leupold classic mounts

[bigrich]

hey fellas , i'm asking for experience and opinions on the old windage adjustable leupold bases . it's a bit of a long winded post , but i wanted to put up all the facts . i've had a FN 98 commercial action put together in 338-06 . after much stuffing around trying to find some steel weaver style bases , i bought a set of warne bases second hand off a rifle in rebel gun works . thanks to rebel for that . correct part numbers and all , but i run out of windage adjustment on various leupold scopes . this rifle has had this issue with other mounts as well . gun smith has previously checked alignment and called it good . even had the receiver squared before the 338-06 barrel was fitted . i haven't shot it yet , just setting up, so i've had to put this style of leupold mount on the rifle instead of weavers for scope adjustment. using a lyman magnetic prism bore sighter that's brilliant once you know how to use it . could be the mount holes are true , just canted of the one side . if it's true but offset by a inch at all distances , i can live with that . shooting at various distance will give me answers . i guess.

now i've done some googling on the leupold bases , their own website says intended for less than 300 win mag recoil. 338-06 recoil is about the same level . however i've found many guys on american forums that have had them on 338 win mags and 375 h&h rifles for many years that reckon they've not had issues . i think the trick is to retorque the windage adjustment screws after shooting the rifle and everything settles into place . do any of you guys have these bases on higher recoiling rifles with any issues ? looking forward to your replies . cheers

[Wapiti]

No issue with recoil Rich.
These mounts on my 7lb 300RUM stalking rifle have held without zero change for over 10 years.

These mounts replaced the QRW ones I had previously, which this cartridge with 200gn bullets, sheared off like a guillotine the recoil blocks under these QRW mounts.
This cartridge in a light rifle makes the 375 H&H feel like a toy.
However the Leupold classics are rock solid, and are of lines that compliment a hunting rifle.
Not everything needs mounts that replicate the clubby tattooed tactical terry in the mirror look.

They will also solve the issue of the many older rifles out there with misaligned barrelled receivers, and the home-gunsmith base holes drilled out of line with the bore, And you can't tell either.

[Wapiti]

And you can get stainless finish, or blued, and the rings can be whatever height you need to get a super-low scope for fast sighting. Which is impossible with pic rail setups in really low mounting situations.

300RUM.jpg (683.56 KiB) Viewed 155 times

[straightshooter]

hey fellas , i'm asking for experience and opinions on the old windage adjustable leupold bases . it's a bit of a long winded post , but i wanted to put up all the facts . i've had a FN 98 commercial action put together in 338-06 . after much stuffing around trying to find some steel weaver style bases , i bought a set of warne bases second hand off a rifle in rebel gun works . thanks to rebel for that . correct part numbers and all , but i run out of windage adjustment on various leupold scopes . this rifle has had this issue with other mounts as well . gun smith has previously checked alignment and called it good . even had the receiver squared before the 338-06 barrel was fitted . i haven't shot it yet , just setting up, so i've had to put this style of leupold mount on the rifle instead of weavers for scope adjustment. using a lyman magnetic prism bore sighter that's brilliant once you know how to use it . could be the mount holes are true , just canted of the one side . if it's true but offset by a inch at all distances , i can live with that . shooting at various distance will give me answers . i guess.

now i've done some googling on the leupold bases , their own website says intended for less than 300 win mag recoil. 338-06 recoil is about the same level . however i've found many guys on american forums that have had them on 338 win mags and 375 h&h rifles for many years that reckon they've not had issues . i think the trick is to retorque the windage adjustment screws after shooting the rifle and everything settles into place . do any of you guys have these bases on higher recoiling rifles with any issues ? looking forward to your replies . cheers

The problem with the so called American "turn in" mounts from various manufacturers is the front dovetail pounding loose with recoil. So combining even a moderately recoiling rifle and a currently fashionable heavy monster scope means one will develop problems after not too many rounds.
Ignoring some the high priced German "custom" mounting systems the absolute best readily available ring and mount system was the Hillver stud mount system. It was sold overseas under many brand names.
They have the widest range of windage adjustment that will accommodate the most crooked barrel as well as tolerating the heaviest recoil.
There are still plenty of new and used mounts and rings lurking in gunshops.
Some of the range is still available new from Lynx although now made in South Africa.

[bigrich]

No issue with recoil Rich.
These mounts on my 7lb 300RUM stalking rifle have held without zero change for over 10 years.

These mounts replaced the QRW ones I had previously, which this cartridge with 200gn bullets, sheared off like a guillotine the recoil blocks under these QRW mounts.
This cartridge in a light rifle makes the 375 H&H feel like a toy.
However the Leupold classics are rock solid, and are of lines that compliment a hunting rifle.
Not everything needs mounts that replicate the clubby tattooed tactical terry in the mirror look.

They will also solve the issue of the many older rifles out there with misaligned barrelled receivers, and the home-gunsmith base holes drilled out of line with the bore, And you can't tell either.

\thanks for the info mate . you've made me feel much better about the leupolds . your 300RUM generates more recoil than my 338-06 . the leupold mounts on my 98 are a set of impossible to find gloss ones for the FN commercial that were old stock hidden on the back wall of a gun shop and the medium gloss rings i've got were new old stock from premium optics i think . almost wish i had waited for the 7 months or so to get a blued moly lothar walther blued barrel on my 98 , it woulda looked so old school , but i scored a new IBI stainless barrel in 338 on ssaa gun sales . took jim in toowooba a week to put it together for me . i'm still gunna drive to texas to get him to do my "special" projects

[bigrich]

hey fellas , i'm asking for experience and opinions on the old windage adjustable leupold bases . it's a bit of a long winded post , but i wanted to put up all the facts . i've had a FN 98 commercial action put together in 338-06 . after much stuffing around trying to find some steel weaver style bases , i bought a set of warne bases second hand off a rifle in rebel gun works . thanks to rebel for that . correct part numbers and all , but i run out of windage adjustment on various leupold scopes . this rifle has had this issue with other mounts as well . gun smith has previously checked alignment and called it good . even had the receiver squared before the 338-06 barrel was fitted . i haven't shot it yet , just setting up, so i've had to put this style of leupold mount on the rifle instead of weavers for scope adjustment. using a lyman magnetic prism bore sighter that's brilliant once you know how to use it . could be the mount holes are true , just canted of the one side . if it's true but offset by a inch at all distances , i can live with that . shooting at various distance will give me answers . i guess.

now i've done some googling on the leupold bases , their own website says intended for less than 300 win mag recoil. 338-06 recoil is about the same level . however i've found many guys on american forums that have had them on 338 win mags and 375 h&h rifles for many years that reckon they've not had issues . i think the trick is to retorque the windage adjustment screws after shooting the rifle and everything settles into place . do any of you guys have these bases on higher recoiling rifles with any issues ? looking forward to your replies . cheers

The problem with the so called American "turn in" mounts from various manufacturers is the front dovetail pounding loose with recoil. So combining even a moderately recoiling rifle and a currently fashionable heavy monster scope means one will develop problems after not too many rounds.
Ignoring some the high priced German "custom" mounting systems the absolute best readily available ring and mount system was the Hillver stud mount system. It was sold overseas under many brand names.
They have the widest range of windage adjustment that will accommodate the most crooked barrel as well as tolerating the heaviest recoil.
There are still plenty of new and used mounts and rings lurking in gunshops.
Some of the range is still available new from Lynx although now made in South Africa.

thanks for the feedback mate , i've been on a lot of american forums researching this subject , i think the main reason this style of mount fails is people twist the front rint ring in and out a few times , wearing the mating surfaces, and they fail to re tighten the rear windage screws after they "settle in" after a few firings . the hilvers i'd forgotten about , i've used them in the past , but a lot of the rings aren't the quality of the early ones and appear to be of lesser grade steel . but i'll look into them . my scope is a vx1 2-7x33 gloss , click turrets not friction . so not heavy which should help . another solution if i want to go back to weaver style mounts is the scope itself. 3-9's have about 52 moa of adjustment , 2-7 about 67moa . if i can find a vx3 1.5-5x20 they have 120moa of adjustment ! that'd definitely get me out of trouble i think . thanks for your help mate

[straightshooter]

Wear on the dovetail surfaces is a phurphy.
The real culprit is in the design, that being the tiny surface areas actually designed to withstand recoil and the likelihood that they are not in hard contact.
If that area is not hard up against it's abutment then repeated recoil will make the whole system go loose.
A definite exacerbating factor is dimensional tolerances that are not perfect from the start.
The old wisdom was to peen down the dovetail arms slightly to make the front ring tighter but that did not work for long due to the tapered surfaces either wearing or yielding in some way under recoil.
My experience with 444 Marlin and a 2 1/2-20 Bushnell scope 30+ years ago was to give up after the second instance of a cap headed windage screw fracturing over the mount's taper. The tapered inner surface of these screws is too fragile to be taking any recoil.
That has led to my opinion on this style of mount being: It's not a question of will the mount fail, it's a question of how many rounds before the mount does fail.

[bigrich]

hmmm, the experiences listed on here mirror the views on the american forums i read . some fellas have them for years with no issues , some fail quickly . i had originally intended to use steel weaver style bases with good rings , but this windage issue has thrown me a curve ball, which necessitates the leupolds with windage adjustment . in the past with weaver bases on this rifle i had a leupold vx5 2-10 scope on it, fantastic optics and quality, but i didn't want a telescope on this rifle . it had enough windage adjustment , just . it had 120moa of adjustment like the vx3 1.5-5x20 it looks like i'll have to find if i want to run weavers . simple things turn out to be anything but sometimes

[Wapiti]

Rich - wear on the turn-in front end is a furphy.
Yes, metal on metal at such tension will wear eventually - but anyone with any background in trades or engineering will put a coat of Neverseize or graphite grease on the mating surfaces. It's the people with no idea about this that ruin anything mechanical - then tell everyone that it's crap when it is them that is the issue.
I AM NOT having a go at anyone, I just have an aversion to old-wives' tales that are caused by the user.
I recommend this stuff because it keeps metal surfaces apart and stops galling and wear - they are designed to do this as they are "extreme pressure" greases.
And we have always used it.
Just fit your bases and torque up, then on the stud of the front ring you will see the cone-shaped angled mating surface... a very light smear of this lube will suffice. if you ever dismantle the mount - do it again whenever that may be.

Another thing i reckon is a must is to use a 25 or 30mm bar (whatever your rings are) to turn in the front ring. Or a big set of shifters.
NOT YOUR SCOPE TUBE.
Then, fit the rear ring with both the windage-screws as close to centre as you can get them, and use a new or very well cared for steel ruler (straight edge) to align the rings so you don't bend the scope tube.
Then fit the scope in the rings, don't fit the top halves of the rings, just drop it in there with the rifle on a rest.
Bore sight the scope- and if you need to move the rear ring left or right to centre the windage (make sure your scope internal adjustment is centre - do it by counting the clicks), take the scope out, move the windage with the screws, check the alignment with the front to rear again with your straight edge, and drop the scope back in and check windage bore sighting again
repeat if needed.

I guarantee if you do this, your scope will be inline with the bore, you'll have all your windage clicks left to do final tweaking and - your scope will be sitting in the rings with no bending or twisting.
I guarantee way better than pic rail bases, weaver rings and no lapping to correct the definite misalignment of the action, base holes, base itself and machining tolerances of the rings. There is NO WAY that that set-up can be perfect and not bend the scope somewhat, in then put stress on the action and therefore, consistency.

[bigrich]

Rich - wear on the turn-in front end is a furphy.
Yes, metal on metal at such tension will wear eventually - but anyone with any background in trades or engineering will put a coat of Neverseize or graphite grease on the mating surfaces. It's the people with no idea about this that ruin anything mechanical - then tell everyone that it's crap when it is them that is the issue.
I AM NOT having a go at anyone, I just have an aversion to old-wives' tales that are caused by the user.
I recommend this stuff because it keeps metal surfaces apart and stops galling and wear - they are designed to do this as they are "extreme pressure" greases.
And we have always used it.
Just fit your bases and torque up, then on the stud of the front ring you will see the cone-shaped angled mating surface... a very light smear of this lube will suffice. if you ever dismantle the mount - do it again whenever that may be.

Another thing i reckon is a must is to use a 25 or 30mm bar (whatever your rings are) to turn in the front ring. Or a big set of shifters.
NOT YOUR SCOPE TUBE.
Then, fit the rear ring with both the windage-screws as close to centre as you can get them, and use a new or very well cared for steel ruler (straight edge) to align the rings so you don't bend the scope tube.
Then fit the scope in the rings, don't fit the top halves of the rings, just drop it in there with the rifle on a rest.
Bore sight the scope- and if you need to move the rear ring left or right to centre the windage (make sure your scope internal adjustment is centre - do it by counting the clicks), take the scope out, move the windage with the screws, check the alignment with the front to rear again with your straight edge, and drop the scope back in and check windage bore sighting again
repeat if needed.

I guarantee if you do this, your scope will be inline with the bore, you'll have all your windage clicks left to do final tweaking and - your scope will be sitting in the rings with no bending or twisting.
I guarantee way better than pic rail bases, weaver rings and no lapping to correct the definite misalignment of the action, base holes, base itself and machining tolerances of the rings. There is NO WAY that that set-up can be perfect and not bend the scope somewhat, in then put stress on the action and therefore, consistency.

thanks for all your advice mate , i actually bought a plastic leupold branded "ring wrench" for the twist in front ring years ago. i've ran these rings before and have the set up procedure sussed . i like the look of the classic leupold system , but the OCD part of my nature likes the rock solid design of a quality set of weaver style rings/bases . following a tip from straight shooter i might have tracked down some gloss FN hilver stud mount bases at one source and a set of gloss rings at another . i think the rear mount might position the rear ring too far forward for my liking , will have to do some more investigation on these. cheers

[bigrich]

Rich - wear on the turn-in front end is a furphy.
Yes, metal on metal at such tension will wear eventually - but anyone with any background in trades or engineering will put a coat of Neverseize or graphite grease on the mating surfaces. It's the people with no idea about this that ruin anything mechanical - then tell everyone that it's crap when it is them that is the issue.
I AM NOT having a go at anyone, I just have an aversion to old-wives' tales that are caused by the user.
I recommend this stuff because it keeps metal surfaces apart and stops galling and wear - they are designed to do this as they are "extreme pressure" greases.
And we have always used it.
Just fit your bases and torque up, then on the stud of the front ring you will see the cone-shaped angled mating surface... a very light smear of this lube will suffice. if you ever dismantle the mount - do it again whenever that may be.

Another thing i reckon is a must is to use a 25 or 30mm bar (whatever your rings are) to turn in the front ring. Or a big set of shifters.
NOT YOUR SCOPE TUBE.
Then, fit the rear ring with both the windage-screws as close to centre as you can get them, and use a new or very well cared for steel ruler (straight edge) to align the rings so you don't bend the scope tube.
Then fit the scope in the rings, don't fit the top halves of the rings, just drop it in there with the rifle on a rest.
Bore sight the scope- and if you need to move the rear ring left or right to centre the windage (make sure your scope internal adjustment is centre - do it by counting the clicks), take the scope out, move the windage with the screws, check the alignment with the front to rear again with your straight edge, and drop the scope back in and check windage bore sighting again
repeat if needed.

I guarantee if you do this, your scope will be inline with the bore, you'll have all your windage clicks left to do final tweaking and - your scope will be sitting in the rings with no bending or twisting.
I guarantee way better than pic rail bases, weaver rings and no lapping to correct the definite misalignment of the action, base holes, base itself and machining tolerances of the rings. There is NO WAY that that set-up can be perfect and not bend the scope somewhat, in then put stress on the action and therefore, consistency.

thanks for all your advice mate , i actually bought a plastic leupold branded "ring wrench" for the twist in front ring years ago. i've ran these rings before and have the set up procedure sussed . i like the look of the classic leupold system , but the OCD part of my nature likes the rock solid design of a quality set of weaver style rings/bases . following a tip from straight shooter i might have tracked down some gloss FN hilver stud mount bases at one source and a set of gloss rings at another . i think the rear mount might position the rear ring too far forward for my liking , will have to do some more investigation on these. cheers

[Wapiti]

Also you could try the Lynx mounts made in South Africa.
I've bought a few pairs of these, solid polished blued steel (if that's your thing) and they use that system. Also the best available mounts for CZ/Brno rimfires and their centrefires - really streamlined polished steel and available in any heights even low. Way better for people who dislike the awful cheesy aluminium clubby Sportsmatch stuff.
Also make equal with Leupold rings to suit the integral Ruger recievers.

Don't be fooled by looks, the Weaver style mounts and pic rails are not as strong from recoil forces as the older stud type. they just are not.
I mention that because you speak of how you like the look of the "strength" of the rail types.
hey, they may be totally adequate, but they are not as strong as the turn-in style, and after that, the weak point is the tiny screws holding bases to the receivers of any rifle without integral bases.