I am putting together a brand new model 700 remington .308!
Mine is the 700 varmint SF SS and I will be developing a custom load for my new gun. I have only reloaded in small batches (20 rounds or less) about a dozen or so times and it's been 6 months to a year since I've done any! With that being said I am an avid deer hunter on the East Coast so much of my shooting is 100 yards or less. My intentions are to be able to shoot 300-500 yards with confidence and consistency! I have just ordered the Vortex Crossfire II 6-18x44 and it has a 1" tube. My question is does anyone have a similar set up or combination that could help me decide the best rings and base to mount the Vortex on my model 700 .308? I am planning on shooting 150gr Hornady SST bullets and would take any and all powder and measurement suggestions offered!
Thank you all!
Kevin
Rings and mounts are not scope-specific. Your scope has a 1" tube, so you just need a base and rings that fit your rifle and a 1" tube. There are a variety of suitable options. I prefer a one-piece base, where applicable.
That's a lot of scope for deer hunting to 100 yards, good luck with it. I have a Vortex Diamondback HP 3-12×42 mounted on a Remington Model Seven in .270WSM and used two piece Warne bases with medium Warne permanent rings. Its a very secure set-up and mediums should work with 44mm objective. I'll try to post a pic of the system.
This is another Model Seven in 350RM that was in the room. Its wearing the same type system though, 2 piece Warne bases and 30mm rings just to show you the system.
Agree with the Warne Rings & bases....best and most secure in the business...I use them on every one of my big bore rifles....no negatives to report...
Just call Talley and ask what rings you need with that scope. I call those 'tractor funnel' scopes and can't imagine ever owning one. My neck isn't that long!
Tally's are nice. Now have three scopes mounted using these rings. Those people are very helpful when technical advice is sought. Got Warne rings on a T3. No more one piece bases for me unless it's Weaver. I have very little confidence in a one piece base really making the action stiffer.
The M700 and Weatherby Vanguard use the same bases. This is a Vanguard with a Talley 2 piece Lightweight system (rings are integral with the bases) also very nice and secure.
I was just looking at these! I think they are around 38-40$? I really like the simplicity of these. Do you have any issues with bolt clearance and do you think I will have any issues with the 44mm lens or the "Bell" as I tend to call it? Also this scope comes with a sunshade that I do plan on using. That shouldn't be a problem if the 44mm has clearance?
Here's a copy and paste of the answer to the same OP in another thread--
Kmbateman-- Scope mounting systems are divided into three very rough categories--
Linear dovetails like Talley, Kimber, and Warne.
Clamp dovetails like Weaver and anything that clamps to a Picatinny rail.
Rotary dovetails Like Leupold and Burris.
ASSUMING your action is machined correctly, any set of scope mounts made for that rifle will fit and work just fine. Some are made to install and LEAVE there and some are made for quick removal and replacement.
For your kind of shooting with that rifle, I'd go with something solid and permanent. You don't need any fancy offsets or tapers to shoot 500 yards, but one ring or another might need extending to fit the scope comfortably. Your problem might be getting the scope low enough to see through!
Cheap mounts works....sometimes. Expensive mounts are backed up by their makers to be perfect.
Glass bed the mount with the screws just tight enough to locate the mount. THEN the mount makes the action stiffer. There's on other reason for a one piece mount but for actions with limited rear bridge space.
Talley and Weaver: This is my personal experience: Took a fall with a Model Seven with two piece bases with rotary dovetails rings. The whole mess came apart and the scope was damaged to the point the maker is sending a new scope. Weavers are also excellent rings.This is a personal preference with no criticism intended.
No matter how one piece bases are glued to the rifle I still have very little confidence that's stiffening the action. How would we prove it one way or another anyway?
WAR-- the mounts aren't glued down, only 'glass bedded' to give the maximum contact. Then the mount becomes a 'truss' that mechanically stiffens the action against bending.
The one piece bases like Talley are less expensive to make, but they have one giant problem. You can not check your mounting screws without disassembling your scope tube from the integral bases. If/when you develope any accuracy problem, you can't simply check your scope mounting screws.
You are right, Harry, especially the lightweights on a heavy kicker. That's why Talley offers 8-40 screws for those that want to re-tap.
I DON'T like socket head screws for anything, but Talleys now come with Torx which are better, but get a bit for a straight screwdriver so you can tap the end of the screwdriver while its under torque. You'll get nearly another quarter turn on the screw and compress the alumimum enough to act as a 'lock' washer, just as an engine head does.
I use Leupold rings and base and windage is adjustable and use 2 piece base. On some short action depending where scope adjustment are they maybe up against the rings or may not have enough to adjust proper eye relief. You may want one piece WARNE MFG. COMPANY TACTICAL SCOPE BASES | Sinclair Intl
Sorry, still no confidence in these one piece mount stiffening the action. The dovetail rotational one piece mounts are just find-if that's what you want to mount your scope. Opting for these mounts to stiffen that action is wishful thinking-in my opinion.
Nobody should depend on a scope mount to fix a flexible action but the fact that a truss DOES stiffen any action is just mechanical fact. There are formulas to calculate it, even. Maybe you're talking of some gun writer's idea of a good idea that I haven't heard.
Years ago, it was common for Remington M700s to be nearly .020 low in the rear ring. People that just cinched down a one piece base actually bent their action almost as much as the base. I saw some rifles shooting foot high vertical groups! I like epoxy as a shim in those cases. It keeps the action and the base straight and stress free.
BTW-- IF a base fits exactly right, it will not loosen. With the slightest bit of 'slack' comes accelerated wear and loosening of parts. SO, about the same time the gun companies hired people off the street to grind and buff away machine marks on rifle receivers, it was nearly impossible get scope mounts to stay tight. The Gunwriters ideas of Epoxy, LocTite and even a drop of idodine to RUST the screws in place were touted far and wide in the gun magazines. FIT the mounts, tighten the screws and don't worry about it. LocTite is for car mechanics.
The problem is not just 'space' but how accurate that space is. When a rookie on a polishing machine leans on one side, the bridge is tapered in TWO directions out of square with the bore. Shim stock only shortens the mistake but doesn't fix it.
When I first started there were two kinds of scope mounts we still see today: Redfield and Weaver. In rifles that showed space under the rear portion of the mount it was NOT safe to assume the front ring was right either! So, since the front ring has two screws, the mount was leveled with the action using the front screws and shims to make it right while the rear was glass bedded. Once the rear was bedded, the front was bedded if shims were needed to make it right. Then both ends are sitting on accurate surfaces to the bore line.
Straight, Solid and Square equals Accuracy.
Exactly right on the colors!! Which one is candy apple red with little sparkles in it?
since the front ring has two screws, the mount was leveled with the action using the front screws and shims to make it right while the rear was glass bedded. Once the rear was bedded, the front was bedded if shims were needed to make it right. Then both ends are sitting on accurate surfaces to the bore line.
So I take it you are using a release agent on the bases like you were bedding the action. Yes? Kind of a silly question other wise the bases would be permanent .
I use a Loctite (for Caterpillar) product called "Stud and Bearing Mount". It will take up space to .020" (more than that I think but at least .020") easily, but only really sticks to steel, so Weaver's aluminum bases can be removed easily with a few taps from a small brass hammer.
Right on the shims. Long ago we used those sold by Brownell's to level stuff up. Also, in the day we had list of Weaver bases where you could get different bases for the same rifle using different numbers. This allowed using, for example, numbers that allowed higher mounting. I'm glad I missed one of those cockeyed Remington receivers. This is the first time I have heard of this. Looks like who ever was mounting the scope would have noticed such being out of plumb. Weaver, Talley and Warne no more pivoting anything.
The same or very similar product that Remington used on the XMPs and then had to recall 8 years worth of them.
It's been 30 years since I've used LocTite on a gun. I either stake or clean and torque screws correctly. I don't like 'goop' in guns.
I really think I like these and they look good on your gun! How is the warranty with Talley if there is a fit issue? Or I guess it would be Midway USAs return policy?
Now I just have to decide between stainless or black! My scope is Black and my barrel is stainless and my stock is the reverse of yours you have the grey with some black and I have the black with some grey. Decisions Decisions!
Actually, Talley numbers for Howa/Weatherby are diffenent from Remington 700''s. There no accounting for this since most folks see them as the same. Talley numbers were used to order Vanguard rings.
Looks like there is a better solution than rocket science for uneven receivers. That solution is to use Burris Signature Rings. These rings are very well designed to cope. Incidentally, how do you measure an uneven receiver?
In this discussion it became a given that receivers are the culprit. It could have been that my mounts were faulty where the receiver is correct. Motivated by this discussion went to shoot rifles with Warne and Talley Mounts this afternoon. Personally, I'm convinced that, for me, these rings are the best. YMMY. Take care and be safe.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Shooters Forum
1.2M posts
51.6K members
Since 2000
A forum community dedicated to Sport shooters, owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hand casting bullets, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!