Safe amount of screwholes in M70 front receiver ring.

11 March 2007, 19:33

The two original holes on an m70 front ring are about .860" apart.
In order to get a scope as low as possible(a small obcession I have at the moment

)I will have to drill a third hole about .360" behind the front hole.
The new hole and most rear one may also be done out to 8-40,(the most forward will remain 6-48,& will not be used)
NO problems with that??

11 March 2007, 19:51

vapodog

yea...no problem but it will dimise the value of the receiver badly even though it's very functional.
It'll work fine.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill

11 March 2007, 23:01

GSP7

Vandelizm !

11 March 2007, 23:35

Westpac

quote:
Originally posted by Woodjack:
The two original holes on an m70 front ring are about .860" apart.
In order to get a scope as low as possible(a small obcession I have at the moment )I will have to drill a third hole about .360" behind the front hole.
The new hole and most rear one may also be done out to 8-40,(the most forward will remain 6-48,& will not be used)
NO problems with that??

Why don't you have a low base made to fit the current hole position?

12 March 2007, 00:37

z1r

Westpac, Now that's just plain silly. Who would want to do the logical thing?

12 March 2007, 00:49

Westpac

Never in a million years would I have pictured myself going to bat in order to help maintain the factory integrety of a Winchester M70 receiver.

and I ~~make~~ know a guy who makes a living drilling and threading holes in receivers.

12 March 2007, 01:12

z1r

LOL!

And I know another who is conspicuously absent who makes a living mis-drilling holes in receivers.

12 March 2007, 03:03

Marc_Stokeld

I doubt if anything you can put on top of the reciever will get the scope as low as a G&H side mount.

12 March 2007, 09:37

Woodjack

quote:
Originally posted by GSP7:
Vandelizm !

Maybe to some degree,but I dont hold factoryM70s'in such high esteem, certainly not in class of a new customM98 receiver, where I would not have holes at all!
An extra hole is a worthwhile sacrifice for how I want the scope to sit on the rifle.
My comfort of use and how I want the rifle to look takes priority.
In any case,It was a question of safety, not ethics.

The m70 is like the WWII Sherman tank: built in large numbers & Expendable!

quote:
Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
I doubt if anything you can put on top of the reciever will get the scope as low as a G&H side mount.

My integral ring&base will put the tube 5mm above the receiver, I dont know if G&H will do that, even if it did, I really dont need QDs' or a clunky overweight setup.

When its Eventually done,I'll post pics so ye all can bring out the AR Bashing&Pissin' squad.

"3rd Hole Idea" hammering

12 March 2007, 18:30

Marc_Stokeld

witht he G&H mount, you have to attach it at the elevation where you want it. So you can have the scope touching the barrel or any height above the barrel that you want it, up to the limits of the height of the uncut base. THen attach the base where you think it is best.

But that is moot since you don't want the QD. Plus a lot of folks don't like a G&H mount anyway.

Can you post pics of the ring/base set up you made? Always interested in new ways to skin a cat! And if you are making them from scratch, why not just make th ebase to fit the existing screw hole as suggested above. It may be a bad idea, I am just curious.

thanks!

14 March 2007, 03:38

LRH270

On my M70 .458 (.330 holes) we drilled and tapped two more to mount a Williams fits-every-model-70 (ha!) receiver bridge sight (.860 holes).

I know it's a rear and not a front, but it never occurred to any of us that it would be significantly weakened.