Shooters Forum banner

Two piece Leupold scope bases for Mod 70

1 reading
14K views 29 replies 9 participants last post by  Greg Beetham  
#1 ·
I’ve recently purchased a Winchester Model 70 Supergrade .270W and the gun shop fitted Leupold 2 piece scope bases and rings for the Vx-3i 3.5-10x40 scope I bought and the rear base block extends forward of the rear receiver ring and hanging in mid-air so to speak with the scope ring above that, is that normal? :confused:
I was wondering if anyone had any experience with two piece Leupold scope bases for the Model 70 and knew of a version that mounted directly on the rear receiver ring without any overhang forward over the open action space.
 
#4 ·
Yes, they do. The Marlin XL7's use the same bases as the Winnie, when I bought the Marlin I got Leupy bases that don't hang over.
 
#5 ·
The guy who did the mount simply had no idea (or business) on how to mount a scope. Without a picture to look at I'm assuming the rear scope block is hanging over the bolt/ejection port? If so, this mount can be turned 180 degrees and used in that orientation. Then, if needed an extended ring can be used to mount the scope so that the scope can be moved forward/rearward to get the correct eye relief. The extended ring can also be used in either orientation to get the correct fit. I'd guess whoever mounted your scope didn't own the shop (or they'd be out of business by now) and didn't have any training or guidance on how to do it correctly. Can you post a picture? Attached is a picture of a High Wall I have where I had to use extended rings to mount the scope and the rear could have been turned either way. The way it ended up being mounted allows the scope to fit inside the rings and still have adjustment within the rings. Those are Leupold rings on the gun.
 

Attachments

#8 ·
Um, thanks guys and sorry about no photos, I wasn’t sure if I could get the hang of uploading them to this forum without doing some research first.
For example I haven't the faintest idea about a request for the http of my image, why doesn't it just open an upload box like everywhere else?
 
#20 ·
You may want to check out imgur.com as an image hosting service so that you can post pictures. Imgur is free and simple to use. Most folks switched to Imgur from Photobucket when Photobucket wanted to charge a bunch. Let us know if you have questions.
Thanks for the imgur link. That was an eye opener there’s some strange stuff there. :rolleyes:
 
#10 ·
Because on this board there is a requirement a new member must complete a minimum of 10 days membership and 25 meaningful postings prior to being enabled to post pictures. This is to prevent scammers, trolls and passerby sales people from using the forums. Thanks for understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Travis299
#12 ·
Hmm ok it isn’t particularly helpful to wait 10 days before you can post a photo but you can post text during the same time period, the distinction and embargo between photos or text seems difficult to understand especially as an attached explanatory photo is often an essential part of the same text message.
I wonder why forum user history isn’t transferrable. For example I’ve been a member of some forums for many years with a long posting history without being a scammer or a troll or being abusive but if I apply to become a member of a different forum all of a sudden I’m a leper.
Actually the last forum a similar thing happened at I just moved on and left em to it, you can get jerked about on the internet enough as it is I think.
 
#14 ·
That little lip should go to the rear on the front ring so it hooks over the edge of the front ring. The rear ring shouldn't have a lip. There's nowhere for it to go.

For 'most shooters' the M-70 pictured above needs an extension ring on the front mount. Travis must be a goose-necked stock crawler like me. ;)

Send your pics to me and I'll post them j belk 09 at g mail dot com but leave out the spaces.
 
#18 ·
Here's the pictures from GB.

IF, as gunsmith, I were to pull those mounts from the box, I'd put them right back in and grab another pair. I don't know what that rear base is supposed to fit but it's installed backwards here and almost works.
 

Attachments

#19 ·
Thanks for your help Jack
The problem with trying to reverse that rear base as I see it is the lug on the underneath front edge and oddly it’s over on the left side, it doesn’t go right across for reasons unknown, which would likely put it in the way of the bolt handle even if the screw holes lined up, which I don’t know at this point.
Leupold has replied to my query and advise that the rear mount base normally protrudes over the port a little but according to the description they gave not to the degree that the scope ring is in mid-air (as this one is) I don’t think they believed my description was accurate so I sent them a pic showing how it is and I’ll see what they say in due course…maybe.
 
#23 · (Edited)
Yes an excellent looking setup, thanks for that. I love the four screw rings, those wouldn't allow the scope to creep one would think, although I haven't fired a shot out of my M70 yet and I might not until my reservations about the mounts are satisfied.
I do have a nice Tikka stainless 270w with a factory laminated stock which looks very handsome so I'm not exactly in a jamb, I like the M70 because of the 24” barrel, the Tikka comes with a 22 5/8” barrel and I don’t think that’s enough length for a 30-06 sized case and also I much prefer the Winchester CF action. The Tikka is next to impossible to add an extra round into from the top, you have to pull the single stack magazine out first then add a round and then put the magazine back in, gawd what a business. :rolleyes:
My main consideration in favour of the Leupold mounts is the ability to adjust the windage on the mounts which I assume the dealer did using one of those bore sighting gauges and levels.
I’ll see what Leupold have to say first before I jump to some other solution, that’s if they got my photo of course.
 
#25 ·
I haven't talked to the shop

That put the improper bases on your rifle? If shown the proper set-up/picture they might be switch the back out for a correct base. If they care about their reputation...
I’m not directly accusing Leupold of anything, well apart from having very sparse information on their website that is. I was amazed at how such a major respected brand could produce such a poor effort at illustrating mount selection and application.
The mount illustrations are just fine in themselves, but just showing a mount without any relevant use application diagram for that particular mount is almost useless, they might as well not bother.
All I want from Leupold is clarification about what the mount fitted to my M70 might be and which one is the correct one if this one is wrong. (which I think it is)
Then I can go back to the shop armed with some concrete information.
So no, I haven’t gone back to the shop as yet. I’ve had a fairly long relationship with them and I always support the locals first if I can, (I have spent quite a lot of money there), I don’t think I’ll have any difficulties once I have some facts to present.
Actually I doubt I’d have any difficulties if I asked them to change the mount for something else without doing any research into the Leupold mount selection. :cool:
 
#26 ·
In fifty + years of using Leupold mounts I've never had one issue. Every time I've ever called them to speak to someone I always got to talk to a knowledgeable tech who could help. I see the LGS being responsible here, not Leupold. Just take it back to them and get it fixed. They put it on the gun and saw what it looked like and still gave it to you to walk out with. Had you purchased parts identified to be correct and they were not, Leupold would definitely be at fault. Ask the shop what mounts they used on your gun and see if they are correct per Leupold.
 
#28 ·
I will ring the shop today and see if they have a record of what model Leupold mounts were fitted. Initially living in blissful ignorance I didn’t expect that identifying what correct model should be fitted would turn out to be so difficult or likewise identifying what the ones on the gun were.
I’d be guessing if I said that possibly they belong on a post 64 Model 70 having never seen a post 64.
Mine is of course a pre-64 design but current production model.
:rolleyes:
 
#27 ·
I question that rear base being made as a rear base but I can't think of a front ring application with that bottom radius and can still use the recoil shoulder. That shoulder belongs a the rear of a front base and the lip hangs over the receiver ring as a recoil stop so more than just the shear of the two screws take the recoil.
It is clear the hole spacing is different than needed to use it where it is. There's a BUNCH of Win M70 rear base spacings and configurations. The shop picked the wrong one.
 
#29 ·
Thanks Jack, I started out confused and tried to solve a mystery because I see mysteries as a challenge that need to be solved, don’t you think the same?
The rear mount has to go at the rear due to the different heights between the front and back receiver rings but like you say it’s useless having a recoil inertia lug at the front in mid-air where it does nothing at all and I doubt you could reverse that base and have it fit properly without interfering with the bolt handle. I sent a photo to Leupold yesterday but haven’t got a reply as yet.
Also I’ll ring the shop today.