Is there anyone that can make milled custom bases that are extremely low. The profile I am wanting is like the Brno Model 21/22 type. I want a base that is low enough to have useful regular iron sites on a big bore rifle. I have had them made for me but they all are too tall. I can get high or extra high rings that will accommodate a standard orberndorf bolt handle, however, all of the added on bases are to tall to see the normal sights.

How low do you want them?
Here's one example from Joe Bautz.




cheers,
- stu

I would want them a bit lower, how much I am not sure. I bought a B Mauser in 9.3x92 that had been reblued, the bolt altered for low scope mounting, and a drill and tap. To make this back into a working piece, I would like to get the action fixed up with new Mauser bolt handle and some nice looking bases. I have to be careful as I put some Talley bases on the rifle and in the stock can not see the Iron sights well over the top of the bases? I think if they were as low as some of the early Kimber bases then you could probably see over them. I looked at all of my Mauser custom rifles that have custom as well as Talley bases and they all suffer the same problem. Talked to several folks that say they can not be built lower. They probably know best but what other options are there???Can a lower base be made and soldered onto the action and still retain the strength one needs?

LB404, You just need to quit wasting money on all those old Mausers and just use Rugers. They even come with rings and irons on some models! ....................DJ

If you are talking about seeing the original iron sights on a Model B, good luck.

1. See-thru SEM mounts (claw) were the original style.

2. EAW swing away mounts have a channel down the center to see the original irons. (so do Weavers)

3. You can attach the claw style bases, then mill them to accept Brno style rings. Here is a small ring Brno with such bases soldered on.

KurtC, does the action need to be re-heat treated after that opperation. Did you do the square bridging or have someone else. I had suggested a similar treatment to Clayton Nelson and make the bridge height quite a bit lower and then mill the slots for talley rings into the bases be he seemed to think there would not be enough metal for securing the rings to the base. All I know is that if you have a rifle like a 500 Jeffery, 416 Rigby and want to use iron sights as well as a scope, most of the base/ring sets place the base height way too high to accomplish that goal without abnormally high front and rear sight. Didn't most of those Bron 21/22 rifles come with integral bases and they are much lower than the soldered on bases in the picture? I think if you could keep the base height about the same as the claw base height when the base is slid into the dovetail in the front receiver ring.

djpaintles; you know you don't have but a couple of Rugers and Kimber doesn't have an iron sight rifle that you own yet! How was your weekend with the boys??

That front base is .135" high at top dead center, if that helps. They were soldered on the Brno 1947 model 22F by Griffin & Howe. Relatively low temp solder on a modern steel action, so no re-heat treat was deemed necessary. If I were to use them on heavy recoiling rifle, I would recommend screwing them on as well.

The Brno 21/22 factory square bridge actions are relatively low because the action itself is a small ring 98. If you look at the current CZ550's, you will see that the bases are higher, because the action is larger.

You will also notice that on the Brno's, as well as the pre-war commercial Mausers, the rear sight is part of a large sleeve soldered around the barrel, making it higher than if the sight boss was more forward on the barrel.

I use the early Kimber bases & rings when I can find them, they are indeed slightly lower than the Talleys but not as low as you can go. To get the lowest mounting with safety, I suggest you have extra metal TIG welded to the bridges and then machined for the rings, which would necessitate re-heat-treating afterward. Not a big deal, you could even have it color-cased at the same time if wanted.

Original claw mounts used a large female dovetail cut into the front ring, thus substantially weakening the action. Please see Ackley's Handbook for accounts of Mauser blowups and their failure modes. I've used original claw bases with my own bench-made rings for them, somewhat of a PITA to make properly but worth it IMO. I've also used the EAW mounts, quite good but WAY overpriced IMO and also higher than you want.
Regards, Joe

If you are using a European style scope (longer than US styles), you can put the front base on the barrel shoulder, keeping things low. I believe the barrel bases are available in either SEM or swing-away style.

quote:

Originally posted by lb404:

djpaintles; you know you don't have but a couple of Rugers and Kimber doesn't have an iron sight rifle that you own yet! How was your weekend with the boys??

You do realize I was pulling your chain, though it's funny that Ruger is about the only current manufacturer that makes a reasonably priced rifle that could fit what you are wanting to do. Sako Safari models would also work but they ain't cheap.
Garrison's down with a sore throat, at the doctors now to see if it's strep. I'm glad kids heal quick.......................DJ

Give him a hug for me. Talk to you later.

KurtC, I had thought of doing the very thing you suggested but using a quater rib dovetailed like Searcy did on double rifles but the rear base still may be high. I guess where I am heading is for a dangerous game rifle that comes to the shoulder well with Iron sights and the stock comb isn't too low to allow for easy scope usage. Have you ever had a rifle that would accommodate both well??

The largest bore I've ever scoped was a Mannlicher-Schoenauer 1910 in 9.5x57 (.375 NE). I used the EAW swing-away mounts (offset rear). The front base has a groove machined down the center, so I had no problem seeing the factory irons.

I know they're not as pretty as talleys but how about a set of steel weavers, grand slam. or Warne equivilent. OR swamp the center out of a set of integral weavers. and add the curve to the bottom of the rings.

The lower the squ bridge the wider it will be so that's why I'm saying weavers.

Rich

Jim brockman makes a pop up rear sight which pops up when the rear scope ring is removed. i have it on my 404 and it works great.

Why not use H&H sidemounts? Quick on/off and nothing in the way of the irons.

A G&H side mount may be a bit higher than top mouint rings but the irons can be used w/o removing the scope too.

quote:

Originally posted by lb404:
I guess where I am heading is for a dangerous game rifle that comes to the shoulder well with Iron sights and the stock comb isn't too low to allow for easy scope usage. Have you ever had a rifle that would accommodate both well??

I find that my Dakota 375H&H Safari grade meets your description for me. The scope is just a tad higher than I would prefer in 30mm Talley rings, but is no trouble at all to use. I have no issues at all with the height of the talley bases and seeing the 1/4 rib mounted express rear or front bead. At the same time, the height of the comb is fine for me as far as shooting with the iron sights.

JPK

Have a good smith make the bases for rings with a wider foot spacing. Look at the BRNO rings you mentioned, the newer CZ's, Sakos, and similar receiver/ring combos. These rings are readily available and you can see any iron sight out there with them. Between Brownell's and Talley, usually has every size is available at any time.

These are actually Talley rings, so they look just as good as the Talleys made for the Talley footprint bases. There is no law saying the smith must use standard rings. If you like the BRNO 21/22 look, then any competent smith can exactly duplicate it and use the same rings as well. Not really sure what the problem is. Just keep calling folks until you find one who will do it.

Today I was looking at a BRNO 21H and a Sako L461 today and those bases are wide and low and with the scopes removed you are looking right across the top of the barrel. That is as low a receiver with no scope provisions at all.

Ib 404,
do you have an actual figure on how low you want the bases? (ie; how high above the receiver?)
No matter how wide a jaw width ring you choose, there remains a minimum required height for the base fixing screws(+ recoil lip). Count on around .2" from receiver to top of screw, StuC's pictured mauser above, probably aint far off that......though I vaguely recall Leupold QRw bases being somewhat lower still.
.. you will never match the base height of a brno 21/zg47.

If you modify rings you could have the dovetails down on the sides of the receiver rings. Just would need to start with the widest rings and hollow out the bottoms to clear the receiver ring.

On a BRNO 21/22, the "square bases" are only .055” higher than the front ring height of a small ring Mauser. And even this is milled out of the center of the base, so the iron sight picture is exactly the same as if you were using a round bridge small ring Mauser with no scope bases at all.

If the same rings were used on a large ring Mauser, then the base tops would be a few thousands more. If you had rings with wider claws, then the base tops would be lower yet.

Maybe it is not as easy to visualize if these actions are not handy. If someone is still having trouble seeing how the relationships interact, then draw a circle representing the front ring of an action. Draw the bases that are required for say, three different ring clamp widths. As the clamp width narrows, the higher the base must be above the ring. Without the height, there is not enough meat to form the female portion of the base. If you draw things to scale, then use a regular Talley and a BRNO 21H spacing rings and you will see the difference. I am in the planning stages of a project right now and have been looking at ring widths for the past week. Looking for something to give me the square bridge height that will keep everything in the proper scale. If I went with regular Talleys then the bridges would stick up too high for the action.

One thing to note here-when you are looking for the lowest possible base, then you are talking about a true welded, square bridge. There will not be enough meat for the screws. With some rings, there would be no actual meat sticking up above the receiver, as the only metal needed for a functional square bridge would be below a line that was drawn tangent to the top of the receiver ring and parallel to the underside of the action. The female dovetail would be cut into the metal that was built up below that line. If you can stand a little sticking up above the receiver ring, then I guess you could soft solder the bases on. I would still prefer welding.

Mark Stratton made me a set of bases for my Brno 21h that are bevel cut down the center so that I can use my iron sights and I use Talley rings. They are saddle bases so the fit the countour of the front ring and cover the charger hump in the rear.

When I bought the rifle it had a redfield base that had been drilled and tapped slightly off center, Mark made the bases to fit the off center holes and you really can't tell. Nice work.

I've fought this battle for many years and have come to the conclusion that any front base that's screwed to the ring will be too high for lowest mounting of the scope in conventional QD lever-release rings. I've found this to be especially true with Talleys and most Kimber/Warne rings as well, unfortunately.

Most bolt rifles can't really accomodate a lowest-mounted scope because of interference between the eyepiece lens and the bolt handle shaft or root. Almost all modern custom smiths, especially the high-$ ones, use the straight bolt handles with no eyepiece bell cutout because they look so much better, but this practice requires a higher scope mount than would otherwise be necessary.

For absolute lowest mounting it's necessary to index from the top of the bolt sleeve and not the bolt handle root. The bolt handle root and shaft can always be lowered closer to the bolt body but the bolt sleeve is largely fixed in its dimensions, and IMO it is the controlling factor in the lowest scope mounting position.

The shooter must decide just how much aesthetic appearance or bank balance he's willing to sacrifice in order to achieve this lowest mounting. I can tell you from long personal experience that the absolute lowest mounting will be achieved by one of the following:

integral bases such as Sako or Ruger machined down into the ring

European claws with the front mount dovetailed down into the ring

a side mount such as the G&H, H&H or Pachmayr Lo-Swing

the front base mounted ahead of the ring, or

the early original Weaver alloy bases & rings that were noticably lower than the current type


With these mounting options it's possible to have the scope mounted so low that a smaller eyepiece is necessary such as that on the Leupold Compacts, to avoid hitting the top of the bolt sleeve. I'm doing that right now on an ELW Mauser, had to acquire a Compact in order to mount it since the usual-size eyepiece interfered. Also am fabbing a Brno-type spoon handle for the same rifle but could have used a round one I guess.
Regards, Joe

Hi Guys,

I'm glad 450/400 was happy with my work. Usually I surface grind the back bridge of a Mauser, which does away with the stripper clip lump. However, 450/400 opted not too surface grind so I made the base to fit over this surface. Over the years, I have made custom bases to fit receivers that have been drilled off center. Back in the day, before the war, Winchester Model 70's weren't drilled and tapped from the factory. Some of these receivers later, were drilled off center. By measuring the hole pattern and drilling the new base to match, is turns a major mistake into something you have live with.

I have made several sets of bases for IB404 in the past, so he is a wear that this work is available.

Now if your thinking about a low base, it possible to get the bolt handle to clear the scope by ordering a higher set of rings. Now there a limits to a thin base; one needs about a .030 web for the screw to pinch between the screw and receiver and the thickness of the screw head. I can mill a radius through the bases so you can use low open sights.

You could also mount a lyman alaskan on a set of G&H mounts. The base is set partially on the side of the front ring.

Rich

I am building a 7x57 English styled stalking rifle on a 1908 DWM and will have a striker mounted aperture sight as primary but am having a set of bases made to be as low as is practable and will use the high Ruger diferiential height rings and will replace the knurled screw with a set of Warne q d levers for an old 4x Redfield that will carry in a day pack.I have used a Magnum mauser styled bolt handle and will leave it without the ugly scoop out of the top which is why I have to use the high rings. As the scope will only be used in rare instances where hunting closer is not possible a little bit of high cheek weld will not be a problem.
Von Gruff.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark_Stratton:
Hi Guys,

I'm glad 450/400 was happy with my work. Usually I surface grind the back bridge of a Mauser, which does away with the stripper clip lump. However, 450/400 opted not too surface grind so I made the base to fit over this surface. Over the years, I have made custom bases to fit receivers that have been drilled off center. Back in the day, before the war, Winchester Model 70's weren't drilled and tapped from the factory. Some of these receivers later, were drilled off center. By measuring the hole pattern and drilling the new base to match, is turns a major mistake into something you have live with.

I have made several sets of bases for IB404 in the past, so he is a wear that this work is available.

Now if your thinking about a low base, it possible to get the bolt handle to clear the scope by ordering a higher set of rings. Now there a limits to a thin base; one needs about a .030 web for the screw to pinch between the screw and receiver and the thickness of the screw head. I can mill a radius through the bases so you can use low open sights.

Very nice work Mark. Its a shame you couldn't talk 450/400 into one of those elegantly shaped octagon barrels you do so nicely.

Mark Stratton has done wonderful work on custom bases on many of my Winchester actions. These small ring actions work well with those bases. I probably should have consulted him about the large ring Mauser actions. I have bought a number of vintage Mauser rifles in the recent past. Those that are original, not drilled and tapped, I leave alone. The few rifles that have been monkeyed with I am trying to turn into serviceable rifles in spite of their changes. In particular, an Orberndorf 9.3x62. It is an uncommon rifle and does need to be re done. I really don't want to surface grind the rifle as that can destroy any provenance of the metal itself. Since it is drilled and tapped, the charger hump is still there, I thought of very low ring mounts as anything else will render the iron sights unusable. I guess I want my cake and eat it too! Any advice, any one want to restore an original Mauser to better condition so I can hunt with it?

The lowest possible dovetail with standard allen 6x48 screws is .130 from top of dovetail to TDC of receiver. This will leave .040 thick web the front base screw counterbores with off the shelf screws. The screws I have,have .090 thick screw heads. most 6x84 allen or torx are around there.

Special custom screws with thin heads can be made. This will allow the base to be about .030 lower.

A smith going for the lowest possible scope on a Mauser must first do the lowest possible bolt handle. One way to achieve this is to make the centerline of the bolt handle attach to the centerline of the bolt. Much like the M-70 handle is attached.
One thing about this approach, a fairly large cut must be taken from the receiver behind the 3rd lug pocket to clear the root of the bolt handle.
The FN handle also gets you pretty low. Just as it came from FN.
Timan

Aren't you looking for the lowest bases to be able to see the irons? The bolt handle wouldn't be impossible if you use a little taller rings. I believe that is the way I read your post.
Butch

Timan, how are you doing? I still have that 250-3000rifle project I need to send you for rework. The 9.3 already has a cut in the action for a lowered ugggggly bolt handle welded on. I need some help.
Butch, That is what I intend to do, use tall rings on the rifle. The Talley are too high to see the sight picture. My idea was to make very low bases with broad thin screw heads, perhaps soldered in place to achieve that goal then use standard Talley rings in whichever height to use a scope. I have about used up all of my limited knowledge on the subject. Now looking at these other options.

This is not a good photo of the bases I made for a round receiver, but shows what could be done. The top of the dovetail is .220 and it is screwed and soldered. The higher stop in front could be removed with the dovetail stopping before going all the way to the front. That should be enough to keep the recoil from pushing the scope forward.
I agree with Timan, as my screws are .090 head height and .040 would be a safe minimum.
Butch

The absolute lowest mounting will NEVER be achieved by a front base mounted on the top of the ring, you'll always be able to go lower with a side, dovetailed claw or barrel mount. Just depends upon how low you need to go. Personally I like to change the iron sights to higher ones in these cases.
Regards, Joe

Butch and J.D. Steele Thanks for the reply.The issue with the front mounted, on the barrel mount is getting a hunting scope long enough to work. Most wont. Zeiss made a long tube scope in low power for just such applications as well as for double rifles/drillings. Hard to find now.

lb404, last year I finished a fairly nice Banner Mauser in 7x57 for a friend's son, and of course I didn't want to deface or even cover up the Banner on the ring. I used an early longer (a lot longer) Leupold 4x with a bench-made front base mounted immediately in front of the ring and it worked well, AAMOF IMO the EAW mounts would be ideal for this type mounting since the ones I've seen all had extension front rings. Wish I had some photos of the setup, it's nothing fancy but that Banner and the BUG proofs remain very visible on the front ring.
Regards, Joe

quote:

bench-made front base mounted immediately in front of the ring and it worked

This one is way too high, but..

LB404,
Doing well. Just thought I'd chime in. I agree with JD.
But if the scope is not. Then it's not. Simple.
At which point lowest possible handle to work with lowest normal set of custom bases is the answer.
9.3 action already cut? Ideal, no guilt there.
M-70 handle it. nice of course.
Good day.
Timan

I want to thank all of you for the suggestions. I am looking at the picture of Mark Stratton's bases and the groove. That may be one answer to the problem.
D.J. Steele, I am like you and resist defacing the marks on a vintage mauser. Many gunmakers want to surface grind off the front and rear bridges of the action and that takes away the provenance and proof of lagitamacy of the action. At that point one could buy any junk mauser action and do something with it. Probably would look just as good but then I would know.

I don't want to ruin any of the Orberndorf Mausers that are in original shape but when you find an old rifle that could be partially restored then that may be a project worth doing right.