Shooters Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What scope bases and mounts do you all recommend for Marlin 45-70's? I have Leupold bases and mounts right now. But, I couldn't get the gun to hold zero. After I got back from my hunting trip I was going to remount the scope and while taking it apart I noticed that the windage mounts on the rear base were almost cut off. I've been shooting Garretts and Buffalo Bore loads. I've never seen this on any of my other guns. Did I just mount them wrong? Weavers don't look the greatest but I've had the best luck with those, had them on my first .300 Weatherby. What do you suggest for mounts?

Thanks, Joel B
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
36,441 Posts
I'd bet that either the screws were loose, as you suggest, or the holes in the mounts don't line up with the holes in the receiver.

If a Leupold base won't stay on... not sure that anything else would either.

Personally, if it looks like the base and receiver holes line up OK, I'd put the base back on with plenty of Lok-tite on the screws, and see if that helps solve the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,649 Posts
Joel

I had a similar problem with my Timber rifle.
I mounted a brand new Redfield base and rings and Weaver 2x scope(light weight).
Shooting the 310 gr Lee cast bullet with full power loads the rear ring ripped up through the windage screws in 40 rounds.
I installed Weaver bases and Millet Angle Loc rings. They have not moved. I have installed the same base and rings on my Guide gun and .356 Winchester, no trouble with them either.
The only down side is that the Weaver bases are a little taller than I prefer. I have never felt that the Redfield style of windage adjustment in the rear ring was good for a heavy kicker. My brothers Savage M-99 in .358 Winchester  had nothing but trouble with Redfield rings and the rear windage screws. We could not keep the screws tight.
Burris and Leupold both make double dovetail mounts for the heavy kickers, you might take a look at them if you dont like the Weaver bases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thanks, what you described is exactly what happened. The bases were tight, it's the windage screws that I had problems with. I think Weaver bases and Millet rings is what Ill try.
Joel B
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
I've had good luck using Weaver bases with Burris "Zee" rings, too.  Weaver makes both steel and aluminum bases, adn the Zee rings are steel.

Or, you could get rid of the scope and go to a receiver ghsot ring sight.

Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
That's the problem with ring/bases where there is windage adjustment in the base.  The only ring that really absorbs any recoil is the front ring, and the back ring is sort of along for the ride.  Switch to any kind of base/ring combo so long as both rings hold and take the recoil.  Even the dual dovetail rings that Leupold sell will work OK.  I have Warne QD Macima Steel R&B on my son's 1895SS and they have been there for over 5 years without a hitch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
If my eye's were better I'd go with a receiver sight, but I better stick with scopes! Thanks for the info, I went with Weaver bases and rings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Joel B,

I just today mailed a set of Redfield bases and rings back to Brownells for credit.  I had to wait 6 weeks for a nickel base as it was a special order.  After receiving the base, I mounted the rings and base on my new Stainless GG in 45/70 and went to the range with Winchester 300 gr. load.  After 30 rounds and many adjustments, I discovered the 2 mounting screws on the rear of the base were working loose.  Great waste of lead.

I bought a set of Weaver see thru mounts for $11.00 and will give it another go.  They don't look as good as the nickel mounts but from experience with Weaver mounts in the past, I'm sure I'm going to be happy.  By the way, when the screws were tight the GG was putting them almost together at 50 yards.  I really love this little gun.
Roger
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Mine started out really accurate, with both the Garrett and Buffalo Bore cast loads. The 350's from Buffalo Bore didn't seem to be as accurate, but thats when I noticed that the P. O. A. was shifting. Those 350's really recoil by the way! Much more than either of the cast loads. I put that scope, a 4x Burris, on my J.C. Higgens 30-06, so now I'm in the market for a scope for the Marlin. Any suggestions? No more than 4x, thinking about one of the 1.5 x 4 powers that are out there.
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
36,441 Posts
A lighter scope will cause fewer problems.  If you can talk yourself out of a variable that will help.  A compact up to about 4x would be about as light as you can get.  The objective only needs to be about 20mm or so on a 4x scope and that really cuts the weight down.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top