I've been bitten by the bug and am putting together a 404 Jeffery on a Model 70 originally chambered in 300RUM. I'm trying to decide on a sturdy, lightweight, low profile, detachable scope mount system. The Leupold QR bases with extra low rings to hold a Leupold 2.5x20 looks like a good prospect. The only problem is that every picture that I have seen with Leupold QR bases shows either the front or rear base protruding past the edge of the receiver. This crowding of the ejection area looks terrible to me, in addition to posing a potential ejection problem. Are the bases made this way due to the screw spacing of the bases or are these extension/reversable bases to accomodate different sized scopes? I really want bases that are flush with the receiver opening. If the Leupolds will protrude, does anyone have an alternate suggestion? I've used Talley's in the past, but they are really higher than I would like. Any and all suggestions cheerfully considered!

Anyone familiar with Winchester Model 70 long magnum actions and Leupold QR bases?

Jim

Old Dog, I have a M70 300 Rum with Leupold QR bases. They are just as you describe, projecting over the ejection port. It is a shame Winchester chose to have the small scew spacing on the rear bridge. The rear bridge is long enough to fit a standard M70 Leupold QR base, but the holes are in the wrong place. Another hole could be drilled in the rear base ahead of the existing ones and the rear hole cut off to move the base backward a distance equal to the hole spacing. This would reduce the overhang but not eliminate it. I would also bevel the part of the base that overhangs the port so that it would not interfere so much with the loading of the cartridges.

Thanks, hart! I was afraid that was the case. I guess I could go with low Talley's, but they weigh a lot more and place the scope higher than the Leupold extra low rings.

Does anyone else have any better ideas?

Jim

You could get the luepold QR gunmaker base blanks and have a good smith drill and fit them. Might be your only option.

I wish Talley or Warne would make some rings as low as the low luepolds. Even if they werent quick reliese

Same gun same problem. My solution was to have Roger Biesen make me a set of his bases. With the addition of the filp up rear peep, they are a nice set up.
scroll down on this web page and you can see them

biesens bases

Is that Biesen QR a dove tail front? Looks like a modified standard set?

I was thinking the same thing. It looks like a european swing mount design using Leupold Standard components instead of the double post Leupold QR mount. Can you give us an idea what he charges for those and the approximate turnaround time? Thanks!

Jim

I had the leupold QR rings on a M70 .375 H&H and didn't like the overhang. I now have Talleys and like them much better. I've got low Talleys which are plenty low enough for me. They're about the same height as Leupold mediums. As far as weight, it's a 404 you're building, a couple of extra ounces will be a help instead of a hinderance.

I ahve them on my m70 375, although it is cosmetically displeasing I don't feel it affects function, in loading I come in ass end first which slips it under the base and I have had no ejection problems. I went with them because of cost :-) I have not tested return to zero yet, am thinking about going shooting this weekend actually.

Red

I have QRs holding a German steel scope on a 700 ADL, rebarreled and worked over a couple of times, this time in 375 H&H. I had my smith bevel the rear base so it would protrude a bit less conspicuously, but it won't win any design pizes.

quote:

I guess I could go with low Talley's, but they weigh a lot more and place the scope higher than the Leupold extra low rings.

I have been waiting for Leupold to make extra low (.55) QR rings, but have yet to see them, not even on their website. Are they here yet?

73s, de LA1TOA Inge

I ran thru the same thing w/ my M70 416. Someone posted that the reason for this was that Winchester used the same rear mount hole but needed to drill the second hole w/ the close .330" spacing as the result of opening up the ejection port for the longer class cartridges. Re-drilling for the standard spacing would work but may cause ring spacing issues w/ some scopes.

IIRC, Talley bases are the only non-custom option that eliminates the overhang.

GVA

I used Warne bases and rings on my M70 in 375HH
They are a bit heavy but they don't cover the
ejection port. The scope is a swaro 1.5x6x42.
I think they are medium's and the objective
just clears the barrel with enough room for
lens caps.
Charlie

Your are correct it is a modified standard mount. The front is a standard dovetail that is fit and then slide grease is applied and it swings into the rear. The rear has to be fit so they are exactly the same highth and then the offside (bolt side) screw is tapered and fixed into place (for a positive stop). The other side of the rear has a lever attached and is indexed and ground with a flat so the scope can be rotated 90 degrees and removed without removing the screw. Only a half turn of the lever is required to clear the scope ring base. I also have the oldstyle redfield flip up peep installed on the rear. When you install the scope it turns into place with a reassuring thump and half a turn on the lever and away you go. $200 installed with parts (yes leupold) including the flip up peep I have. I can take some pictures but I have no idea how to post them here.

I missed the turn time about 2 weeks, but he fits them to the rifle so you have to get it to him. Lucky for me I live right near Spokane, and to tour the shop of a great make like AL and now his son Roger is a story for another thread.

I really should read the whole post before responding. rp15oryx I have three sets of extra low qr rings that I have no need for because of the swich to these biesen mounts pm me if you want.

I liked the ability to remove and replace scopes with the Leupold QR mount on my .375 H & H Model 70, but I disliked the overhang for both aesthetic and functional reasons. When I had the gun reworked I had some simple modifications made to the rear base to eliminate the overhang.

A third hole was drilled and counterbored in the rear base exactly .330†forward of the front hole, and the rear of the base was milled off to just eliminate the rear hole. Then a third hole was drilled and tapped in the receiver of the Model 70 .330†behind the rear hole. The base was mounted with its new front hole in the middle hole of the receiver (which was the old rear hole) and the rear hole of the base (which was the old front hole) mounts in the new rear hole of the receiver. The base is thus shifted .660†to the rear and it just clears the ejection port. As you can see by the picture the distance between the rings still allows the Leupold Vari-X III 1.5-5X and 1.75-6X to be used, but I don’t know if a 2.5X Compact would fit.

Kurt

Whats wrong with a 2 piece mount? They have used them on WBY for years with no problems due to recoil. van

Those Leupold QR mounts failed me in Zim. Was going with Beisen but his only works with 1" scopes so now I have NECG mounting an EAW system.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:
Those Leupold QR mounts failed me in Zim. Was going with Beisen but his only works with 1" scopes so now I have NECG mounting an EAW system.

How did they fail you?

From my letter to Leupold...

"I purchased your 1.5 to 5 x 20 illuminated reticle scope for a Safari to Zimbabwe, Africa. Several of us went on the trip, some for leopard others for buffalo and since this was my first foray onto the Dark Continent I chose a plains game hunt. We all went with a variety of equipment, in my case I chose a Winchester M70 in 375 H&H a Leupold scope and quick release Leupold mounts. My equipment worked very well until we had occasion to pursue a wounded buffalo. It was prudent to use the express sites for such a task so I removed the scope. A big mistake as it turned out (especially since we did not locate the buffalo).

The following day I remounted the scope and it seemed as tight and secure as before and proceeded on a stalk of a beautiful Wildebeest. We got within shooting range (about 100 yards) and I took my shot… and missed the kill zone. The wounded Wildebeest took off running like a rocket and proceeded to disappear. This was very disturbing as I have worked very hard to select good equipment and to train well (just a couple of months ago I attended rifle training at Gunsite in Arizona to prepare for the safari) to make sure the shots I do take are accurate and have a low chance of lost animals. In any event we decided to check the accuracy of the rifle and found it was shooting several inches to the left and several inches low at 100 yards. The only change was removing and remounting the scope using the quick release mounts. "