[Greg Beetham]

FYI, M70 30-06 with Burris Signature Zee rings and scope ring bases do not protrude into ejection port.

Thanks for the Burris mount pic, that’s more what I had in mind, there’s even some Leupold mount bases listed for the M70 that look like they might be closer to that outcome but you can’t see a picture or diagram at Leupold showing their mounts fitted to an action so it’s like a pig in a poke.
I didn’t get the packaging that the mounts came in so I’m not sure what part no. I actually got fitted yet until I go back and talk to the firearms dealer. I wanted to do some research first to see if what I ended up with was correct or not. (so far I think not)

 

[Travis299]

Proper mounts on M70

I believe that this is what you want. This is a Winchester site pic of the rifle.

 

[Greg Beetham]

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.
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.

 

[60DRB]

Have you talked to the shop

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?
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.

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...

 

[Greg Beetham]

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.

 

[nsb]

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.

 

[JBelk]

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.

 

[Greg Beetham]

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.

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.

 

[Greg Beetham]

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.

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.

 

[Greg Beetham]

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.

Update: During two phone calls to the dealer it was decided mutually that I’m a goose, the ‘lug’ on the base isn’t actually a lug at all it only looks like a lug because of the plunge cut for the windage screw head recess in the side of the base, the cut from the mill goes into the area where the bottom radius curves upward and that gives the appearance that the forward small section in front of the plunge cut is lower when it isn’t, it’s actually a uniform radius front to back and would slide freely fore and aft if the mounting screws were taken out. And to make matters worse I actually own a mill and should have realized the likely result of plunge cutting a screw head recess into the side of something with a curve upward underneath.
Anyway there still remains the Leupold part number mystery and the intended purpose and application, the import agent here that supplied the bases to the dealer outlined the differences.
LE50022 Leupold 2 piece bases STD WIN 70 RVF/R GLOSS
LE50023 Leupold 2 piece bases STD WIN 70 RVF/R MATTE
LE50024 Leupold 2 piece bases STD WIN 70 RVF/R SILVER
LE50020 Leupold 2 piece bases STD WIN 70 RVR GLOSS
LE50021 Leupold 2 piece bases STD WIN 70 RVR MATTE
LE57300 Leupold 2 piece bases STD WIN 70 WSSM GLOSS
LE 57310 Leupold 2 piece bases STD WIN 70 WSSM MATTE
For a start the WSSM rear mount base won’t fit a standard receiver as the super short magnum receiver mount holes are closer together on the rear receiver ring.
The misleading part cuts in now because they use the same generic photo for two different mounts so you don’t know what you are getting by looking at the photo. Unfortunately the dealer tossed out the packaging the mounts came in so I still don’t know for sure which ones I have, RVF/R or RVR. (the smart money would be on the RVR)
One style is designed to allow the rear to be flipped fore and aft if the scope tube is long enough to provide clearance, the rear scope ring ends up sitting over the rear receiver ring toward the back if the scope tube is long enough. (my scope isn’t long enough)
The other style has a much longer front base with the front ring attachment dovetail hole located to the rear of the rear front mounting screw hole instead of being in between the two screw holes. That particular style overhangs the receiver into the front of the ejection port by about ¼” apparently. Its purpose is to allow very short tube scopes to be mounted on long actions.

I suppose I should have said also that I never saw the mounts before they were fitted, the dealer had to order the rifle in because they don’t stock M70’s on hand because they sell slowly and that’s because they are almost in the price category of a Sako here, so people mostly just get a Sako instead if they are going to spend that much money.
Which means they also don’t normally have scope mounts for M70’s either, they just order them in as required which they did in my case.
The shop rang me when the rifle came in so I went over and had a look, very nice yes, and then organized a scope for it and left it with them to mount the scope and bore sight it etc.
So what that means is I never saw the mounts before they were fitted to the gun, it was only later I began to wonder why the rear scope ring wasn’t directly over the forward edge of the rear receiver ring like all my previous rifles had been, and there is room on the scope tube for that to be so and not have it hanging out over fresh air, but not enough to reverse the existing mounting altogether. (and while I was wondering about that what’s that thing under the forward edge which looks like a lug of some sort? maybe someone at the shootersforum can tell me about Leupold mounts for M70’s and sort it out for me, so I thought at the time).