Speaks for itself...

Ah Come on tiggertate You being from Texas and never seen

A One- Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People Eater before ?.

That my friend is a flying purple "eyeball" eater! I'm surprised there isn't a support strut coming up from the wrist. Great carrying handle.

Doc, that is some real Texas A&M engineering if I ever saw it.

Your right, RIP. It's probably a quick-release carry handle disguised as a scope.

I can't decide if this is a flying mount, a terraced mount or a hanging chad!

It's very ordinary way to make Mauser 66 scoped. Here is some more examples of same kind of rifle.

http://www.egun.de/market/item.php?id=2255378
http://www.egun.de/market/item.php?id=2128170
http://www.egun.de/market/item.php?id=2279223

Except that the examples you provided are all rail mount, which gives the scope tube enormous support. A single ring forward of the turret is a poor substitute.

This one was drilled for Conetrol bases and 2 different height rings but the scope was mounted too far forward.

mauser LR front in the back.
custom flat in the front.

rear base really needs to be flipped :-)

There's something about bridging the barrel/receiver junction with a scope that doesn't sit well with me. I can't put my finger on it, it just don't seem natural.

Well, with me it's the Mauser 66 that just don't seem natural! Boo, hiss, throw rotten tomatoes at it!

Sorry, lost my head for a moment there, JMOFWIW, I don't like Comblains or Browning A-Bolts either...
Regards, Joe

That is a pretty common set up on modern renditions of vintage falling block-actioned singe shot rifles.

Here is my custom, re-worked Gibbs-Farquharson with a Zeiss Diatal similarly situated in claw mounts on a quarter rib.



It does take a little looking at and getting used to from a "curb appeal" standpoint, but it works just fine.

Now that is what I call ugly....

Most of my custom work these days is single shots, all sorts of them, and I've NEVER had to resort to that sort of shenanigans to mount the scope. Quarter rib, sure; quarter rib extending back over the front ring, yes but only reluctantly; extension ring, sometimes.

Cantilevered scope? Not in my shop. Like Paul Simon said in the song, "..there are fifty ways.."
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Most of my custom work these days is single shots, all sorts of them, and I've NEVER had to resort to that sort of shenanigans to mount the scope. Quarter rib, sure; quarter rib extending back over the front ring, yes but only reluctantly; extension ring, sometimes.
Cantilevered scope? Not in my shop. Like Paul Simon said in the song, "..there are fifty ways.."
Regards, Joe

What about one ring mounted on the barrel and one mounted on the action?

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
What about one ring mounted on the barrel and one mounted on the action?

I do that too, but don't think it's quite as attractive as a nice small, low quarter rib. The action's scope ring is always mounted BEHIND the scope turret, however, at least in my shop it is.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Speaks for itself...

BWAAAH HA HA HA!!!

Kinda looks like Shoothataway mounted it!!

Steve Hughes and I had a discussion about this over on the single-barrel forum at doublegunshop.com, comparing some different single-shot actions and their scope mounting dimensions. The consensus was that A) the typical modern scope should be mounted with its eyepiece placed between 1" and 2" behind the trigger piece, as measured between vertical lines drawn through each one & perpendicular to the bore line, and B) the Ruger and some other single-shots are longer actions and thus require rearward-placed rear and even extension rear rings while the Winchesters and some others are slightly shorter and so could place the rear scope ring forward of the receiver ring and still have the eyepiece in the right place. We called this dimension the 'scope pull' and I personally found that 1 1/2" was OK for me although 1 1/4" seemed just as good, using primarily Leupold scopes. Others seemed to prefer 1 3/4". I recommend this site to anyone interested in vintage rifles and informed discussion of them, along with some might spectacular modern sporters from the likes of Steven Dodd Hughes. Good engraving, too.
Regards, Joe

To each his own.

Those who don't understand the physical dynamics, and the natural reluctance of anyone with any sense to drill and tap or otherwise alter an 1870's vintage, Bristol-built, patent-numbered Gibbs-Farquharson action, may opine as they wish.

But it ain't a Ruger. And neither strength nor function, and last but not least, not the original Gibbs action, are the least bit impaired or affected by the pictured set up.

I have even used the scope as an M-16 style carrying handle. It works very well for such purposes - although it's better to grab the underside of the action.

Plus, the loading and unloading of the rifle are not adversely affected, as they might be by any extended rear base geometry.

And the claw mounts always return to zero.

MR, your comments are valid and I agree with most of them. Your rifle is truly a work of art and something to be admired!

I, personally, would probably have made the quarter-rib slightly longer, with a cantilevered short section extending back over the receiver ring but not actually touching it, for a rear ring placement (apparently) almost 2 inches further back. This method covers up the top of the receiver ring and limits the engraving for this area (!) but IMO gives the most satisfactory support for the scope. I've done this in the past and will probably do it again in the future but prefer to leave the ring uncovered for engraving, however I'd never sacrifice desired scope support for more engraving coverage.

Nice rifle, I wish I owned it!
Regards, Joe

The funny thing is, that if a custom mauser from a high end maker have a scope mounted like that, noone dares to laugh, and we who does, ends up being ridiculed by everybody else.

I am sure mrlexma is happy with his gun, it is his gun and to each his own. The big difference on his gun is that the scope seems to be placed to fit the owner, and I aplaude that. (Unlike the top gun.)

However, the scope is very easily bended and damaged with a mount like that, and takes a lot less to get off zero.I for one would not like to wear it on a hunt.