NULA scope mount options

M70_MAN

FNG
Joined
May 4, 2023
Messages
31
Just want to see if there are options other than Talley that I’m not aware of. Planning on mounting an LRHS 3-12 on top of a 280AI. Thanks!
 
Not that I'm aware of . I used talleys they worked fine on mine but I just tossed a 4.5-14 leupy I had on it and called it good its so light I planned on just using it for deer and dark timber 300 and in stuff
 
Talley makes a pic rail for NULA's. I use .75" 30mm rings with it and would like them to be a touch lower...but I can live with them.
 
Thanks, I did see the rail and might go that way. What brand of rings did you go with to get that low?
 
APA 30mm lows. I've had .82" Seekins lows and the APA's were better on the height, though it isn't a massive change. Using the previous version of APA low's on the NULA, the current is a touch wider but the same height....really well designed ring if you're looking for a lower mount on a rail:

 
Thanks, they look incredibly well designed, I hadn’t run across them before.
 
Its rumored that Weaver makes or has made bases that will fit NULA actions, but I've never found them.

Other than that, its Talley only.
 
Ken Farrell makes the lowest rings I’m aware of. APA next. Both are rock solid.
 
Thanks, those weren’t on my radar either. Do you own both? I’m assuming the weight is similar between Ken’s rings and the APA’s?
 
As SDHNTR mentioned, the Farrell's are going to be a bit lighter. I posted about some of the differences between the Farrell's and APA's a while back but IMO, the APA's are much better rings. The Farrell's are light and trim but because of the lightening cuts and thin width of the rings, there's a lot less tube to ring contact with them compared to APA's. I prefer the lug and latch system of the APA rings. Easiest way to explain the difference in contact and gripping area between the two:
 

Attachments

  • APAvsKF.jpg
    APAvsKF.jpg
    484.6 KB · Views: 26
As SDHNTR mentioned, the Farrell's are going to be a bit lighter. I posted about some of the differences between the Farrell's and APA's a while back but IMO, the APA's are much better rings. The Farrell's are light and trim but because of the lightening cuts and thin width of the rings, there's a lot less tube to ring contact with them compared to APA's. I prefer the lug and latch system of the APA rings. Easiest way to explain the difference in contact and gripping area between the two:
Bit of a resurrection of thread here, but I’m looking for some low rings for my M70.
I see your point about the APA’s clamping surface area and lug/latch mechanism.
Just curious if you have experienced any kind of failure or slippage with the Farrell’s? I’m working with a unique setup and a short scope tube so the slimness of the Farrells is slightly appealing, but not worth it if it doesn’t stay put obviously. Thanks
 
As SDHNTR mentioned, the Farrell's are going to be a bit lighter. I posted about some of the differences between the Farrell's and APA's a while back but IMO, the APA's are much better rings. The Farrell's are light and trim but because of the lightening cuts and thin width of the rings, there's a lot less tube to ring contact with them compared to APA's. I prefer the lug and latch system of the APA rings. Easiest way to explain the difference in contact and gripping area between the two:
Come to think of it, any chance you’d have a dimension for the thickness (parallel to scope tube) of the KF’s? Thanks
 
I haven't had any issues with the Farrell's slipping. I've used the single pair I have on a couple of different rifles but none of them have been heavier recoiling and I haven't purposefully dropped any of them to test hold/grip.

The situation you mentioned is what I'm used them for right now. Currently they are mounted on a 336 in 35 Rem with a scope that is ~ the same tube length as the rail. The KF's, being slim, allow me to use the forward most and rear most slots without the bottom of the rings overhanging the rail and the tube length/eye relief of the scope make this the best mounting position for this scope on this rifle. I could likely use the APA's, just moving them in on the rail but the KF's are a nice fit.

I'll try to get a measurement and post here later today.
 
I haven't had any issues with the Farrell's slipping. I've used the single pair I have on a couple of different rifles but none of them have been heavier recoiling and I haven't purposefully dropped any of them to test hold/grip.

The situation you mentioned is what I'm used them for right now. Currently they are mounted on a 336 in 35 Rem with a scope that is ~ the same tube length as the rail. The KF's, being slim, allow me to use the forward most and rear most slots without the bottom of the rings overhanging the rail and the tube length/eye relief of the scope make this the best mounting position for this scope on this rifle. I could likely use the APA's, just moving them in on the rail but the KF's are a nice fit.

I'll try to get a measurement and post here later today.
Right on, I appreciate it
 
I forgot all about this. I apologize. I'll try to get it this evening.
No worries, now that it’s Monday I can always give Mr. KF a call and save ya the hassle. Maybe he posts the dimension on the website in the future as a result
 
Back
Top