Setup for Length of Pull or Eye Relief?

[westernrover]

I'm setting up an old Mdl. 70. Due to the length of the receiver, position of the front scope ring, and the compactness of modern optics, it looks like I cannot practically set it up for both my ideal length of pull and eye relief. Which should I pick?

The front ring is so far forward that if I slide the scope back until the bell is touching the front of the ring, then the eye relief is in the correct position for the original stock's 13.5" length of pull. My ideal length of pull is 14.5" which I can easily obtain with a slip-on Pachmayr Decelerator pad.

Randy Boyd of Boyd's Gunstocks says correct fit is with the tip of your nose 5.75" behind the trigger. Another way to test fit is for two finger widths between the thumb and your nose.

If I mount it at 13.5", my thumb is pretty close to my nose - not touching, but only a thin finger's width away. It's a small-bore 'magnum' so recoil is a consideration but not extreme. I can put my thumb to the outside.

If I mount it at 14.5" with the slip-on or heavy clothing, I have to croon my neck forward to get into the middle of the eyebox.

Should I run it short, or with the pad and stick my neck out?

 

[Bazoo]

I'd run short. Course, I don't subscribe to what someone else thinks is right for me.

 

[z7]

Could you get a different scope base and mount it properly for both?

would require a scope base and probably different rings.
I think you must choose eye relief, you can’t hit what you can’t see,

but I’d explore a different scope base so you can move the rings to where you need them for proper eye relief

 

[Dr T]

I would set for eye relief and change the LOP with an appropriate recoil pad.

Full disclosure: I was given a horrendous flinch by a Winchester 670 with a LOP that was too long. I have disliked the stock ever since. The only M70 I have now is a controlled feed (Pre-64 type) in 375 H&H. The stock on it is much better than the 670, but it does kick a bit.

 

[stillquietvoice]

Extended rings would make scope placement for your eyebox achieveable with longer lop.

 

[mcb]

I would get a new scope mount, that puts the scope where you want/need it. I also like long lengths of pulls and will move my optics as needed. Put a one piece Picatinny rail on top of the M70 receiver and matching Picatinny rings this will give you the flexibility you need to get the scope where you want.


An example of the rail I am talking about from EGW, but there are lots of other good makers of similar products.

 

[wiscoaster]

LOP or eye relief? Boy, that sounds like my dilemma when mounting a scope. I don't think I can count the number of hassles I've had with those issues. And I don't think there's any magic formula, either, because a lot depends on the rifle itself. I think you just have to rely on trying different combinations until something clicks and everything falls into place. Resign yourself to ending up with a "Misc. Rifle Scope Mounting Parts" bin.

 

[westernrover]

This is a pre-64. Does that 375 have a scope? I would think the magnum-length action would put the scope even farther forward, like a No. 1. I suppose with a big bore it might make sense to run a low-power scope without a bell or express sights.

I know offset rings could move the scope back, but I'm not doing that. Everything on this rifle is high-end. To fix it at the same level of quality would cost me thousands for a new mount, rings, scope, and then it still has too much drop at the heel, so new custom stock also. Not happening. I want to hunt mule deer and pronghorn with it next year, but if it doesn't fit or I can't adapt to it, then it goes back to being a safe queen. Instead of changing it on the cheap, I'd rather just order a cheaper rifle like a Weatherby or Sako with a short action and the right length of pull.

I'm leaning toward using the Winchester as-is without the slip-on. It's a bit short for me but if I keep my thumb to the outside, the eye-relief is on and it should hunt well.

 

[Bazoo]

Slip on recoil pads ain't high end.

Leupold base with extended rings are classy enough for any price rifle.

 

[JFrank]

Perhaps order a scope with a longer tube, we had a similar deal on a 300 weatherby coupled with a short vortex diamondback scope that fit terrible

 

[entropy]

My ideal length of pull is 14.5"

Ideal and correct are not always the same. Have you been to a stockfitter?

 

[rabid wombat]

Go a honking long scope?

https://www.optics-trade.eu/us/manu...e_series-schmidt_bender_klassik_hungaria.html

 

[Varminterror]

LOP is for your frame and arm, not your eye.

LOP should not be manipulated to modify eye relief. Rings, bases, and scope choice should be manipulated to modify eye relief.

Changing eye LOP to influence eye relief is like buying extra long pants then wrapping the extra around your feet to make up for buying shoes too large. Better to buy the right size of shoe, and right length of pants.

 

[Dr T]

My 375 H&H has a Leopold 1-4x no-bell scope and offset rings. I also wrap a neoprene scuba weight belt with about 10 lbs of lead around the stock when shooting it from the bench. If you do it right, you get a nice cushion for your cheek and a lot less recoil. It will shoot about 1" at 100 yards with my old factory 270 gr Silver Tips. Nice, but you wouldn't want to make a habit of it.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

I suppose I'm in the 'get another scope' camp, unless extended rings can solve the problem.

While not the best choice optically, I've often favored scopes without an objective bell (like the old Weavers shown below) to provide more mounting flexibility.

 

[westernrover]

Go a honking long scope?

https://www.optics-trade.eu/us/manu...e_series-schmidt_bender_klassik_hungaria.html

I was going to put a Schmidt & Bender Klassic on this, but the bell to exit pupil for the 8x56 is 13.05" -- the same as the Swarovski and others that are too short. Needs to be about 14"

 

[someguy2800]

I’m pretty persnickety about scope mounting so I would probably change the mounts or the scope itself to get it right without compromise.

 

[westernrover]

LOP is for your frame and arm, not your eye.

LOP should not be manipulated to modify eye relief. Rings, bases, and scope choice should be manipulated to modify eye relief.

Changing eye LOP to influence eye relief is like buying extra long pants then wrapping the extra around your feet to make up for buying shoes too large. Better to buy the right size of shoe, and right length of pants.

I don't disagree with this at all, but since neither LoP nor eye relief is fitting me on this rifle, I can either change both or compensate for one with the other. Changing both costs more than I'm willing to put into it. It's less costly to get a different rifle. There are already big expenses with this rifle, over $1000 that I haven't spent yet for brass, dies, and components. Just the dies are $550. If I spend hundreds on different mounts and rings, I'm not buying 1" that's going obsolete. Then I'd spend more than a thousand more for a new scope, and at least another thousand for a custom stock. I know it can be done on the cheap with a slip-on, an aluminum pic rail and Tasco optics. Then it will have no appeal to me and I'd have no interest in spending a grand to load for it or hunting with it. That's why I did not ask about buying anything. I'm not intrested in buying. Either I adjust what I have one way, the other way, or it goes back to being the safe queen it has been for six decades.

 

[readyeddy]

Run it short. Stretching the neck is uncomfortable and makes shooting harder.

Or experiment with and without the slip on. Shoot off hand and see which yields best results.

 

[Random 8]

That's like deciding between a functional transmission and brakes on your truck. You need both. Do some research, shopping, and get a scope/mount combination that will work. With modern mounting systems there nearly infinite eye relief adjustment is possible on a relatively common receiver such as you have.

 

[Varminterror]

I don't disagree with this at all, but since neither LoP nor eye relief is fitting me on this rifle, I can either change both or compensate for one with the other. Changing both costs more than I'm willing to put into it. It's less costly to get a different rifle. There are already big expenses with this rifle, over $1000 that I haven't spent yet for brass, dies, and components. Just the dies are $550. If I spend hundreds on different mounts and rings, I'm not buying 1" that's going obsolete. Then I'd spend more than a thousand more for a new scope, and at least another thousand for a custom stock. I know it can be done on the cheap with a slip-on, an aluminum pic rail and Tasco optics. Then it will have no appeal to me and I'd have no interest in spending a grand to load for it or hunting with it. That's why I did not ask about buying anything. I'm not intrested in buying. Either I adjust what I have one way, the other way, or it goes back to being the safe queen it has been for six decades.

There’s way, way too much to unpack here. You’ve painted an absolutely upside down, imaginary unsolvable problem for yourself - talking about $550 dies for a rifle which you’d consider using a Boyd’s stock, but being unwilling to put proper stock fit and proper rings on it, because you’ve also imagined some excessively high product pricing…

You have a system of two independent dimensions and you’re living in a fantasy land that improperly solving for one is a solution to the other.

Good luck. I’m out.

 

[WVRJ]

A decent Pic rail and set of rings certainly doesn't cost much.Warne or Vortex Pro Series rings look good and are very affordable and are incredibly strong and look great.If you go with them and a Boyd's stock you won't spend $350 and you can get your eye relief right and get a more modern stock design that will have a higher comb and do a good job.If you can afford to just throw it back in the safe and forget it,you certainly can afford what it takes to make it shootable.

 

[shoobe01]

+1 to the "why not both" camp. There are no compromises when it comes to ergnomics. Fix them both.

Also agree that specific advice of changing the mounts should allow moving the scope position once you get the LOP correct.

Get the LOP correct for YOU and your shooting position in actual use, not someone else, not the bench at the range.