1.5-5x Leupold to M70crf. At present it is mounted in leupold superlow rings/bases(6.88mm between tube and front reciever).Still has about 4mm clearance between bolt handle and eyepiece. So would like to mount scope lower.Cant do it with screw bases,cause final distance between front reciever and tube will be about 3 or 4mm.

A part from having to heat treating the action again,Any problems welding some rings to the action?(NECG has some ring blanks)

Do you see any extraction problems? ( case hiting scope)

woodjack

Welding to a receiver seems a pretty drastic solution, you may well experience problems with the amount of heat generated causing the action to warp or twist with the temperatures involved even with the use of TIG welding. Not to mention drawing the hardness from the action by way of normalising.

Can you not have some bases machined on the Warne dovetail principle but to a lower height, infact will the extra depth you crave for make a vast difference to your existing set up, i have a similar set up on a Winchester action and the Leupold extra low rings seem O.K in my own case?

Woodjack

I did not mean to imply above that it would not be possible to weld to a receiver, of course a competent riflesmith could well carry out the work and would be fully aware not to permit concentrated heat build up, the use of heat sinks wold be well advised.

I merely wondered whether the end result would be worth all the effort, unless of course it is the the scope set up you presently have is hoplessly too high

My friend has a BRNO 602 actioned rifle made into a .505 and the maker there TIG welded the receiver dovetails to make a square bridge appearance, the work is fine and the end result looks very good indeed.

I think you would be better off silver soldering them in place, but I am not a metalsmith so don't know for sure. for a couple of mm it sure seems like a hell of a thing to do. couldn't you just raise the comb up with one of those pads? you must have real small cheeks or something to be so low on the stock.

Personally I would try a different stock before permanently altering the action itself.

Red

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
...M70crf...

You might want to consider getting a Stock that has a higher Cheek Piece.

If yours is one of the old M70s, a lot of them came with stocks designed for use with Iron Sights rather than a scope.

Just another reason why...

The trick is finding some one piece rings made of steel, and then cutting them down and making an alignment fixture.

I'd believe the ring of the M-70 CRF and the mounts might be of disimilar metals....personally, I'd not do it.

I'd stay away from welding anything to your receiver. Unless you can get one of the smiths with super natural welding ability to do this for you. Then there would be the additional clean up machining and finishing to consider as well. And the heat treating issues others have mentioned. Why not find a smith that will machine a few thousandths of the bottom of your bases?

Why do you want such minimal clearance?

3-4MM is barely anything? Its really not worth it to go through the expense of getting 2mm closer... 1mm of clearance is WORSE than 4mm!!!

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:
The trick is finding some one piece rings made of steel, and then cutting them down and making an alignment fixture.

Not to piss on anyones parade...but that is not a real good looking welding job.

Two things that come to mind...

1. thousands (millions?) of people don't weld... and with good reason - what if you want to change the scope at a later date?

2. the LAST thing you want on a rifle that actually gets used is minimal clearance between bolt and scope... you'll find out why when you need to take a quick follow up shot...

It's possible .. just not the first course of action i would take.. I would mill down bases first...

Rick, damn straight.. but i bet it's hell for stout, even with a couple inclusions and a little (lot the right side) undecutting. might look better afer wire brushed.

I generally don't get actions this hot.

jeffe

Something I wouldn't do. What do you do if you should somehow ding or bend one of the rings? You're screwed-- you'll have a bent ring welded to a good action. You'll have nothing.

I don't know who's ring were used .
But I saw a rifle that the bottom of each ring milled to fit the conture of the action .
Then it was drilled thru to run a screw thru to mount it directly to the action .

It only had 1 screw per ring , probley not the best if a heavy recoiling rifle.

But it looked clean and sharp .

Johnch

I al almost embarresed to bring this up but its been knawing at me ever since i saw it on the History Channel about Mega structures.

There has been a glue yep glue devoleped to hold I beams together in addition to the normal nuts & bolts! very !!! They claim that stress test prove it to be a viable method. So my thinking goes straight to firearms applications. Scope base application?? You take it from there.

Doug,
glue requires surface area to work... and in some home cnc (and some production) .. people use superglue rather than fixtures..

yep, i can see glue in addition to bolts.. works exactly like bedding compound, i think

jeffe

I’m somewhat at a loss to understand exactly what “problem†is being addressed by welding/gluing bases and/or rings to the receiver.

If your rifle is subject to enough beating to need that wouldn’t it also be subject to enough beating to damage one or both of the things you have just permanently attached to your receiver?

I think this is another of those instances of searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist!

quote:

Originally posted by Poleax:
I think this is another of those instances of searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist!

That seems to be a very typical endeavor on here sometimes!

I heard that the marines were only able to replicate Oswald's marksmanship with a comparable rifle by welding the mount to the receiver of the Side mounted Ordnance Optics 4 x 18 telescopic sight.

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:
I heard that the marines were only able to replicate Oswald's marksmanship with a comparable rifle by welding the mount to the receiver of the Side mounted Ordnance Optics 4 x 18 telescopic sight.

I think that may be a bunch of hooey.

But, the real nonexistent problem here is what benefit is to be gained by having teh scope roughly .070" lower?

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:
I heard that the marines were only able to replicate Oswald's marksmanship with a comparable rifle by welding the mount to the receiver of the Side mounted Ordnance Optics 4 x 18 telescopic sight.

You’ve been watching too many Oliver Stone movies!

I agree with Rick...since when did Hollywood know its collective ass from its elbow about guns...?

And, just as a reminder, Oswald was NOT much of a shot. Any Camp Perry competitor worth the name could easily have duplicated what Oswald supposedly did. Oswald barely "qualified" marksmanship-wise as a Marine rifleman, attaining only the qualification of "Marksman". Correct me if I am wrong, Rick, but wasn't that the lowest level of having qualified? I know in the Army at that time, the qualification levels were "Marksman", "Sharpshooter", and "Expert", with Marksman the lowest and Expert the highest.

If you couldn't qualify at the "Marksman" level, you couldn't even get out of basic training camp...also know to the Gyrenes as "Boot Camp". It also reflected poorly on the DIs to have a man fail rifle qualification, so believe me they were going to give him a lot of "incentive" to do better and make at least Marksman...and he would live on the range until he did! Contrary to the song, the living with DIs whose competence as instructors he had brought into question was NOT easy.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I agree with Rick...since when did Hollywood know its collective ass from its elbow about guns...?

And, just as a reminder, Oswald was NOT much of a shot. Any Camp Perry competitor worth the name could easily have duplicated what Oswald supposedly did. Oswald barely "qualified" marksmanship-wise as a Marine rifleman, attaining only the qualification of "Marksman". Correct me if I am wrong,Rick, but wasn't that the lowest level of having qualified? I know in the Army at that time, the qualification levels were "Marksman", "Sharpshooter", and "Expert", with Marksman the lowest and Expert the Highest.

If you couldn't qualify at the "Marksman" level, you couldn't even get out of basic training camp...also know to the Gyrenes as "Boot Camp". It also reflected poorly on the DIs to have a man fail rifle qualification, so believe me they were going to give him a lot of "incentive" to do better and make at least Marksman...and he would live on the range until he did! Contrary to the song, the living with DIs whose competence as instructors he had brought into question was NOT easy.

Actually, Oswald was not a “bad†shot. In bootcamp he shot a 212 which qualified him as a Sharp Shooter (above Marksman, but below Expert.)On his 200 yard off-hand (with open sights) he put eight of his ten shots in the ten-inch bullseye. Not great...but not all that bad either.

Shortly before leaving the Corps, and without the bootcamp “motivation†of the DI’s and PMI’s, he fired a 191 which qualified him as a Marksman...but still not a “bad†shot.

If you’ve ever been to Dealy Plaza the first thing that jumps out at you is how small the area actually is. The longest shot Oswald had to make that day was only 256 feet, or about 85 yards.

Thanks, Rick - I was not aware Oswald ever made the Sharpshooter level.

If I remember correctly, in the Army at least, the qualification classifications in those days were 190-210 Marksman, 211-230 Sharpshooter, and 231-250 Expert. If that is correct (it has been over 50 years since I qualified as Expert in Boot Camp so my memory may have atrophied a bunch), then Oswald made Sharpshooter by ONE point over the minimum for that class.

Anyway, he wasn't an outstanding shot by any means, despite what all the TV and Hollywood documentaries infer.

I've been to Dealy Plaza and the shooting site several times, and it would be a dead simple shot for any real rifleman, Short distance, and very small angle...almost a "going" away shot. Still took him (they say) 3 shots to get the nefarious job done.

I have never heard anyone refer to Oswald as an “outstanding†shot...on the contrary, Oliver Stone’s film had Walter Matheau’s character saying that he was a terrible shot and that all he got on qualification day was “Maggie’s Drawers.†And most, if not all, the conspiracy theory books state that Oswald was a lousy shot and had a lousy rifle and scope...None of which are true.

Even those that qualify at the lowest level in the service (Marksman) are probably better shots than the average person out there.

There is more bad information on this incident than almost any other in history, that I have studied.

The scope thing, mentioned before on here, was the result of a newsman that noticed that the scope was not mounted directly over the receiver and barrel, and therefore he assumed it must be defective or broken. In fact the scope was mounted exactly where it was supposed to be and the men who fired the rifle in tests for the Warren Commission had absolutely no problem duplicating (and bettering) Oswald’s shots in the time alloted.

Bottom line...this was not a feat of great marksmanship or shooting ability.

Disclaimer to avoid a long and non-productive debate:

My statements should only be taken as my opinion, based on a vast amount of research, that Oswald and his rifle and scope “could†have easily made those shots. I have no desire to debate whether or not he “did†make those shots. I believe he did, but my opinion cannot be proved any more than those who claim he didn’t.

Woodjack,

Might I suggest that you find a gunsmith that specializes in metal working such as Mark Stratton or the like.

For example, Mark custom makes his bases and I would imagine that he can make you a set that are to your specs. (with-in reason). Have whomever take the base screws out to 8X40 and you will have a strong and low set up.

Sam

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Disclaimer to avoid a long and non-productive debate:

My statements should only be taken as my opinion, based on a vast amount of research, that Oswald and his rifle and scope “could†have easily made those shots. I have no desire to debate whether or not he “did†make those shots. I believe he did, but my opinion cannot be proved any more than those who claim he didn’t.

As usual, Rick, I think you are right on the button here. I think Oswald could have easily made the shot. Further, I think almost anyone on this forum could have made the shot, if they had enough vermin DNA to want to. Luckily, most people are more sane than that.

I don't care at this point who did the shooting. I am well beyond believing in vast conspiracies, or in governments telling the truth, or the tooth fairy.. It was a tradgedy pure and simple. Right now that's enough for me.

Ciao

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Disclaimer to avoid a long and non-productive debate:

My statements should only be taken as my opinion, based on a vast amount of research, that Oswald and his rifle and scope “could†have easily made those shots. I have no desire to debate whether or not he “did†make those shots. I believe he did, but my opinion cannot be proved any more than those who claim he didn’t.

As usual, Rick, I think you are right on the button here. I think Oswald could have easily made the shot. Further, I think almost anyone on this forum could have made the shot, if they had enough vermin DNA to want to. Luckily, most people are more sane than that.

I don't care at this point who did the shooting. I am well beyond believing in vast conspiracies, or in governments telling the truth, or the tooth fairy.. It was a tradjedy pure and simple. Right now that'senough for me.

Ciao

I believe that it makes people feel better to think that there was something “bigger and more powerful†responsible for the death of a young president. The thought of a little nobody, scumbag like Oswald doing this alone just doesn’t balance out in many peoples minds. Kings should die of old age or in battle...not by falling off the shitter!

I never would have thought this thread would turn into a JFK / Oswald thread

To the original post, why not just get one piece ring/bases and have them machined down to whatever height pleases you?

Welding has the potential to ruin your action, and at best will totally wipe out any resale value of the gun. Would you buy a gun with bases welded on???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rick 0311:
I’m somewhat at a loss to understand exactly what “problem†is being addressed by welding/gluing bases and/or rings to the receiver.

Rick 0311,
its sort of along the same reason why people have integral square bridges(like any machine, the less moving parts the less can go wrong),and its not always about QD rings,some people may have integral bases and put conetrols on them.If your building amountain rifle you can make it extremely trim and light,integral bases only have to be as wide as the ring.Integral rings just simplyfy it more. Have alook at a Brian Harre action.

Woodjack
Back to the orig ?, I would take a look at Johnch's oberservation, maybe custom built rings w/ 2 screws in each befor I would weld on.

mr

Woodjack,

Okay, that’s great, except welding rings and/or bases to your receiver is hardly the same thing as an “integral†machined in base.

A set of small aluminum bases weighs about as much as a cheek full of chew!

I guess whatever a guy wants, or thinks he needs, is okay by me though.

If remington can solder its bolt handles on, I figured that welding rings on made more sense. and if we had only what we needed I guess most would have a 30/06 in an m98. Come to think of it,doesnt sound so bad.

Eastwood says as he shoots Hackman in the Unforgiven, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

In this thread, "Making sense had nothing to do with it."


What does it all mean?
You can't discuss something with 10 others ready to interject, "I wouldn't do that."

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
If remington can solder its bolt handles on, I figured that welding rings on made more sense. and if we had only what we needed I guess most would have a 30/06 in an m98. Come to think of it,doesnt sound so bad.

Why did I know that sooner or later Remington bolt handles would somehow find their way into this discussion? By god, I have heard that Remington bolt handles caused Hurricane Katrina too!

quote:

Why did I know that sooner or later Remington bolt handles would somehow find their way into this discussion? By god, I have heard that Remington bolt handles caused Hurricane Katrina too!

Rick 0311

Damn Rick, we best be carful. If a bolt handle
can cause a Hurricane, think what welded rings might do.

Best to your son
gene

Maybe not Hurricane Katrina, but Remington does manage to induce a strong continues storm of protest,from those who appreciate the finer things in life. LONG LIVE THE 98.

If you download the Williams Sight Company's pdf catalog, on page 22 and 23 you can see thier HCO [center overbore rings]:
http://www.williamsgunsight.com/PDF/2005catalog.pdf

Brownells sells those:
http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/Store/ProductDetail.as...SIDE+MOUNT+%26+RINGS

An associate of mine made a mount and anodized it for HCO rings to fit on his 91/30:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=257405

I think you can pursue this path as well as welding scope rings to get the underside of the scope free from clutter and the scope bore closer to the barrel bore.