Scope and Mount Problem

[rhtwist]

Installed a new Bushnell 3-9 scope on a set of talley one piece rings and mounts on a Winchester Model 70 Featherweight. I have found that the combination does not allow the scope to move rearward far enough for proper eye relief. I do not want a one piece rail. I am consigned to either buying new scope mounts or a new scope. Not being very up to date, I've found out that newer scopes can have reticles with illuminated dot. I would want a type with the reticle fully usable if the battery went dead. I prefer US made. How does one go about ensuring that a particular scope fits a particular set of rings/mount?
Thanks for any options, suggestions that you would care to provide.

 

[troy fairweather]

Thats a new way to spell Bushnell, I think talley makes a extended ring mount tho that scope looks pretty far back already. The tube length is pretty generous most scopes won't have that long of tube, only illuminated scope I'd recommend is a leupold with the fire dot. That's a hunting rifle some anything more the a basic bdc reticle is overall and would not be preferred hunting.

 

[lightman]

It can be difficult to find a ring base scope combination that works sometimes. I don't know an easy way other than trial and error. Wish I did! My last challenge was also on a model 70.

 

[Ks5shooter]

Are you mounting the gun properly to set eye relief for you?Mount your gun with eyes closed ,then open them .Slide your head back and forth while maintaining closed eye mount position.This will show you proper eye relief.You may be fighting a human problem of improper gun mount.

 

[jmr40]

Some scope/mount/rifle combo's just don't work together. A little more info would help, I'm assuming that is a Burris FF-II and the rifle looks like a short action, but I'm guessing. Burris scopes have adequate eye relief for most people. And it already looks like it is mounted too far to the rear, it would be for me.

I can't be of much help with a different scope, the one you have is my go-to recommendation for anything under $500. As a rule Leupold scopes have a bit more eye relief than most, but Burris isn't far behind. You'll need to stay with a full size scope. Look at specs, lots of modern scopes are shorter than older scopes and won't fit long action rifles. You rarely have problems with short action rifles.

Scopes with electronics are a lot heavier and I'm not sold on their usefulness on a hunting rifle. I had one on an AR for a while and I found that if it were so dark that I needed the dot on it was too dark to see the target. I never turned the light on other than to play with it initially. In most places legal hunting hours are from 1/2 hour before sunrise until 1/2 hour after sunset. There is adequate light with a quality scope during those times. I know of at least one state where it is 1 full hour instead of 1/2 hour.

FYI, you can install those mounts in either direction in order to make them fit some scopes. I'd reverse the rear base if it were my rifle to center the adjustment turrets between the rings, but it is the rear base that is limiting your adjustment in this case so that wouldn't help.

 

[doubleh]

I like Weaver rings and bases but must be the only one that does because I never see them mentioned. They have a height chart to tell you the height of their rings so it isn't a guess. They also offer extended rings which solves most eye relief problems. I have had to use two of them for one scope only. I have been using their rings and bases most of my life with no problem from any of them.

 

[CapnMac]

allow the scope to move rearward

Ok, this is very much out of left field, but, have you tried moving your cheekweld further up the stock?
Now, the stock contour many not allow that neatly.
And, it's not much good if your cheekweld works on all your other rifles.

 

[Howland937]

I like Weaver rings and bases but must be the only one that does because I never see them mentioned. They have a height chart to tell you the height of their rings so it isn't a guess. They also offer extended rings which solves most eye relief problems. I have had to use two of them for one scope only. I have been using their rings and bases most of my life with no problem from any of them.

I've used more Weaver tip-off rings than I could count and have never had a scope work loose. The only things I've ever encountered (and maybe why some folks don't like them) are a few times where the scope has rotated slightly when torquing the clamp screws and they seem more prone to leave marks than some others.
Offset rings we're always a given on Savage rifles.

 

[luv2safari]

I like Weaver rings and bases but must be the only one that does because I never see them mentioned. They have a height chart to tell you the height of their rings so it isn't a guess. They also offer extended rings which solves most eye relief problems. I have had to use two of them for one scope only. I have been using their rings and bases most of my life with no problem from any of them.

The older traditional Weavers with the big steel knobs and round bolts are great mounts. They work nicely as QD mounts and don't have to be set to have forward and rear pressure on the Weaver bases like Picatinny type bases with the square bolts. The round bolts set into the round base groves and center themselves, not subject to movement under recoil. Their extension rings work well.

I personally know a noted gun expert, writer, and experienced world hunter who holds them in high regard. He did a lot of scope testing and articles for magazines, and I know he used Weavers sometimes. The traditional rings are frustrating to set the reticles vertical/horizontal, and they won't win any beauty contests, but they are one of the lightest and most reliable mounts made. I jump on every set of the round bolt rings I find.

 

[Russ57]

These might help assuming you want to move the scope closer to your eye.

M902/924M Winchester Model 70 w/.860 RHS, Matte

A classic rifle deserves a classic scope base that offers dependability and precise fitment. The Maxima M902/924M scope base gives you exactly that.

warnescopemounts.com

 

[doubleh]

The older traditional Weavers with the big steel knobs and round bolts are great mounts. They work nicely as QD mounts and don't have to be set to have forward and rear pressure on the Weaver bases like Picatinny type bases with the square bolts. The round bolts set into the round base groves and center themselves, not subject to movement under recoil. Their extension rings work well.

I personally know a noted gun expert, writer, and experienced world hunter who holds them in high regard. He did a lot of scope testing and articles for magazines, and I know he used Weavers sometimes. The traditional rings are frustrating to set the reticles vertical/horizontal, and they won't win any beauty contests, but they are one of the lightest and most reliable mounts made. I jump on every set of the round bolt rings I find.

I have used them long enough to get pretty good at guessing how much to misalign the cross hairs for them to come out in place when tightened I don't hit every time but more often than not.

 

[luv2safari]

I have used them long enough to get pretty good at guessing how much to misalign the cross hairs for them to come out in place when tightened I don't hit every time but more often than not.

It's an art...LOL

 

[luv2safari]

I also like that I can use the bases for my heavier QD rings, like on the 9.3X62. They're low enough I can switch to open sights if needed.

 

[luv2safari]

Installed a new Bushnell 3-9 scope on a set of talley one piece rings and mounts on a Winchester Model 70 Featherweight. I have found that the combination does not allow the scope to move rearward far enough for proper eye relief. I do not want a one piece rail. I am consigned to either buying new scope mounts or a new scope. Not being very up to date, I've found out that newer scopes can have reticles with illuminated dot. I would want a type with the reticle fully usable if the battery went dead. I prefer US made. How does one go about ensuring that a particular scope fits a particular set of rings/mount?
Thanks for any options, suggestions that you would care to provide.

View attachment 1191362View attachment 1191363

I looked closely at the front ring. Is it putting pressure on the front bell? It looks like it. Move the scope forward about 1/4" and don't tighten the heck out of it, then try that.

 

[LoonWulf]

I agree with taking a look at stock fitment and form as well.
Ive run out of mounting space a few times, but those ff2s are long and have decently long eye relief.

 

[Howland937]

I looked closely at the front ring. Is it putting pressure on the front bell? It looks like it. Move the scope forward about 1/4" and don't tighten the heck out of it, then try that.

Not gonna help his eye relief issue...

 

[BIZERKO666]

Maybe something like this:

MSP - Mounting Solutions Plus

www.mountsplus.com

 

[luv2safari]

Not gonna help his eye relief issue...

Not gonna help his eye relief issue...

No, but it might keep the scope from being damaged under recoil.

He just needs extension rings.

 

[rhtwist]

Thats a new way to spell Bushnell, I think talley makes a extended ring mount tho that scope looks pretty far back already. The tube length is pretty generous most scopes won't have that long of tube, only illuminated scope I'd recommend is a leupold with the fire dot. That's a hunting rifle some anything more the a basic bdc reticle is overall and would not be preferred hunting.

That sure is an odd spelling!! The Scope mentioned has the features that fit my desire , it is pricey. I don't mind changing the mounts/rings if necessary. Prefer not to shorten the stock.
Thanks for information!

 

[rhtwist]

It can be difficult to find a ring base scope combination that works sometimes. I don't know an easy way other than trial and error. Wish I did! My last challenge was also on a model 70.

Thanks for the encouragement.........

Are you mounting the gun properly to set eye relief for you?Mount your gun with eyes closed ,then open them .Slide your head back and forth while maintaining closed eye mount position.This will show you proper eye relief.You may be fighting a human problem of improper gun mount.

Thanks for the reply and just double checked it. I have to crane my neck forward overly much to get the full circle and reticle view. Without the front rail and rings hanging over the ejection port, I am at a loss.

 

[rhtwist]

Some scope/mount/rifle combo's just don't work together. A little more info would help, I'm assuming that is a Burris FF-II and the rifle looks like a short action, but I'm guessing. Burris scopes have adequate eye relief for most people. And it already looks like it is mounted too far to the rear, it would be for me.

I can't be of much help with a different scope, the one you have is my go-to recommendation for anything under $500. As a rule Leupold scopes have a bit more eye relief than most, but Burris isn't far behind. You'll need to stay with a full size scope. Look at specs, lots of modern scopes are shorter than older scopes and won't fit long action rifles. You rarely have problems with short action rifles.

Scopes with electronics are a lot heavier and I'm not sold on their usefulness on a hunting rifle. I had one on an AR for a while and I found that if it were so dark that I needed the dot on it was too dark to see the target. I never turned the light on other than to play with it initially. In most places legal hunting hours are from 1/2 hour before sunrise until 1/2 hour after sunset. There is adequate light with a quality scope during those times. I know of at least one state where it is 1 full hour instead of 1/2 hour.

FYI, you can install those mounts in either direction in order to make them fit some scopes. I'd reverse the rear base if it were my rifle to center the adjustment turrets between the rings, but it is the rear base that is limiting your adjustment in this case so that wouldn't help.

This apparently is one of those cases. The rifle is chambered in 30-06 so that is the regular length action. Yes the front mount/rings is what is limiting the scope moving further back. The scope itself is pretty good imho! Thanks for the information!

 

[rhtwist]

Ok, this is very much out of left field, but, have you tried moving your cheekweld further up the stock?
Now, the stock contour many not allow that neatly.
And, it's not much good if your cheekweld works on all your other rifles.

Yes Sir, I have to extend my face uncomfortably to get a good full sight picture. Thanks for the question and insight.

 

[rhtwist]

These might help assuming you want to move the scope closer to your eye.

M902/924M Winchester Model 70 w/.860 RHS, Matte

A classic rifle deserves a classic scope base that offers dependability and precise fitment. The Maxima M902/924M scope base gives you exactly that.

warnescopemounts.com

That warne system is one I have investigated. If the rings width is smaller and the ring can extend rearward over the ejection area it may work. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Show Me]

Thanks for the encouragement.........

Thanks for the reply and just double checked it. I have to crane my neck forward overly much to get the full circle and reticle view. Without the front rail and rings hanging over the ejection port, I am at a loss.

Well some times you just need to do your own trial-and-error. Like a scavenger hunt. When scope shopping read the deminsions, tube lengths vary. I had to change scopes on my 45-70 to a 3x9 Bushnell with more eye relief to give my eye some relief. Sometimes it does take a one piece rail. To keep a scope low sometimes you need to file on that new rail. Just wait, someone has done the same thing. And will know the special combo

 

[rhtwist]

I looked closely at the front ring. Is it putting pressure on the front bell? It looks like it. Move the scope forward about 1/4" and don't tighten the heck out of it, then try that.

Thanks for your insight, but the front ring does not allow the scope far enough to the rear for a proper eye relief for me. Thought I could get away with it but it is too unnatural as well as uncomfortable.