THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM GUNSMITHING FORUM


Moderators: jeffeosso
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Scope bases for unaltered m98 with charger hump
 Login/Join
 
one of us
posted
For you gunsmiths here on AR.

What brand/type 2 piece bases do you all think would be best on the rear of a unaltered m98 with charger hump before you have it drilled and tapped.

What I dont like is Luepold, Warne, weaver all have different hole spaceing .325,.440,.445

What if you wanted the option of changeing bases from standard windage screw luepold type to a weaver type slot base or even a talley base

What about useing a FN mauser type base for a non charger hump rear with .500 hole spaceing and machine the rear base to clear the hump and clear the bolt handle swing?

Is this pretty easily doable for a good gunsmith? Any problems with useing a .500 hole spaceing with the charger hump still there?
 
Posts: 4821 | Location: Idaho/North Mex. | Registered: 12 June 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
The rear hole spacing for Weaver #45 is .504".

To relieve for the rear hump, a die grinder can be used.
 
Posts: 9043 | Location: on the rock | Registered: 16 July 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Im actually leaning toward useing the Luepold standard with the windage screw rear and dovetail front, The .325 hole spaceing on their unalterd m98 base is just oddball. If I could get the luepold FN rear base(or even a redfield 2 piece standard base) with .500-.504 spaceing machined to fit I could use other style bases also.

I bought some Warne rings to check them out, and they are nice but quiet bulky or massive. I like more of a trimmer base ring set up. Other than Talleys(more money) I like the luepold standard. Also luepolds low rings mount the scope lower than Warne or Talley.
 
Posts: 4821 | Location: Idaho/North Mex. | Registered: 12 June 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
pm sent
 
Posts: 58 | Location: Tindal N.T Australia | Registered: 27 May 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of M1Tanker
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by GSP7:

I bought some Warne rings to check them out, and they are nice but quiet bulky or massive. I like more of a trimmer base ring set up. Other than Talleys(more money) I like the luepold standard. Also luepolds low rings mount the scope lower than Warne or Talley.


You need to take a look at the Warne Premier rings. They are no longer made but can be found on Ebay quite often. They are a LOT slimmer and trimmer ring and base than the current Maximas Warne makes. Warne still makes the premier bases and their current 7.3 series rings will fit them. I have attached a pitcure of the Premier and 7.3 rings for you. The Premiers are my favorite rings and i have them n almost all my guns.

The Premier:



The 7.3 series:


William Berger

True courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway. - John Wayne

The courageous may not live forever, but the timid do not live at all.
 
Posts: 3156 | Location: Rigby, ID | Registered: 20 March 2004Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Guys,
The current Warne Maximas appear to be powder coated rather than blued steel. That makes me a bit suspicious that they are covering up the texture of a injected molded metal ring.
The Premier above appears to be a hogout of bar stock.
 
Posts: 9207 | Registered: 22 November 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Bill Supple at Griffin & Howe made these for my Brno 1938 Model A in 8x60S. He started with a set of Leupold QR gunsmith bases. It was not an inexpensive solution to the problem, but it enables me to uses as many different scopes as I chose.

Another choice would be EAW swing away bases.

 
Posts: 2036 | Location: Roebling, NJ 08554 | Registered: 20 January 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
KurtC, What is your hole spaceing on your rear base?
 
Posts: 4821 | Location: Idaho/North Mex. | Registered: 12 June 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
The spacing appears to be .575, which is probably the minimum you can use to have the QR hole in the middle.
 
Posts: 2036 | Location: Roebling, NJ 08554 | Registered: 20 January 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
When I had my 9.3X62 built on a 1908 Brazilian, I initially went with Warne bases. Unfortunately, the holes in the front base were drilled off-center so I was forced to look for an alternative as I wasn't going to try Warnes again. The rear holes had been drilled with a .500 spacing. After some brain-storming with the gunsmith, we decided to use a modified FN rear base.

Here's the result.








If It Doesn't Feed, It's Junk.
 
Posts: 408 | Location: Sechelt, B.C., Canada | Registered: 11 December 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
M98. Thats exactly what I would like done.

Basicaly your luepol FN base has been cut just like a luepold unaltered m98 base but now you have the .500 spaceing instead of lueplold .325

I ordered a unaltered m98 base to see if a .500 hole could be drilled in the base next to the .325 hole. Otherwise Ill see if I can get a smith to machine my FN base to fit like you did.
 
Posts: 4821 | Location: Idaho/North Mex. | Registered: 12 June 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of richj
posted Hide Post
This is a Redfield (SR-M) M98 rear base. It has .420" hole spacing. The base is releaved for the bridge clearance. The base/ring intrudes into the receiver opening a bit.

 
Posts: 6551 | Location: NY, NY | Registered: 28 November 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Richj, Thanks for that pick. Yes I researched that base also with the .420 spaceing. Aparently redfield doesnt make that one anymore but weaver has that one now. I think they are the same. I mistakenly said that was .445.

Thanks all for posting the pictures

Here is a unaltered type luepold with .325 space. Its on a swede, but i think its the same as a m98





Rick
 
Posts: 4821 | Location: Idaho/North Mex. | Registered: 12 June 2002Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia