Printable View
I recently picked up a 99 (not sure the sub model) in .300 Savage made in 1956. It is factory drilled & tapped for scope bases and I'm wondering about which way to go. I've seen the one piece bases and rings by Leupold and the various two piece weaver mounts. Seems like the one piece would be a lot more accurate and be more appropriate to the 99. The two piece are obviously cheaper and easier to set up. What say the experts?
Certainly not an expert,but I am a fan of the Leupold or older Redfield mounts. I am gradually changing all of my scoped 99's over to Leupold mounts. Not sure how a 2 piece system would be easier for you to set up than the one piece system. I did have a non factory drill and tap on a G that was miss aligned where the only solution was a Redfield 2 piece base. Love the Leupold/Redfield rear base adjustment system.
I'm not so sure about that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormhawk
I just scoped a late model 99A in .250-3000 and after checking in on 2 different Savage websites (you can search for my posts) I went with the 2-piece Weaver mounts in low rings due to:
* Lower weight
* Lower height
* Lower cost
* Better looks (Is subject to various opinions)
* Just as accurate & solid (Might be subject to opinion; but if I hit the scope/mount that hard, I'm doing something wrong...)
I'm convinced the lowest Leupold Mounts & Rings (which I have used on all my other scoped rifles, by the way) still would have resulted in a scope that was mounted 1/8" higher, with more weight; plus the risks it blocks easy access to the open bolt.
Take a look at "how low you can go"...
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Sava..._01_Small_.JPG
Your mileage may vary, and I'm no expert; but that's my view.
Good luck.
Old No7