I set out to replace the scope on a friend's M99. The scope is a Leupold 3 x 9. The existing mounts are Weaver bases and rings. I have run out of travel on the internal elevation. I am still low, below the target, at 100 yds. I know I can shim the rear base. Will that create stress/tension between the front and rear rings? Any suggestions?

From the note I get that you have two-piece bases by Weaver. Get a set of Burris Signature rings with the plastic inserts and a set of the offset inserts. You can use the offset inserts to give you the elevation you need.

I did think of the Burris solution, but they are so effing ugly. Also, not sure they are available for Weaver bases, or if Burris makes bases for M99. Don't think so, but will check.

Thanks for the response.

Just curious, did the original scope sight in? Is this a factory D&T or an older gun?

The old scope was a no-name import from the fifties or sixties. My gunsmith said that these older scopes had more adjustment range than newer ones.

This is a M99A, a re-introduction in 1971 of the 1899 saddle gun. It was last catalogued in 1982. According to Douglas P. Murray, author of "The Ninety-Nine", published 1985, it was factory drilled and tapped.

Last night I put a straight edge on the front base, extending over the rear base. The rear base top is .075" below that of the front. Knowing this, I think I can shim the rear base and make it all work.

My gunsmith, Ed Lapour of Bremerton, WA said that a portion of the receiver is heat treated and very hard, which explains why some attempts at D & T are pretty awful. However, I would think that the factory D & T would be done before heat treating.

Thanks for the responses. I'm an amateur, and grateful for all help I can get.
Brice

That's a lot of shimming to do, might want to check for some different bases or try lowering the front if it's got enough meet.
I would also ask the guys on the Savage Forum, they have seen it all.

With a pair of Weaver bases running about $5 I think I would order the set that is supposed to fit the rifle and see if that corrects the problem. It very well may be that the bases are somehow wrong.

.075 is a lot to shim. I think I would seen if I could have the front base milled before I would shim the rear base .075.

The Gunsmith is correct. The Leupold 2x7 and the 3x9 are especially short on internal adjustment.

Try a Leupold 1.5 to 5 or the 2.5 to 8.

You could also try shimming the rear ring, instead of the base.

More good suggestions, guys. I happen to have a 1.5 x 5 and a 2.5 x 8, and I will order a new pair of bases. Yes, .075" is a lot of shim.
Brice

Measuring across the bases may not, and most likely wont tell you how much they are off line with the bore. You need to measure how parallel to the bore they are.

This is turning into a good lesson on collaborative problem solving. JBrown suggested replacing the bases just in case. Well, guess what? The front base is a #19 and is supposed to be a #16. Was someone dyslexic? I will order new bases from Brownells. Thanks again to all. I will report the outcome.
Brice

quote:

Originally posted by Toomany Tools:
Measuring across the bases may not, and most likely wont tell you how much they are off line with the bore. You need to measure how parallel to the bore they are.

It sounds as if Brice has found the problem but irrespective of the bore line if straight edging off the front base shows the rear base low by 0.075" pulling a scope down into rings offline that much is in reality bending the scope 0.075" if the rings are solid enough not to flex themselves. No wonder he ran out of adjustment and hopefully the scope has not suffered any lasting damage with the amount of flexing it has been subject to.

Good, though painful observation, Eagle. I will examine it carefully. Fortunately, Leupold's warranty is bullet proof, and the factory is down the interstate 180 miles from here. (Not that I'd burn $100 worth of gas to save $10 on shipping.)
Brice

As promised, here is the conclusion. I installed the new (correct) front Weaver base. I checked level of the bases vis-à-vis the flat top of the bolt, figuring that was likely parallel to the bore. Looked pretty good. I centered to reticle in the scope and clamped it on. Voila' I had to use up more adjustment than desired to get on paper, but it works.

As to damaging the scope, the Weaver rings were mounted on the scope prior to clamping it to the bases, so I think the bending force exerted by tightening the clamps was insufficient to hurt the scope. It is working fine.

Grandpa's Savage will be going to Wyoming with Tyler on his first hunt next month. According to dad, the kid has just about given up sleeping until then. Remember those days?

Thanks again for the help, gentlemen.
Brice