Zastava M70 Mauser scope mounting options

Joel

Joel

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
GunNutz
Rating - 99.8%
453   1   0
So, its been a long time since I have had a Zastava Mauser but getting the itch again.

In the past, I'd found two things. Weaver bases don't put the scope rings at anywhere near the same height, and the front and rear mounting holes are nowhere near in alignment. Leupold STD base/ring combos worked to get around that, because of the adjustable windage.

But there are other options. For example the Talley lightweights.

What have you used on your Zastavas that you've been happy with?
 
Yes, the talley lightweights is mostly what I like to use for hunting guns, and all my M98 based rifles wear them. Never had a problem with them, even on my 375 h&h or the 358 Norma.
 
I can’t comment on the M70 but I recently used Weaver bases with Burris Signature high rings on a Husky 98 that I’m very happy with.
I had to use the offset inserts in both the front and rear rings to get the scope near zero in the center of its windage adjustment due to less than ideal alignment and the Signature solution worked great, looks good too in my opinion.
 
Hmmm, I had good luck with Weaver bases on my Zastava 308. I used a #20A front and #55 rear. Lined up perfectly and worked fine. I think that rifle was a 2013 vintage or so. Others I've seen had the traditional Mauser #45 and #46 bases and seemed OK. Steel equivalents are always nicer. IIRC, the modern Zastava mausers are shorter than the traditional M98's otherwise an EGW one piece base would be a decent option.
 
Lever30 said:
Hmmm, I had good luck with Weaver bases on my Zastava 308. I used a #20A front and #55 rear. Lined up perfectly and worked fine. I think that rifle was a 2013 vintage or so. Others I've seen had the traditional Mauser #45 and #46 bases and seemed OK. Steel equivalents are always nicer. IIRC, the modern Zastava mausers are shorter than the traditional M98's otherwise an EGW one piece base would be a decent option.
Click to expand...

That's weird! I've used the same ones and they end up with the scope being slanted downward quite badly. Could just call it a 50 MOA rail for super long range shooting I guess haha.

Then there was the problem that I pretty much had to use Bushnells because without windage correction I was running out of clicks on a Vx-Freedom...
 
Joel said:
That's weird! I've used the same ones and they end up with the scope being slanted downward quite badly. Could just call it a 50 MOA rail for super long range shooting I guess haha.

Then there was the problem that I pretty much had to use Bushnells because without windage correction I was running out of clicks on a Vx-Freedom...
Click to expand...

Joel:

If your scope was slanted that badly, replace the 20A [ 0.127" thickness] front base with a #35 [ 0.147" thickness]. If that still does not level the scopeenough, try a #46 or a #402 [both are 0.222" thick]. They all have the same 0.860" hole spacing. Anything 0.010" or less difference, I use shims made from beer can aluminum. I've seen at least one Zastava in 7x57 that I had to use a small ring Mauser rear base [#55], coupled with a #35 front. I surmise the QC was P!$$-poor on home-market stuff, whereas the export firearms either had better inspection or the importer's QC people sent a heck of a lot back as UNACCEPTABLE.

Re: windage grief
You could also try the Weaver Grand Slam windage-adjustable rings. [https://shop.weavermounts[dot]com/products/grand-slam-steel-top-mount-rings-windage-adjustable/] which may be available at one of the site sponsors.

Re: different action length
A lot of the late imported Zastavas are reincarnations of the M48 Intermediate length rifle, especially in 7x57 & at least some of the 8x57s.
 
jamesharrison said:
Joel:

If your scope was slanted that badly, replace the 20A [ 0.127" thickness] front base with a #35 [ 0.147" thickness]. If that still does not level the scopeenough, try a #46 or a #402 [both are 0.222" thick]. They all have the same 0.860" hole spacing. Anything 0.010" or less difference, I use shims made from beer can aluminum. I've seen at least one Zastava in 7x57 that I had to use a small ring Mauser rear base [#55], coupled with a #35 front. I surmise the QC was P!$$-poor on home-market stuff, whereas the export firearms either had better inspection or the importer's QC people sent a heck of a lot back as UNACCEPTABLE.

Re: windage grief
You could also try the Weaver Grand Slam windage-adjustable rings. [https://shop.weavermounts[dot]com/products/grand-slam-steel-top-mount-rings-windage-adjustable/] which may be available at one of the site sponsors.

Re: different action length
A lot of the late imported Zastavas are reincarnations of the M48 Intermediate length rifle, especially in 7x57 & at least some of the 8x57s.
Click to expand...

Thank you! greatly appreciated
 
Joel said:
So, its been a long time since I have had a Zastava Mauser but getting the itch again.

In the past, I'd found two things. Weaver bases don't put the scope rings at anywhere near the same height, and the front and rear mounting holes are nowhere near in alignment. Leupold STD base/ring combos worked to get around that, because of the adjustable windage.

But there are other options. For example the Talley lightweights.

What have you used on your Zastavas that you've been happy with?
Click to expand...
I bought a Zastavia a few years ago in 9.3x62 and put a VX3 on it. I'm out of town until the end of the week. I'll dig it out and let you know what I used because it worked very well.
 
I've only ever had one of these guns, a full-stocked 9.3x62, and it was plagued with the largest single number of scope-mounting warts of any single gun I've ever owned. There was a discrepancy between the level of the front and rear rings; that was solved with a shim of aluminium can metal under the lower base. The front and rear bases were also not aligned and required the use of windage-adjustable rings, for which I chose Burris because of the polymer sleeves that mitigated the stress on the scope tube from those first two issues. And of course there was the problem with the screw hole spacing, which was ever so slightly off on the front base, requiring a very slight elongation of one hole to allow the screw to thread in properly to the receiver.

Once all this nonsense was attended to, the gun was a wonderful shooter and caused no problems. It had that surprisingly nice well-polished deep blue finish, a very shootable trigger, very good accuracy, and even a pretty decently grained and coloured stock. There was nothing amiss with it cosmetically, but the knowledge of all that Bubbafication required to set things right just bugged me so much I eventually sold it to a friend who didn't care about that; he got a good-looking, good-shooting gun and thought I was quite silly to fret about its quirks. :)
 
Joel said:
So, its been a long time since I have had a Zastava Mauser but getting the itch again.

In the past, I'd found two things. Weaver bases don't put the scope rings at anywhere near the same height, and the front and rear mounting holes are nowhere near in alignment. Leupold STD base/ring combos worked to get around that, because of the adjustable windage.

But there are other options. For example the Talley lightweights.

What have you used on your Zastavas that you've been happy with?
Click to expand...
I looked back in my notes, and I am quite sure that I used #45 and # 46 weaver bases, but my notes also said that 55 and 20a would work. I had to shorten one or both screws, don't know if it was the back or the front.

More importantly to me, I could not get it to shoot straight as the mounts were not exactly alligned with the bore axis. Shuregrip adjustabl, these fixed it. Amazon has them, but I bought mine from Shooters in Kitchener. It has been more than a few years. These have held zero for years, and I have no complaints. Mine is a 6.5 x 55. With the Riton 4-16 I was able to use the low rings, which are ideal with the hog-back stock. I really love this rifle!!!

1778764502105.png1778764707980.jpeg​

 
dan belisle said:
I still have a couple zastava actioned rifles, used Leupold/Redfield mounts on them. No issues on fit or function. - dan
Click to expand...

The STD setup with the dovetail in the front and windage adjustable one in the back, Dan? If so that has been my go-to as well.

meroh said:
I looked back in my notes, and I am quite sure that I used #45 and # 46 weaver bases, but my notes also said that 55 and 20a would work. I had to shorten one or both screws, don't know if it was the back or the front.

More importantly to me, I could not get it to shoot straight as the mounts were not exactly alligned with the bore axis. Shuregrip adjustabl, these fixed it. Amazon has them, but I bought mine from Shooters in Kitchener. It has been more than a few years. These have held zero for years, and I have no complaints. Mine is a 6.5 x 55. With the Riton 4-16 I was able to use the low rings, which are ideal with the hog-back stock. I really love this rifle!!!
Click to expand...

Thanks Meroh! Very cool rifle and setup! You've said before it stabilizes the 160 grain bullets well too, yeah?

Those Weaver rings were mentioned earlier in the thread too, or at least that windage system! good to know about.

jjohnm said:
I've only ever had one of these guns, a full-stocked 9.3x62, and it was plagued with the largest single number of scope-mounting warts of any single gun I've ever owned. There was a discrepancy between the level of the front and rear rings; that was solved with a shim of aluminium can metal under the lower base. The front and rear bases were also not aligned and required the use of windage-adjustable rings, for which I chose Burris because of the polymer sleeves that mitigated the stress on the scope tube from those first two issues. And of course there was the problem with the screw hole spacing, which was ever so slightly off on the front base, requiring a very slight elongation of one hole to allow the screw to thread in properly to the receiver.

Once all this nonsense was attended to, the gun was a wonderful shooter and caused no problems. It had that surprisingly nice well-polished deep blue finish, a very shootable trigger, very good accuracy, and even a pretty decently grained and coloured stock. There was nothing amiss with it cosmetically, but the knowledge of all that Bubbafication required to set things right just bugged me so much I eventually sold it to a friend who didn't care about that; he got a good-looking, good-shooting gun and thought I was quite silly to fret about its quirks. :)
Click to expand...

Good for him! haha

That's been my experience too, it blows my mind how such a great barrel on such a great action with surface finish as nice as they put on them could have such absolute dogsh*t when it came to QC on scope installation. Its like they just farmed it out to someone's idiot nephew's mechanic shop
 
Last edited:
This is an issue that used to haunt people on a regular basis, no matter which manufacturer produced the firearms.

When I first started purchasing firearms, many weren't designed for scope mounting, and it had to be done by a smith or a competent DIY type.

Some had a proper set of trammels or a milling/drill, milling vice etc, for the job, but most had quite inaccurate methods for aligning and punching location divits for the drill bit to center on. Many used drill bits from standard sets for the job, which weren't properly ground for center, and were too flexible.

This created all sorts of issues when it came time to mount the bases available in those days.

Crooked, off center, and misaligned holes in the top of the receiver were not uncommon, and many of those rifles are still out there. I get them every once in a while, when a newbie or someone too young to remember brings one over to be "fixed."

The best fix is to weld the holes, and redrill and tap newly located holes. A proper set of fitted trammels or a fitted jig will do a great job as a guide if it's properly leveled, but the best method is a mill/drill, using a pilot drill to locate the hole, then using the proper bit to drill, and after chuck up the tap, to start the threads by hand turning it.

We mostly used Weaver bases back then as well. If they weren't centered properly, we would file the side bevels so they were straight, and hope the scope had enough internal adjustments to take care of the rest.
 
Last edited:
Joel said:
The STD setup with the dovetail in the front and windage adjustable one in the back, Dan? If so that has been my go-to as well.
Click to expand...
Perfect solution as well!
Thanks Meroh! Very cool rifle and setup! You've said before it stabilizes the 160 grain bullets well too, yeah?

Those Weaver rings were mentioned earlier in the thread too, or at least that windage system! good to know about.
Click to expand...
She sure does! 10:1 twist. I'm surprised that it stabalizes without destroying 85 gr sierra JHPs at 35-3600 FPS.
That's been my experience too, it blows my mind how such a great barrel on such a great action with surface finish as nice as they put on them could have such absolute dogsh*t when it came to QC on scope installation. Its like they just farmed it out to someone's idiot nephew's mechanic shop
Click to expand...
Bit of a trade off considering the price point. the most important bits that you don't have to hold your nose for more than make up for the ones that you do.

My stock was also as dry as a popcorn fart. I rubbed a couple more coats of Tung oil, that gave her a bit more of a glow. Rather nicely flamed walnut.

I recently bought a Zastava, for a good price from Intersurplus. It had a chip out of the stock at the tang from being dropped on the butt; I want to say what an idiot oversight, Brnos and CZ 452s had one, but they skipped it with the 455. After a lot of issues, they added one (plastic) to the 457. Like the LKM70, the metal finish and the smooth bolt operation are astounding! (Dovetail is straight too). LOL
 
Meroh said:
Perfect solution as well!

She sure does! 10:1 twist. I'm surprised that it stabalizes without destroying 85 gr sierra JHPs at 35-3600 FPS.

Bit of a trade off considering the price point. the most important bits that you don't have to hold your nose for more than make up for the ones that you do.

My stock was also as dry as a popcorn fart. I rubbed a couple more coats of Tung oil, that gave her a bit more of a glow. Rather nicely flamed walnut.

I recently bought a Zastava, for a good price from Intersurplus. It had a chip out of the stock at the tang from being dropped on the butt; I want to say what an idiot oversight, Brnos and CZ 452s had one, but they skipped it with the 455. After a lot of issues, they added one (plastic) to the 457. Like the LKM70, the metal finish and the smooth bolt operation are astounding! (Dovetail is straight too). LOL
Click to expand...

Cool! With that twist rate I was really wondering haha. Good to know they can. I did have a Sauer 100 that was keyholing the Hornady 140gr ECX but thats a loooong bullet. Seems to open very easily though.

Good job on oiling that stock, they seemed to really use a nice piece of wood, and good score! Interesting on that tang...
 
Joel said:
The STD setup with the dovetail in the front and windage adjustable one in the back, Dan? If so that has been my go-to as well.



Thanks Meroh! Very cool rifle and setup! You've said before it stabilizes the 160 grain bullets well too, yeah?

Those Weaver rings were mentioned earlier in the thread too, or at least that windage system! good to know about.



Good for him! haha

That's been my experience too, it blows my mind how such a great barrel on such a great action with surface finish as nice as they put on them could have such absolute dogsh*t when it came to QC on scope installation. Its like they just farmed it out to someone's idiot nephew's mechanic shop
Click to expand...
Yes, std mounts. - dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom