New scopes on old rifle

[Swamp Fox]

Has anybody else noticed that scopes seem to be getting shorter and harder to mount on anything but an AR? I’m trying to re scope a model 99 savage, but fitting what I want is becoming a problem. I’m trying to fit a 2-7x, but they are all so short I’m going to have to get some kind of offset rings. But then part of the ring will hang over the chamber, looking bad and making the rifle harder to load. I don’t want to put a 3-9x scope on, but at least they are long enough to fit over the chamber. Anybody else run into this problem? Is there an easy solution I’m missing?

[Norske]

The length of the scope tube between where rings can fit varies, not only among brands, but among models within a brand. My 99 has a Leupod 2-7X. Look for that critical dimension in the scope maker's description. I'd pay more attention to scope features, price, etc than brand loyalty. There are a number of good quality scopes these days, most are quality vs price comparable.

[pietro]

.

Vintage scopes definitely have longer tube bodies than do modern scopes, with fixed power scopes having the longest.

I mounted a red dot which came with a tube extension on my Savage 1899, which worked out well.

[dakotashooter2]

You may notice the larger the objective lense the larger the bell and shorter the tube of the scope. I have a compact 2-7x 32 that has 1 3/4" and 2" of tube to attach the scope mounts (5/8"). I bought a compact 3-9x40 that had 1" of tube on each side to attach the mounts allowing only 3/8" for adjustment IF the grooves on the rail line up correctly. I barely got it mounted on a Weaver base. The picatiny was a little better which I ended up going to for adjustment purposes. Some of the " tactical rings have gotten wider also further complicating things.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk

[Swamp Fox]

Norske- that scope is one of the ones I was looking at. But Leupold lists the distance between the bells of the scope as 4.81”. With the rings I have I need a mounting distance of 5.125”. I think I can make up a little room with narrower rings, but not that much, especially leaving a little room for adjustment. What rings did you use? As Dakotashooter2 said, the rings are getting wider at the same time scopes are getting shorter. I have found that most of the skinnier rings are for recommended for rimfires, but there are a few that look narrower than what I have on hand. Unfortunately nobody seems to list the width of the rings on their site.

[fast ronnie]

It might be possible to narrow the rings enough to make it fit. This would probably be best done on a lathe, only turning enough on the upper part to fit, and leaving the bottom mounting part intact. It would leave the ends in bare metal, but that could be remedied if desired.

[Shawlerbrook]

Extension Rings.

[Texas by God]

Good used steel Weavers can be found if you look. A K4 would look great on that 99.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Ajohns]

One thing about old scopes, they a lot of times have a smaller ocular. Meaning shorter height rings, especially for bolt actions.

[reivertom]

Has anybody else noticed that scopes seem to be getting shorter and harder to mount on anything but an AR? I’m trying to re scope a model 99 savage, but fitting what I want is becoming a problem. I’m trying to fit a 2-7x, but they are all so short I’m going to have to get some kind of offset rings. But then part of the ring will hang over the chamber, looking bad and making the rifle harder to load. I don’t want to put a 3-9x scope on, but at least they are long enough to fit over the chamber. Anybody else run into this problem? Is there an easy solution I’m missing?

I had the very same problem with a 2x7 Leupold. I just couldn't get it in a place where it felt right for me. I finally bought a used fixed power 4X Leupold and it was just right with the eye relief and size. My 99 is a '66 model 99F in .243. The 4X is fine for any situation Ill have in the deer woods around my area. I wouldn't feel under scoped at the farthest I could get a shot.

[Norske]

Most of my rifles are a Ruger M77s and the factory ring spacing works. However, I do own a "round top" Ruger M77 that needed a front extension (extension to the rear over the receiver opening) to hold the compact scope I chose for that rifle.

[Drm50]

I'm in same pickle with 3 rifles. I bought a 99EG that had a set of Weaver pivot rings and old 4x Tasco when I bought it. Because of eye relief and position of standard weaver bases I'm going to put a K4 or 4X Leuopld on it, instead of 2x7. Worse is a couple Ruger #3s/ 375Wins. I have one scoped with two extended rings and a old Burris 2x8 Signature PL. I don't like it but had no choice against season. New scopes shorter tubes, bigger AOs make them a PIA to mount on older rifles.
The #3 has the least options of any rifle I can think of.

[FergusonTO35]

I put a new Leupold VX-3 1-5x20 on my 1967 Marlin Glenfield 30. Yes, a $400.00 scope on a $200.00 rifle and it shoots great!

[444ttd]

my 2-7x leupold freedom with weaver extension rings in husqvarna m46(made in 1936).

[cwlongshot]

I also went thru this. PLUS. Are problems. Apparently early ‘99’s has hand contoured actions so bases where. EVER perfect. My pop had scope issues with a 2/7 Leupold VXII I gave him. He removed a old Redfield Widefield 3x9 for his 243. He mounted the Leupold not noticing he was linking the tube!! Scope would not zero and POA wandered. I KNEW this was a good scope. He removed it and I sent it back. Leupold fixes it and confirmed problems.

I bought two sets of Weaver Two piece bases before I realized the actual problem. I fit a one piece Redfield. Redfield shimmed worked perfectly.

CW