THere is actually one more hole when using something like Redfield mounts as oposed to the G&H.
I have had four sporterized, semi custom, custom, or whatever you want to call them, 98 Mauser rifles. I solved the problem by only having open sights on all of them. Worked for me.
I do have an early pre-64 M70 in 375 H&H that I bought used about 25 years ago for the princely sum of $275. It came with a G&H side mount mounted and an old Weaver 4x. Has held up to many hunting trips, (I used it as my deer and elk rifle) and has always come back to zero when the scope is remounted. It does have open sights which I try to use if possible.

Personally I hate holes in the ring more than the side. if it is a cool ring.

that said, what about Conetrols new quick detach? I love their RINGS, but if somebody needs quick release I haven't tried their setup or even seen a picture (it sounds like from the description you need a tool and have to loosen both rings so not really quick detach). I find the obsession over quick release scope setups kind of entertaining. I can see the need in some situations, but for the most part, the scopes gonna stay on the rifle.

Red

Gentlemen ,thank you for the input to my initial question.
Contributing to the more general debate I go along with JDSteele and must add that the G&H mount is at least of contemporary uglyness but represents in my eyes the typical feature of a named American Company in those days , when the Mauser rifles were produced.
IMHO the Redfield (one piece) mount is the worst what can be done to a Mauser action. It can only be topped by a Picat.rail
Many of us have a different approach , but a few should not forget that it is a matter of philosophy and not ideology.

Then the Ruger 77 came along and solved the whole I need mounts problem.

I think that BRNO got there first with the excellent ZKK 600 series and dedicated one piece rail and Zeiss 'scope.

A little history (my view) on the side mount.

In the early years circa 1920's scopes were not used a lot on hunting rifles. When they became more popular the iron sight was still the sight of choice, almost always a Lyman 48.

The stock was designed for the iron sights and the scope was mounted if needed. What this meant was the hunter carried a scope in a holster on his belt and attached it when needed.

G&H has always, to the best of my recollection, have mounted the base with the screws and pins proud, milled them off flush and blued the base.

As more folks put scopes on their rifles they wanted them mounted lower. The stock style stayed the same, they just lowered the scope.

Now the Lyman 48 was in the way. Lyman build a blank for the 48 and gunmakers put a trapdoor in the butt to hold the Lyman 48.

For those who like neither Griffin & Howe side mounts, nor Griffin & Howe rifles, I am offering two Sedgley Springfield Sporters for sale in the Classified section.

Like Griffin & Howe, Sedgley like to obliterate all markings on the receiver ring, including the serial number. Unlike Griffin & Howe, instead of putting a new number on the barrel, he numbered the receivers in an obscure spot, in the striker raceway in the tang of the action.

Sedgley offered Springfield sporters in two versions: the Sporter De Luxe Model and the Springfield Sporter.

This rifle is an example of the De Luxe model.

Sedgley's 1936 catalog describes it as follows:

Circassian walnut stock with cheek piece and finely checkered pistol grip and fore-end, Buffalo horn tip, engraved trap butt plate and engraved steel pistol grip cap. Fine line engraving on trigger guard and floor plate with hunting scene, checked bolt knob and chromium plated bolt.

Springfield action and special barrel to Springfield Contour. Has Lyman No. 48 micrometer windgauge receiver sight, gold of ivory bead front sight mounted on matted ramp, with guard.

Stock specifications:
Length 13 1/2 inches
Drop 2 3/4 inches
Pitch 3 inches
Pistol grip 3 1/2 inches
Weight 8 lbs.
Comb to just miss bolt
Cheek piece

This particular model lacks the cheek piece and the engraving described above and has a plain steel buttplate, like that on a pre-War Model 70, with widow's peak, and a plain steel pistol grip cap.
Because of this, I am asking only $1450 for this rifle. Caliber .30-'06.





The Springfield Sporter is described as follows:

24 inch barrel, 5 shot magazine. Handsomely checkered on fore-end and on pistol grip, sling swivels, steel checkered butt plate and pistol grip cap.

Springfield action and special barrel to Springfield Contour. Has Lyman No. 48 micrometer windgauge receiver sight, gold of ivory bead front sight mounted on matted ramp, with guard.

The stock specifications are identical with the De Luxe model.

Both rifles are offered with a Featherweight barrel for $10.00 extra.

This rifle does have the featherweight barrel contour, like that of the Featherweight Model 70. Caliber .30-'06.

Because of the unusual Featherweight barrel, I am asking $1250 for this rifle.

When you consider the history of the transition to scopes, it is easier to understand the use of the sidemount. Until that time, precision metal sights were also mounted to the side of the receiver...peeps and other types of more sophisticated aperture sights. So when it came to mounting one of the new-fangled scope sights, it was natural to follow the same mounting techniques. Later, as scope mounting became the "norm", an easier way was developed in placing the scope above and in line with the bore of the barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
Later, as scope mounting became the "norm", an easier way was developed in placing the scope above and in line with the bore of the barrel.

I get the impression that you don't think that a scope in a G&H mount places the scope "above and in line with the bore of the rifle." Except for the offset arrangement on the M1 Garand, G&H and other side mounts do just that.

The first American scopes, all with external adjustments, were mounted on top of the rifle, as were most German mounts. The side mount seems to be a British development.

JD-

i have a couple of questions for you. I have a matched pair of rifles in mind (among the bazillion future gun projects Ihave in mind ) and they will both have G&H sidemounts. I have actually accumalted some parts for the pair, so it is ahead of most of the projects I have in mind.

First, i was curious about the use of a milling attachment to grind the radious.

Why do you grind instead of cut this?

Do you dress the stone to match the curve of the action, or do you use it the diameter is is when you get it from Brownell's?

Do you have any pics of you doing this? I am curious about the set up and how you make sure the mount is in line with the center of the spindle, how to be sure your feeds are tight, etc.

is this manner easier than setting it up in the mill and making the cut with a boring head, or soemthing like that? Or even to tile the head on the mill so a regular endmill will cut the proper radious? Or even to have a special ball end mill ground for perfect fit?

Secondly, well, iguess i just asked it above. I have a milling attachment i got in some sort of complicated machinery buy/sell/trade a few years ago. It has sat in a corner of my shop since I brought it home and I was thinking of selling it this month, along with some other stuff I never use. I haev never used a milling attachment and never really saw the need for one since I had a large knee mill.

So where I am going with all of that is this-do you use the milling attachment for anything if you have a large knee mill? If so, what jobs do you find it easier to use the knee mill and when do you find the milling attachment useful?

Thanks!

Skunk