Scope mounting issues.

[Xxtavixx]

Maybe it's just me - but that scope looks awfully far back.

 

[GKPrice]

Maybe it's just me - but that scope looks awfully far back.

may have to do with the PIA eye relief of that Vortex

 

[robtattoo]

Yep, they're super critical.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[hodgeman]

I could cut and grind the rail and go back to the lower rings....

what is the downfall of having the scope that high?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Getting a good cheek weld will be tough to do, if not impossible. The recoil is going to crack you in the cheekbone with every shot.

Do yourself a huge favor and get some lower rings. Any gunshop and most larger sporting goods stores will have M70 rings and bases a plenty.

A classy rifle like a M70 just begs for some Warne Maximas or Talley Lightweights.

 

[ATX762]

So...a few issues:
A) yer scope has wicked short eye relief, but I think I shot a Diamondback on a friends 300 RUM and it worked, I just held onto the gun like hell and kept my head upright.
B) Scope looks high BUT if it comes up centered with your eye, then great.
C) You can cut the end off that rail if yer gonna keep using that scope. Just dremel it and square the end on a belt sander.
D) As previously mentioned stretch the rings out as far as possible to support the scope body if the rifle is dropped.
E) Yeah, there are more elegant rings for that beautiful rifle.
F) Big deer up in those areas north of NYC... Sullivan Duchess etc...hope you get a good one.

 

[Cahunter805]

Trimming the rail is easy. A hacksaw and some file work and your good to go. Trim it to fit just past the front of the action. Definitely use the lower rings.

 

[Xxtavixx]

Ive shot the diamondback, and theyre critical (most of the lower to middle end vortex scopes are IMO) but I didnt feel like it was THAT bad. That is further back that I would set my bunchrest only guns to, i set the hunting scopes a little further forward since my position in the woods is a little different

 

[NevadaZielmeister]

Maybe it's just me - but that scope looks awfully far back.

The rings are the corresponding Vortex pieces and I rather not go to a taller ring as the height is perfect for me when I shoulder the gun.

Is there anything I'm missing? Or is either cutting the rail or going to a higher base my only option?

The scope looks too far back to me. To make sure we are covering all of the bases, at what power do you have the scope set when you are confirming that the eye box is good for your eye?

The reason I ask is that the higher the magnification, the smaller the eye box, which gives you a more refined scope position. Should you have the scope at low power, you are likely at the front end of the very large eye box, thus giving you this weird mounting situation.

And I must say, Larry here got the scope mounting process nailed: Gunsmithing - How to Properly Mount a Scope Presented by Larry Potterfield of MidwayUSA - YouTube

Mount the scope correctly with these tools and his technique and you will enjoy a life time of rifle accuracy. Far too many times have I observed people's scopes give them problems when they DID NOT follow these simple steps. I have witnessed loss scopes, irregular levels, inaccuracy, etc. etc. etc.

 

[grfox92]

The scope looks too far back to me. To make sure we are covering all of the bases, at what power do you have the scope set when you are confirming that the eye box is good for your eye?

The reason I ask is that the higher the magnification, the smaller the eye box, which gives you a more refined scope position. Should you have the scope at low power, you are likely at the front end of the very large eye box, thus giving you this weird mounting situation.

And I must say, Larry here got the scope mounting process nailed: Gunsmithing - How to Properly Mount a Scope Presented by Larry Potterfield of MidwayUSA - YouTube

Mount the scope correctly with these tools and his technique and you will enjoy a life time of rifle accuracy. Far too many times have I observed people's scopes give them problems when they DID NOT follow these simple steps. I have witnessed loss scopes, irregular levels, inaccuracy, etc. etc. etc.

the scope is on the lowest power. I haven't been able to work on the gun again. I am going to grind and cut the rail and follow the steps on the video you posted.

Thank you for that link.

I'm going to play with it and see if I can get the scope a little farther forward.

Thank you all for the advice so far.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[grfox92]

The scope looks too far back to me. To make sure we are covering all of the bases, at what power do you have the scope set when you are confirming that the eye box is good for your eye?

The reason I ask is that the higher the magnification, the smaller the eye box, which gives you a more refined scope position. Should you have the scope at low power, you are likely at the front end of the very large eye box, thus giving you this weird mounting situation.

And I must say, Larry here got the scope mounting process nailed: Gunsmithing - How to Properly Mount a Scope Presented by Larry Potterfield of MidwayUSA - YouTube

Mount the scope correctly with these tools and his technique and you will enjoy a life time of rifle accuracy. Far too many times have I observed people's scopes give them problems when they DID NOT follow these simple steps. I have witnessed loss scopes, irregular levels, inaccuracy, etc. etc. etc.

I do not have the lapping tool. Is that 100% Necessary?

I level the gun perfectly in a conventional vice with padded blocks I made using a 4 foot level on the reciever, front to back and left to right. I then installed the scope and used a 2 foot level on the cap of the scope. Is that sufficient?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Xxtavixx]

I do not have the lapping tool. Is that 100% Necessary?

I level the gun perfectly in a conventional vice with padded blocks I made using a 4 foot level on the reciever, front to back and left to right. I then installed the scope and used a 2 foot level on the cap of the scope. Is that sufficient?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I dont lap, and I dont personally know a single guy who does. Ive never had any issues but I tend to bug DNZ mounts and nothing but DNZ. With that said, I am sure someone will indicate how my process is incorrect and I am asking for trouble.

 

[huntsman22]

using a 4 foot level on the reciever, front to back and left to right. I then installed the scope and used a 2 foot level on the cap of the scope.

That's just plain silly. Everybody knows you need at least a 6 foot level.....

 

[Jackalope]

Is the length of pull too long? I'm building a model 70 and the factory stock is too long for me. I was also experimenting with scope mounting and found that the Talley 20 MOA rail is a little taller than average (.060 to be exact.) It allowed me to mount a 50mm objective scope in seekins low rings without issue. It's also substantially shorter than the one you have mounted.

 

[NevadaZielmeister]

I do not have the lapping tool. Is that 100% Necessary?

The lapping tool gets it perfect. I find those are needed for less expensive rings and mounts. Get a high quality mount, then you are good. I would recommend a picatinny rail base and ring system, then you should be fine without lapping the rings. Use something like a dovetail system? get busy lapping.

I level the gun perfectly in a conventional vice with padded blocks I made using a 4 foot level on the reciever, front to back and left to right. I then installed the scope and used a 2 foot level on the cap of the scope. Is that sufficient?

I hope you mean 4 inch level, right? Wow, that is really not necessary at all. Either you get something like the Level-Level-Level or you hang a string from a distance in front, say 5 yards. Then level the rifle by reference. As long as the bottom of the reticle points to the center of the bore, you are good.

I dont lap, and I dont personally know a single guy who does. Ive never had any issues but I tend to bug DNZ mounts and nothing but DNZ. With that said, I am sure someone will indicate how my process is incorrect and I am asking for trouble.

And this is exactly it, you use high quality mounts, thus no need for lapping.

 

[NevadaZielmeister]

Is the length of pull too long? I'm building a model 70 and the factory stock is too long for me. I was also experimenting with scope mounting and found that the Talley 20 MOA rail is a little taller than average (.060 to be exact.) It allowed me to mount a 50mm objective scope in seekins low rings without issue. It's also substantially shorter than the one you have mounted.

Well, a 20 MOA rail tilts the scope forward and thus the objective is lower in the front. I suspect that the Talley system then raises their rings to compensate, but I could be wrong.

Getting the proper length of pull is important, but then to adjust you need either a new stock or a gunsmith. So chose wisely.

 

[GKPrice]

The lapping tool gets it perfect. I find those are needed for less expensive rings and mounts. Get a high quality mount, then you are good. I would recommend a picatinny rail base and ring system, then you should be fine without lapping the rings. Use something like a dovetail system? get busy lapping.



I hope you mean 4 inch level, right? Wow, that is really not necessary at all. Either you get something like the Level-Level-Level or you hang a string from a distance in front, say 5 yards. Then level the rifle by reference. As long as the bottom of the reticle points to the center of the bore, you are good.



And this is exactly it, you use high quality mounts, thus no need for lapping.

"high quality" rings are no guarantee of perfection, better chance ? yes, guarantee ? NO - not a bad practice to just simply check before tightening - IF you have a lapping tool you must SURELY have an alignment bar as well ?

It's "funny" how after each time I mention the Leupold Rifleman rings there is silence on that topic ? I guess it just goes along with the $$$ buys only perfection "theory" ... but that's OK, I'm the happy one with cheap rings that have never failed or marked up a scope for me and are STUPID lightweight and STILL cheap

 

[grfox92]

The lapping tool gets it perfect. I find those are needed for less expensive rings and mounts. Get a high quality mount, then you are good. I would recommend a picatinny rail base and ring system, then you should be fine without lapping the rings. Use something like a dovetail system? get busy lapping.



I hope you mean 4 inch level, right? Wow, that is really not necessary at all. Either you get something like the Level-Level-Level or you hang a string from a distance in front, say 5 yards. Then level the rifle by reference. As long as the bottom of the reticle points to the center of the bore, you are good.



And this is exactly it, you use high quality mounts, thus no need for lapping.

No I literally used a 4 foot level on the action simply because it was hanging directly above the vise and I don't have a line level...or I do and have no idea where it is. just working with what I have.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[grfox92]

Now I'm getting somewhere. Not much free time lately. That's it for today. Need to pick up some matte black paint now.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[grfox92]

I know this post of very old, but I've been busy and haven't posted the end result.

I cut and painted the rail and mounted the scope with the correct Vortex Rings.

I spent a little time at a local 50 yard range and got the gun shooting 2" High at 50 yards in a 1/2" group.

I need to travel some distance to get to somewhere I can shoot a couple hundred yards, but so far I am very happy with the result.

Thank you everyone for the guidance and advise!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[howl]

2" high at fifty will be pretty high at distance. You might want an extra big piece of cardboard out at 100.

You'll know if you got the scope level if your groups go up and down perfectly vertically when you make vertical adjustments.