Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Scope Slide on Model 70 338 WM
Avatar
MidwestCrisis
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
January 8, 2025
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
July 24, 2025 - 9:00 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

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

Avatar
Louis Luttrell
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1260
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
July 24, 2025 - 9:26 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
tim tomlinson
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 886
Member Since:
September 19, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
July 24, 2025 - 9:31 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

Avatar
Zebulon
Texas
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1148
Member Since:
January 20, 2023
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
July 24, 2025 - 10:29 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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.

Avatar
MidwestCrisis
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
January 8, 2025
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
July 24, 2025 - 10:49 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

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 

Avatar
MidwestCrisis
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
January 8, 2025
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
July 24, 2025 - 10:52 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

Avatar
Tedk
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 735
Member Since:
August 27, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
July 24, 2025 - 11:28 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

+1 on the new bases and rings

“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”

President Harry S. Truman

Avatar
MidwestCrisis
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
January 8, 2025
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
July 24, 2025 - 11:58 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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 

Avatar
TXGunNut
Northern edge of the D/FW Metromess
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6406
Member Since:
November 7, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
July 25, 2025 - 12:37 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

Life Member TSRA, Endowment Member NRA
BBHC Member, TGCA Board Member
Smokeless powder is a passing fad! -Steve Garbe
I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it. -Woodrow F. Call, Lonesome Dove
Some of my favorite recipes start out with a handful of depleted counterbalance devices.-TXGunNut
Presbyopia be damned, I'm going to shoot this thing! -TXGunNut
Avatar
Tedk
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 735
Member Since:
August 27, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
July 25, 2025 - 12:47 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

Avatar
MidwestCrisis
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
January 8, 2025
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
July 25, 2025 - 1:35 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

Avatar
MidwestCrisis
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
January 8, 2025
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
July 25, 2025 - 1:42 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

Avatar
Tedk
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 735
Member Since:
August 27, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
13
July 25, 2025 - 1:58 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Any chance someone lapped the rings and went too far?

“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”

President Harry S. Truman

Avatar
Steven Gabrielli
LI NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 334
Member Since:
August 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
14
July 25, 2025 - 10:43 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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.  

Avatar
Bo Rich
Ohio
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 137
Member Since:
August 8, 2024
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
15
July 25, 2025 - 10:47 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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! 

Avatar
MidwestCrisis
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
January 8, 2025
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
16
July 25, 2025 - 2:03 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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. 

Avatar
Louis Luttrell
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1260
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
17
July 25, 2025 - 3:26 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Hi Midwest-

OK… That makes more sense!!! Laugh 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

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
tim tomlinson
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 886
Member Since:
September 19, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
18
July 25, 2025 - 3:30 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

Avatar
MidwestCrisis
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
January 8, 2025
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
19
July 25, 2025 - 5:46 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Louis Luttrell said
Hi Midwest-

OK… That makes more sense!!! Laugh 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

  

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

Avatar
MidwestCrisis
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
January 8, 2025
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20
July 25, 2025 - 5:48 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 4623
Currently Online: deerhunter, Jeremy P, Pwog
Guest(s) 154
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 7119
TXGunNut: 6406
Chuck: 5806
steve004: 5172
1873man: 4698
deerhunter: 2694
Big Larry: 2549
twobit: 2493
mrcvs: 2194
Maverick: 2029
Newest Members:
sjGUESTEST
WindsurfAruba
cedar swamp savage
tradecraft
Weida78
Alby
Lambeau
Larsmack
usmc1978
Otisman68
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 18
Topics: 14713
Posts: 131613

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2057
Members: 9979
Moderators: 3
Admins: 4
Administrators: Mike Hager, Bert H., JWA, SethJ
Moderators: Rob Kassab, Brad Dunbar, Heather
Navigation