Some time ago I ordered an O-U double rifle barrel set for a Krieghoff Ulm combination gun which I had bought in Germany. My German gunmaker, Torsten Retz, completed the assignment and sent me photographs of the rifle with the two scopes which I had sent him to be mounted in Recknagel pivot mounts.

However, when the gun arrived with the two sets of barrels, the scopes on the combination gun, which were mounted in claw mounts, fit perfectly, but the rear rings on the pivot mount refused to sit down on the lower part of the mount and allow the locking system to engage.

I had intended to take the rifle to New England Custom Guns, which imports Recknagel products and ask for their help, but for one reason or another, what had formerlarly been an annual trip to New Englland has failed to materialize.

I really hate to ship the rifle and scopes off, having recently had a bad experience with a rifle shipped to me, so I thought before doing so I would ask for suggestions here. I am attaching photos made by Torsten Retz, showing the rear mount functioning correctly and others made by me, showing the problem I am having.


[/

[URL=http://s1231.photobucket.com/user/xausa/media/Krieghoff%20Ulm%20Primus/Krieghoff%20Ulm%20Primus%20020%20001_zpsdkwtflsb.jpg.html]

Easy fix; those rear mounts have different thicknesses of "washers" they sit on; either get one the right thickness, or make one. I have made them in fitting these mounts on double rifles.
No need to send it anywhere; just measure how thick it needs to be and call NECG or Recknagel in Germany. Or machine one yourself.
I can even see in your picture that the one that fits, has a thicker washer. That is what you need for the other one. Measure though.
I can't believe I diagnose stuff like this for free; no wonder I never make any money!

Funny, until you called my attention to it, I had never noticed the difference in the thickness of the washers. It never occurred to me that they had for some reason been changed between the time the photo was made and the gun was delivered.

How would you suggest I go about measuring the gap between the top of the base and the bottom of the ring, which, added to the thickness of the present washer, would give me the thickness I need to complete the job?

I have been using the combination gun barrel set in the mean time. The rifle barrel is in caliber 7X75RSE vom Hofe, and the shot barrel is fitted with a full length insert barrel in 6X52R Bretschneider, which is the 6.5X52R cartridge necked up to 6mm (or the 6.5X52R cartridge necked down). It's pretty deadly on deer and I don't feel the need to switch to the 9.3X74R double rifle barrels as long as that is what I'm hunting.

Wow, this was a long time ago- I remember this.

Dumb question: on the front engagement point, it looks like the piece in the rib could be drifted in or out. In top pic, the ring looks flush with this piece, in the pic below, it looks like there is a washer (?) between them? Maybe an optical illusion?

Second thought was that piece in the rib had a slight angle to it, was removed and inserted backwards after blueing.

Dunno...just guessing

Bax; you are looking at two different scopes and mounts, both of which appear to have thin spacers on the front. That is not the issue. The rear is where you want to focus.
The dovetail bases are always dead flat. Being tapered wouldn't work.
As for the rear washer/spacer thickness you need, you want to measure the total difference, and get a spacer that thickness; not add another one.
You measure it it with a dial caliper.

Hmm..not how I thought I remembered it...

My impression was that we are just looking at before and after pics of the exact same rifle/scope/ mounts. It as just that after the trip from Germany, the parts wouldn’t go back together the way they did before they left as shown in the pic.

But you are saying the extra height on the rear ring is created by washers, not a different height ring?

Correct; the spacers and the rear lock ring determine how they sit on the rear base. In any case, same scope or not, the lock ring spacer in one picture is thicker than in the other. Perhaps someone put the lock ring from another mount, onto it. I would contact Blackburn and tell him.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Correct; the spacers determine how they sit on the rear base. In any case, same scope or not, the spacer in one picture is thicker than in the other. How it got that way...?

Oh, I've seen my share of gunmaker's benches...I can't imagine how you'd misplace something there... ;-)

Not mine of course!
Quote from the Recknagel Catalog:
Our TL-swing mounts feature a particularly low height, reducing the total height by about 8 mm and starting at 10.7 mm. A possible height difference is adjusted by spacers. Further adaptations are not necessary. Interchangeability of all components also applies to this kind of mounts.

Do those spacers have something to do with mounting to get near zero, dpcd, in case someone is still using a reticle-movement scope?

Not really; but if you look at the Recknagel pivot (swing montage) mounts you will see that some of them do have a lot of up and down movement in the front extension piece. So, yes, you could make a lot of elevation adjustment with one of those. The one in the pictures above, has a fixed front mount, like a Redfield so no vertical adjustment is possible. Not very much anyway. The spacers are just to fit the mounts to different rifle and base combinations.

Measure for the washer thickness with a feeler gauge. Stack the blades until you get a fit and mic the stack.

Dave

Thanks for all he useful comments.