Log In
January 8, 2025
Offline
So when I purchased this rifle, the weaver scope was all the way up so the magnifying adjustment was against the rear ring. I cleaned it up, readjusted the scope, and locked the rings down with blue loctite. After a box of shells it’s right back where it was. This is my first rifle, scope, ring, combination with all blued parts. Any suggestions to keep the scope from sliding during recoil? I torqued the rings down pretty good, cautious not to damage the weaver v8.
Thanks,
Adam
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Adam-
Hmmm… So your scope is sliding forward in the rings under recoil? Meaning that the rings are not gripping the Weaver V8 scope tube tightly enough to hold it? I’ve never had that happen, even with .30 caliber Magnums that generate “sharper” recoil than the 338 Winchester Magnum… Sounds like you’ve gotten everything as tight as possible.
What type Weaver rings are they? Is this a vintage (pre-64) rifle with vintage mounts? Back in the day Weaver did make 26mm rings for 26mm scopes like the early Redfield-Kolmorgen Bear Cubs and others. A 26mm ring won’t hold a 1-inch (25.4mm) tube scope tightly enough no matter how tight you make the screws (it might “feel” tight but it won’t prevent slippage). That may have nothing to do with your predicament, but it’s worth mentioning…
My inclination would be to replace the base/rings with whatever brand you favor… I don’t think it’s related to the scope/rings having a blued finish.
Just my opinion…
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
September 19, 2014
Offline
Folks, I’ve heard of using rosin at the rings to help with grip and no damage to the scope finish. Brownells isn’t as easy to find things now, but last I knew they had it for such purposes (and barrel removal). I have seen it applied to a scope that wouldn’t hold on a fixed breach 12 ga with 3 inch slugs. Brutal recoil there. I would try that first since you already have the rings, bases, etc. Tim
January 20, 2023
Online
I’d forgotten about 26mm rings. That’s .6mm/.024 SAE too much. Rosin wouldn’t help that.
25 mil card stock is .025, the stuff used for invitations etc.
You could make cylindrical shims of 25 mil stock and coat them with rosin, which might work.
But if you are contemplating hunting animals of a size and/or disposition for which the .338 Winchester Magnum is considered advisable…..the relative cost of new and better bases and rings is bupkis.
I recently mounted a vintage Hertel & Reuse ( “Weatherby Imperial”) variable 2.5x – 10x scope to an early, Sauer built Weatherby Mark V 7mm magnum rifle, using vintage Buehler split rings to match the Buehler two-piece bases already on the rifle.
Buehler realized his scope mount was going to be used on Roy Weatherby’s creations that generate horrendous recoil velocity and energy, with attendant inertial force on the junction of scope tube and mounts. One of the things he did was to furnish a “peelable” shim to be fitted between the ring halves of the forward mount, to adjust the force with which the assembled ring halves grip the tube. A micrometer or dial indicator was necessary to get it right.
The 7mm Weatherby and 270 Weatherby cartridges generate notably less recoil than the .300 and the .340 is in a different, tougher World. I didn’t bother with the peelable shim but used a Wheeler torque wrench to tighten the rings, so I didn’t have to guess between not enough and tube damage. I did degrease tube and rings.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
January 8, 2025
Offline
Louis Luttrell said
Hi Adam-Hmmm… So your scope is sliding forward in the rings under recoil? Meaning that the rings are not gripping the Weaver V8 scope tube tightly enough to hold it? I’ve never had that happen, even with .30 caliber Magnums that generate “sharper” recoil than the 338 Winchester Magnum… Sounds like you’ve gotten everything as tight as possible.
What type Weaver rings are they? Is this a vintage (pre-64) rifle with vintage mounts? Back in the day Weaver did make 26mm rings for 26mm scopes like the early Redfield-Kolmorgen Bear Cubs and others. A 26mm ring won’t hold a 1-inch (25.4mm) tube scope tightly enough no matter how tight you make the screws (it might “feel” tight but it won’t prevent slippage). That may have nothing to do with your predicament, but it’s worth mentioning…
My inclination would be to replace the base/rings with whatever brand you favor… I don’t think it’s related to the scope/rings having a blued finish.
Just my opinion…
Lou
Thanks Lou,
I believe the rifle was manufactured in’69. I was assuming weaver rings, front ring is about .850’ wide with 3 flat head screws and rear is the windage and elevation adjustments.
thanks,
Adam
January 8, 2025
Offline
Zebulon said
I’d forgotten about 26mm rings. That’s .6mm/.024 SAE too much. Rosin wouldn’t help that.25 mil card stock is .025, the stuff used for invitations etc.
You could make cylindrical shims of 25 mil stock and coat them with rosin, which might work.
But if you are contemplating hunting animals of a size and/or disposition for which the .338 Winchester Magnum is considered advisable…..the relative cost of new and better bases and rings is bupkis.
I recently mounted a vintage Hertel & Reuse ( “Weatherby Imperial”) variable 2.5x – 10x scope to an early, Sauer built Weatherby Mark V 7mm magnum rifle, using vintage Buehler split rings to match the Buehler two-piece bases already on the rifle.
Buehler realized his scope mount was going to be used on Roy Weatherby’s creations that generate horrendous recoil velocity and energy, with attendant inertial force on the junction of scope tube and mounts. One of the things he did was to furnish a “peelable” shim to be fitted between the ring halves of the forward mount, to adjust the force with which the assembled ring halves grip the tube. A micrometer or dial indicator was necessary to get it right.
The 7mm Weatherby and 270 Weatherby cartridges generate notably less recoil than the .300 and the .340 is in a different, tougher World. I didn’t bother with the peelable shim but used a Wheeler torque wrench to tighten the rings, so I didn’t have to guess between not enough and tube damage. I did degrease tube and rings.
I was wondering if I had too much oil on everything when I tightened it back down. I didn’t remove the ring, just loosened and slid the scope back, the. Locked it down.
Thanks,
Adam
August 27, 2014
Offline
+1 on the new bases and rings
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
January 8, 2025
Offline
Tedk said
+1 on the new bases and rings
I thought the weaver was neat. If I do bases and rings then I have to get a scope too.
Thanks,
Adam
November 7, 2015
Offline
Ordinary Scotch tape makes a passable “shim” assuming a layer or two gives you enough room to exert some clamping force. I’m assuming the screws were still tight after your range session.
Mike
August 27, 2014
Offline
MidwestCrisis said
Tedk said
+1 on the new bases and rings
I thought the weaver was neat. If I do bases and rings then I have to get a scope too.
Thanks,
Adam
Why?
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
January 8, 2025
Offline
TXGunNut said
Ordinary Scotch tape makes a passable “shim” assuming a layer or two gives you enough room to exert some clamping force. I’m assuming the screws were still tight after your range session.
Mike
Middle screw did break free pretty easily but outside two are still good and tight. I’m planning to get some acetone and clean everything up. Measure the front ring and go from there. I like the tape idea.
thanks for all the suggestions guys. I’ll get some more ammo and see what happens.
thanks,
Adam
January 8, 2025
Offline
Tedk said
MidwestCrisis said
Tedk said
+1 on the new bases and rings
I thought the weaver was neat. If I do bases and rings then I have to get a scope too.
Thanks,
Adam
Why?
The front ring is the only one that actually holds the scope. The rear “ring” is the windage and elevation turret. It “floats” in the rear. I’m not against putting a new setup on this rifle. The old weaver glass isn’t the best. But for now all I’d be doing with the rifle is hit targets or maybe a coyote. If I were going after an elk I’d put better glass on it
Thanks,
Adam
August 27, 2014
Offline
Any chance someone lapped the rings and went too far?
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
August 14, 2021
Offline
You might try laping the rings if you’re so inclined. That was common to do back in the day before the level of precision of today’s machining.
August 8, 2024
Offline
Midwest, Is that the older V8 Weaver, with adjustments that are external? They made one with regular crosshairs. Then another with three lines forming the crosshairs. I remember trying to use the three line type when I was younger. I never could get used to that! It only left me cross eyed!
January 8, 2025
Offline
Bo Rich said
Midwest, Is that the older V8 Weaver, with adjustments that are external? They made one with regular crosshairs. Then another with three lines forming the crosshairs. I remember trying to use the three line type when I was younger. I never could get used to that! It only left me cross eyed!
Yes, it has the regular crosshairs though.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Midwest-
OK… That makes more sense!!! 
The Weaver V8 with external adjustments on the rear mount…
In other words, the scope tube itself must pivot (slightly) on the front mount in order to change POI by shifting it side-to-side and up-and-down via the rear mount??? Kind of like the older Fecker/Lyman/Unertl long target scopes that “float” in the front/rear mounts… The front ring cannot be too tight, otherwise making adjustments will flex the scope tube rather than letting it pivot???
Those older target scopes were designed to move forward in the mounts upon firing. Decreased shock to the telescope, allowed the ocular bell to move away from the shooter’s eye during recoil, etc. Early on those scopes didn’t even come with the external coil return spring to push the scope back into position. The old “drill” was that after firing the shooter grabbed the ocular end of the scope and manually pulled it back into position, giving the scope a little “twist” at the end to make sure it was always rotated the same way.
I’ve never used one of the Weaver V8 scopes… Looking at photos on-line it seems to me that the front ring is made to clamp securely onto the front base, i.e. there’s no built-in “flex” between front base and ring to permit adjustment. Is that right? If so, getting the front ring tight enough to hold the scope against the recoil of a 338 Win Magnum would effectively negate your ability to adjust it via the rear mount. You might just end up bending the scope tube. Maybe something flexible, like tape or thin rubber, would improve the “grip” while still allowing the necessary (small) amount of movement???
Knowing what I now (think I) know, I’d be even more inclined to change scopes/mounts. Put the V8 on something with less vicious recoil. If you want to stay “old school” and use an externally adjustable scope, maybe find a Bausch & Lomb Balvar 8 (2.5-8X) variable with the B&L style adjustable bases. Those are virtually “bullet proof” IMHO…
Just my take…
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
September 19, 2014
Offline
Midwest and Lou, I missed the boat on scope type as well. Indeed it needs to slide if what seems to be the case is true. Different type of scope would be of benefit. Tim
January 8, 2025
Offline
Louis Luttrell said
Hi Midwest-OK… That makes more sense!!!
In other words, the scope tube itself must pivot (slightly) on the front mount in order to change POI by shifting it side-to-side and up-and-down via the rear mount??? Kind of like the older Fecker/Lyman/Unertl long target scopes that “float” in the front/rear mounts… The front ring cannot be too tight, otherwise making adjustments will flex the scope tube rather than letting it pivot???
Those older target scopes were designed to move forward in the mounts upon firing. Decreased shock to the telescope, allowed the ocular bell to move away from the shooter’s eye during recoil, etc. Early on those scopes didn’t even come with the external coil return spring to push the scope back into position. The old “drill” was that after firing the shooter grabbed the ocular end of the scope and manually pulled it back into position, giving the scope a little “twist” at the end to make sure it was always rotated the same way.
I’ve never used one of the Weaver V8 scopes… Looking at photos on-line it seems to me that the front ring is made to clamp securely onto the front base, i.e. there’s no built-in “flex” between front base and ring to permit adjustment. Is that right? If so, getting the front ring tight enough to hold the scope against the recoil of a 338 Win Magnum would effectively negate your ability to adjust it via the rear mount. You might just end up bending the scope tube. Maybe something flexible, like tape or thin rubber, would improve the “grip” while still allowing the necessary (small) amount of movement???
Knowing what I now (think I) know, I’d be even more inclined to change scopes/mounts. Put the V8 on something with less vicious recoil. If you want to stay “old school” and use an externally adjustable scope, maybe find a Bausch & Lomb Balvar 8 (2.5-8X) variable with the B&L style adjustable bases. Those are virtually “bullet proof” IMHO…
Just my take…
Lou
Looking closer at it last night, the front ring is attached to the front base with 1 screw on lower left side. There seems to be a spacer or ball pivot, so it can move on the base but the ring still holds. I think you guys are probably right that this isn’t the best combination.
Thanks,
Adam
January 8, 2025
Offline
tim tomlinson said
Midwest and Lou, I missed the boat on scope type as well. Indeed it needs to slide if what seems to be the case is true. Different type of scope would be of benefit. Tim
Thanks Tim
1 Guest(s)
