picked up a new 111 in 270 and being its a long action,my nikon prostaff 3x9x40 has a scope body that is too short for the rings to reach the factory mounts,currently it has a cheap simmons on it and that HAS to go away. My wifes brother had a simmons Aetec laying around and we tryed to mount it but it was too short also. so my ? is which one piece mount should i get.i have warne rings on my prostaff and they are weaver style ,i dont want to go to picatinny and have to get new rings. i already own a m-11 savage in 308 and was thinking the 111 in 270 was the same model,but was unpleasantly surprised when i went to pick it up and realizes it was a budget rifle...oh well...thanks in advance for any helpful info
I think your some of your options are the picatinny or something along the lines of a one piece like the DNZ Game Reaper or the off set Weavers. There are others, but those come to my mind.
Some of the factory base's are reversible and will work with normal rings if you turn one or both around. I have long action Savage's with all of the above mentioned. They all have either the Pro Staff or BuckMaster scopes on them.
Your rings should work just fine on a picatinny rail, I have never had any problem using Weaver style rings on one.Originally Posted by blobman
Bob
It's better to shoot for the moon and hit the fencepost than to shoot for the fencepost and hit the ground!
A Weaver #402 extended base will fix you up cheap.
Hear is a link to educate the masses on the weaver/picitiny rail.
http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=1...he_Difference_
From Brownells web page.
What are the differences between the “Picatinny” and the “Weaver” systems? The profile of the two systems is virtually identical. Depending on the quality of the machining done by the manufacturer, the two systems should be indistinguishable from the profile. The key difference lies in the placement of the recoil grooves and with width of the grooves. MIL-STD-1913 (Picatinny) grooves are .206” wide and have a center-to-center width of .394”. The placement of these grooves has to be consistent in order for it to be a true “Picatinny” MIL-STD system. Weaver systems have a .180” width of recoil groove and are not necessarily consistent in a center-to-center measurement from one groove to the next. In many instances, a Weaver system has a specific application that it is machined for, so interchangeability is not necessarily an issue. A MIL-STD-1913 system must adhere to the specifications listed above in order for it to be considered MIL-STD, since the military desires uniformity in the recoil grooves to allow for different systems to be mounted on the weapon with no concern for compatibility.
Members who have read this thread in the last 1 days: 0
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks