Is it possible to mount a scope on one of these rifles? No mount holes are drilled. Are there some bases that will work if the holes are drilled?

The 1952 should have the removeable side plate for mounting something like the Griffin & Howe, Jaeger, EAW, Pachmayr, Echo or other period side mount. No need to drill the top of the receiver.

Get these Redfield copied bases off this fellow:

http://www.wattswalnut.com/ms_scope_bases.php

That's what I did. They work great.

I ordered a set of bases and rings from Watts Walnut for a 458 win mag Steyr Mannlicher. First class work!

Thanks for his information. I am following up on this with an email to them today (Didn't answer the phone and I can't stand by the phone today).

A purist would say that it would be sacrilege to D&T that splendid rifle for those big honkin' iron-sight-obscuring Redfield bases!

You may find that it's about the same price to use the proper side mount as intended for the rifle, but that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

I've done it both ways and will personally never use the Redfields again, they somehow just don't quite fit that splendid rifle's persona. At least not for me anyway.
Regards, Joe

I think that the redfield mount would be a pain to get exactly right. I would like to find a proper side mount, but don't know where to look.

One of the reasons I didn't go with a side mount is because in some instance you have to have the side of the receiver milled. Then there's a bunch of drilled hole. No thanks, I'm very happy with the Redfield mounts. My rifle is a custom with no sight so I didn't care if the scope mounts block the sight. Most sporting rifles today don't come with sights. One more thing the Redfield mounts fit very well, very well and they are solid. Just my two cents, your mileage may differ.

The slickest, highest quality side mount available today is the EAW, imported by New England Custom Gun. The mount is low profile, and is barely noticed with the scope removed. The mount is flat, and mounts flat against the side of the receiver. The holes are drilled below the woodline. The downside is that it is expensive.

The next nicest mount is the Jaeger, but it is long discontinued. If you find one, get the hightest rings possible so that you can mount the base as low as possible.

The Griffin & Howe is still in production, but is a bit blocky. As in the Jaeger, use high rings so that you can mount the base lower.

If you decide to drill the top of the receiver, I recommend the EAW pivot mounts (NECG again). They are more expensive than the Redfields, but much nicer and the scope can quickly be removed.

What KurtC said, he knows his stuff!

The rear Redfield base is sometimes a problem to install correctly since it mounts on a slanted surface and it's difficult for the smith to maintain the correct positioning while D&Ting. Choose a smith who's familiar with this particular installation.

I have a few Jaeger side mount parts including a few blank undrilled mounting plates, but no high rings. The medium rings can be made to work in some cases but a lot depends upon the scope you plan to use.
Regards, Joe

Kurt and Joe...No doubt you two know your stuff. You see the cost of those EAW mounts? $454 and that's nuts. You can buy a decent Leupold scope for that amount. As far as that rear Redfield mount being hard to do because of the slanted receiver: Well you do the front mount first. Then you mount the scope with both rings on it and with the rear mount hooked to the rear ring. Then you can see exactly where the rear mount holes go and mark them. Now I mounted one of these mounts on a more difficult Mannlicher, the Polish Mannicher built for the Germans during WWII. The problem with them is that there's no slant on the rear receiver ring, but instead it's scolloped out (more like 1/3 of a circle) and who knows why...lightening cuts?? I machined a steel rod to the diameter of that scolloped circle and made a shim for it. I then soldered it to the scollop. Then marked, drilled, and tapped my holes as described above.

One definitely have to be concerned about scope height and the bolt handle. Mine had a butterknife handle put on it, but who ever done it had the root sticking too far out from the stock. I had to redo to where the handle now sets almost flush along the stock. I'll admit that those Mannlichers aren't the easiest to scope.

I gotta admit that my main objection to the Redfields is their lack of any sort of aesthetic value on such a classic Euro rifle.

And besides being as ugly as the south end of a northbound hog, they put the scope up so high that the shooter needs to be built like a long-necked goose!

Last time I bought a set of M-S Redfield mounts, the bases alone ran around $250. How much are they or their clones today? Smithing charge would be about the same for almost any of the mounts in question unless G&H did the job (grin).
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
I gotta admit that my main objection to the Redfields is their lack of any sort of aesthetic value on such a classic Euro rifle.

And besides being as ugly as the south end of a northbound hog, they put the scope up so high that the shooter needs to be built like a long-necked goose!

Last time I bought a set of M-S Redfield mounts, the bases alone ran around $250. How much are they or their clones today? Smithing charge would be about the same for almost any of the mounts in question unless G&H did the job (grin).
Regards, Joe

Unless the fellow that still makes them, they are as low as possible to clear the bolt. In fact there is a milled groove on the rear base to clear that root of the handle. I'll see if I can get some pics of mine. I'll admitt too they are robust..lol.