Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Howdy,
I posted some pre war model 70 questions about a month ago pertaining to correcting my rifle back to close to original configuration. I received more information and knowledge about the rifle that I even knew existed and appreciate everyone’s willingness to help.
I was able to acquire a correct stock, front sight hood, and a Lyman Alaskan with Redfield Jr mount. I’ve run into two issues with the scope mounting that hopefully someone can help with.
1. My 1946 receiver and bridge were drilled and tapped by someone along the way. Was there a common thread pitch for the holes? I don’t want to try to thread in the wrong screw and start stripping things. Also what would be the correct style/length screws to use? I see there are numerous types available.
2. The Redfield Jr base that came on the scope is believed to be the wrong base. None of the holes line up and the base has 4 holes in it instead of 3 as I believe it should for a model 70. I’ve attached pictures of the receiver and bridge with measurements between holes. Looks to be 5 inches from center of front receiver hole to center of front bridge hole. Would that be a close measurement for the correct Redfield Jr base? If a Redfield Jr one piece base would not be practical what other options do I have for a base?
Any help is greatly appreciated
Thanks, Troy
None of the holes line up and the base has 4 holes in it instead of 3 as I believe it should for a model 70. I’ve attached pictures of the receiver and bridge with measurements between holes. Troy952 said
Should be 3 in a 70 mount, but you’re saying that the 2 forward holes don’t match those in the rcvr ring? If so, it’s certainly not the correct 70 mount, & if described as such, you’re entitled to a refund. Proper 70 mounts aren’t scarce, so no reason to settle for one that’s not right. Is there a “70” marking on this mount, or any other number? I don’t know the correct spacing off hand, but I’m sure Lou can tell you. Factory rcvr ring threads are 6-48, but no telling about those in bridge.
I admire your tenacity in correcting as well as possible the many injuries this 70 has endured.
What is the distance from front edge of receiver to c/l of the 1st rear hole? That will verify if hole spacing is same as a factory scope base.
Steve
Hi Troy-
Redfield made (3) flavors of JR mount for the pre-64 M70. See if the information below helps…
The pre-war rifles, like yours, have a clip loading slot on the bridge (H&H receivers have a semi-circular cut out but dimensions are the same), so the hole spacing between the (2) receiver ring holes and the hole in the bridge has to be greater for mounting on a pre-war (or H&H) receiver than it does on a post-war standard receiver (without clip slot).
The first photo shows the top of (3) Redfield JR bases. From top to bottom, these are for post-war H&H receivers (Code 70AM), standard and H&H pre-war receivers (Code 04), and standard post-war receivers (Code 70A). Note that the hole spacing on the ’04’ and ’70AM’ code receivers is the same, and greater than the ’70A’ code base. The second photo is the underside of the three bases (same order). Important thing to note is that the pre-war base (middle) is milled so as to fit into the depression on the pre-war bridge created by the roll marking. A post-war (70AM) H&H magnum base uses the same hole spacing and would work, but leaves an unsightly gap on the bridge.
As for dimensions… The sketch below was done from a JR 70A (post-war standard) base. I had this on a M70 and believe that these are the original screws/lengths. Receiver holes (by dial caliper so not necessarily precise) are 0.850″ apart. Distance from the rear receiver hole to the bridge hole is 3.80″, but on the pre-war/H&H base it is 4.25″ (to accommodate the clip slot). All screws are 6-48, with 0.200″ diameter heads that are 0.100″ deep. Receiver screw OAL is 0.340″, while the bridge screw is longer at 0.450″.
All that said… You need a Redfield JR base for a pre-war M70 (middle base in upper photos). They are not hard to find, nor are standard 6-48 machine screws (that you may need to cut to length). The issue you may face is that the bridge of your rifle was not drilled for a Redfield base, but for (probably) Weaver two-piece bases. On a factory D&T M70 (post-war) this made no difference, as the distance between rear receiver hole and front bridge hole was such that either manufacturer’s bases could be installed. But there’s no a priori reason why the gunsmith that put the two holes in the bridge of your rifle would have necessarily maintained the same front to back hole spacing that the factory eventually adopted. It will be close, but may not fit…
As I said in the other thread… If it were my rifle and the pre-war Redfield base did not line up over the hole in the bridge, I would weld up the bridge hole of the BASE and re-drill it to exactly match the existing hole (leaving the rifle alone). The result would be a perfect fit and would not be noticeable (unless someone tried to take your “customized” JR base and put it on a different M70).
Hope this helps!!!
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Outstanding photos, as usual, Lou. And in my naivete, I thought a Redfield 70 mount was a Redfield 70 mount!
Wow, you guys know a thing or two about model 70’s. More than appreciate all the help and information. True encyclopedias.
No marking on the bottom of my current base Clarence and after looking at Lou’s photos mine clearly is not the correct one for a 70. Steve, I’ll do some more measurements when I get home and hope that it’s close enough. Most likely have to modify the base as Lou said but shouldn’t be overly difficult. Lou can’t thank you enough for the time you’ve put into providing the drawings and plethora of information. Huge help.
I attached a photo of the base I believe I need but wanted you guys’ confirmation before I click the purchase button. Am I correct that the base I need has the 511111 model or part number assigned to it as seen in the photo?
Thanks ahead of time. Troy
Hi Troy-
The one in your photo would work, but it’s a more recent production “Streamlined” JR mount. It would have the right hole spacing and fillet on the bottom of the bridge. The top corners of the “Streamlined” mount are rounded off and the manufacturer’s mark is a simple “R” inside a crosshair circle.
If you wanted to be strictly “period correct” you’d want the earlier JR mount like the one in the middle of my photos above. The top corners are square and the side is marked (in three lines) “Redfield/ PAT. No. 1,837,290/OTHER PATS. PENDING”. Like the photo below, which is one that’s NIB. Interestingly, there’s no code at all marked on the bottom of this mount, but like the box says it fits the pre-war M54/70…
While one could buy bases and rings separately (you only need the base), back in the day you could also buy base/rings as a set in the same box. The one I pictured here has 1″ solid (single split) rings for Weaver scopes.
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Troy952 said
I attached a photo of the base I believe I need but wanted you guys’ confirmation before I click the purchase button. Am I correct that the base I need has the 511111 model or part number assigned to it as seen in the photo?
Troy, only observation I’d make is that if your plan is to weld up the original rear hole, I wouldn’t do it to a NIB mount!
Good to know Lou. I wasn’t aware of those small details. I definitely want it as close to correct as possible.
Good call Clarence. Would hate to ruin a new base if things don’t go as planned.
Thanks again, Troy
Hi Troy and Clarence-
Just my take… But I’d much rather ruin an old Redfield base than attempt to modify the bridge of the rifle. 
Maybe Troy’s photos are deceiving, but it looks to me like the forward hole on the bridge of his rifle (the one he needs to use) is off-center. In that case the one-piece mount won’t align properly even if the receiver to bridge hole distance is 4.25″. It could be “off center” by 50 thousandths or so, and I wouldn’t try to “force” the base to attach. Even if it can be done it would put some amount of torsion on the scope tube that I’d rather avoid… If all that’s true, I see three options:
1) Weld up the bridge hole(s) and re-drill the hole you need. I’ve seen this done and to my eye it always looks horrible. Nobody seems to be able to engrave or overmark the bridge with a die in a manner that comes out looking decent. Of course the atrocity would be covered by the scope base, but I’d know it was there… 
2) Have a professional bridge repair done on the rifle. This is expensive ($$$$), as it involves milling off about 0.100″ of the top of the bridge to create a flat surface, welding up the remaining holes, and then silver soldering a new piece of more or less properly roll marked metal on top. This is the “repair” most often used by fakers to conceal added holes, and if expertly done it can be (nearly) invisible. But in the current case, one would be doing an EXPENSIVE “restoration” and then turning around and drilling it all over again (in the right place to fit the mount). Apart from cost, I don’t know whether attaching the base to a silver soldered metal insert would be as secure as I’d want it…
3) Leave the holes in rifle alone… Modify the base to match the existing hole. Any good gunsmith/machinist with a TIG welder and vertical mill could do that without messing it up. The base would, indeed, be irrevocably altered. But I don’t think I’d care about destroying a base that cost maybe $50.00…
I suppose a fourth option would be to just leave the bridge screw out (or insert a dummy) and attach the base to the receiver only. Not sure how well that would stand up to the recoil of a 30-06, but the Buehler Microdial bases work sort of like that so it might be fine…
Just my take… 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
I suppose a fourth option would be to just leave the bridge screw out (or insert a dummy) and attach the base to the receiver only. Not sure how well that would stand up to the recoil of a 30-06, but the Buehler Microdial bases work sort of like that so it might be fine…
I thought of suggesting epoxy alone on the bridge; it can be removed from smooth steel, but probably not a matted surface. (The mount could still be broken loose with heat.) This would be no worse than the buggered screw holes; the forward one is way out of alignment! Two screws & epoxy would hold it, I think, from any usage less demanding than service with the Screaming Eagles.
Even if the cost of that NIB mount was $2, there are well used ones around I’d prefer to sacrifice.
Hi Clarence-
I agree that I would not destroy a NIB vintage mount. The one I posted with the box is out of my curio/display cabinet in the gun room. But the one in the first photo of three bases together is a used piece and I would have no qualms about modifying it for a worthwhile cause.
I guess my suggestions are a bit colored by the fact that I have ready access to a machinist with the right skills/equipment to do the modification (my Brother). The only cost to me would be the price of the base and (being OCD) the cost of having a gunsmith reblue it after the modification… Still I don’t think it would be too costly (at least compared to any quality modification of the receiver itself)… 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Lou, I think you would need the rifle to complete the project. You will need to accurately locate the hole for redrilling.
Steve
Thanks guys, I tossed around the idea of just securing the base with the front two screws. I suppose worst case scenario I try zeroing the scope only to find the recoil is too much and needs the 3rd screw.
At that point depending on resources I would most likely weld and redrill the base. I also pondered if JB Weld would work to secure the rear of the base to the bridge but I was afraid it might seem a bit crude to do to the rifle. However after Clarence suggested epoxy maybe it’s not such a far fetched idea after all.
I found this base (below) however instead of being marked Redfield with the patent number it just says Redfield. I’ve only been able to find one article that suggests some early bases, immediately prior to the ones marked with the patent number, we’re produced with just Redfield on them. Were there more than two types of markings on the bases during production? Other than the absence of the patent number it appears to have all the features you mentioned Lou.
Much appreciated, Troy
Hi Steve-
I totally agree. I was speaking hypothetically, as it the rifle were mine and I wanted to mount a scope on it… Neither my Brother nor I are gunsmiths, and don’t take on projects like this for either fun or profit…
I can imagine that accurately relocating that hole would be quite a challenge once the top of the mount was welded closed and the hole on the receiver concealed. I would not know how to do it (but you would)!!! I suppose you could set up the action on the mill such that the existing hole was lined up, then attach the base to the receiver and start the hole without moving anything (???). But honestly I have no clue…
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Hi Troy-
That one looks OK to me… I’m not such a knowledgeable student of Redfield scope mounts to know exactly what markings go with what date of manufacture. The one in your pics could be older/newer that the two I pictured (both have the patent date), but it is the pre “streamlined” style base that I think would look right on the gun.
One small thing is that the screws shown in your pics are Weaver “oval head” screws, not proper “Fillister” head machine screws. (Steve can correct me when I use the wrong term… ). That should be an easy thing to deal with, however. Brownell’s likely has what you’d want and the dimensions of screws that fit are in the drawing above.
Whatever route you take I hope you’ll post a few pics of the finished project!!!
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
How about if you use a Stith tube mount? It uses the barrel dovetail in front and the rear mount uses the receiver sight holes. Or a Stith Master mount with the side base. There is a M70 Stith Master mount listing on ebay right now for $70. In this case plug the bad holes with plug screws or lead shot.
I have both types I think, I’d have to look so PM me if you want. Does anyone have a gun set up with a Stith Master or QED to show Troy a picture of?
Thanks Lou,
I purchased the base so it looks like that’s what’s going on it now. I’ll be sure to post some final pictures of this resurrected piece.
Thanks Jeff. I actually looked into the Stith mount at one point but enjoy the look of the Redfield base even though it’s turned into a debacle of sorts. If this project goes poorly I may be regretting not going with the Stith but I’ll have to wait and see I suppose.
Appreciate all the guidance and suggestions from everyone. It’s enjoyable keeping these pieces of history alive.
-Troy
Troy952 said I actually looked into the Stith mount at one point but enjoy the look of the Redfield base even though it’s turned into a debacle of sorts. If this project goes poorly I may be regretting not going with the Stith but I’ll have to wait and see I suppose.
Covering those buggered holes is the big advantage of the Redfield. Welding & redrilling sure seems an excessively difficult & complicated route to me, until, at least you’d tested (with a plastic mallet) the strength of an epoxy bond; epoxies are now used in all sorts of high-stress applications. In combination with the 2 screws, I think it will hold.
1 Guest(s)
