The issue I've had with swing-off mounts, the Pachmayr Lo-Swing, not Weavers, is that I've knocked them off kilter with my thumb when cycling the bolt in a hurry. Which kind of defeats the purpose of being in a hurry.
An honest rifle
- Thread starter stickhunter
- Start date
Hey all,
A few years ago I saw a dealer ad for a second hand Remington 700 rifle in 308 Win, and I could tell from the shape of the safety that it was an earlier model. The pictures weren't great, but I decided to give it a chance; I have a few Remington 700s, but all 2000+ vintage, and I tend towards older rifles.
When it arrived, the best I could explain is that it looked "dry", like it had been out in a pine forest for a summer season. The metal was a bit dull and dusty, there were pine needles sticking out of the barrel channel, and the stock had the finish worn through in spots where it would have been carried. That being said, it was a very early 700, in the 25### range, which I think places it within the first couple of months of production (starting in 1962).
I took the action out of the stock and rinsed out the trigger with some lighter fluid (a couple more pine needles appeared!) before giving it all a good wipe down with oil. The bore and bolt face looked great, and the rifle looks to have been carried more than shot.
Although the stock finish is failing in some spots and worn through in others, I decided to just give it a wax and leave it be.
The rifle came with Weaver pivot mounts, an inexpensive Tasco 4x scope, and a light leather sling. I can't bear to change anything on it at the moment because it feels like a time capsulate of sorts. These early 700s a had a few unique features, which I'll leave for you to notice in the pictures.
I wish I had taken a picture of the rifle when it first came to me, but I've attached some photos of it as it stands now. There's something about the finish being worn on the stock that had me saying, "This is an honest rifle"... I'm not sure why, but the term has stuck with me... so if anyone wants to share pictures or stories of their "honest" rifles, I'd love to see them.
Nice score, thats a beaut
My most recent "honest" rifle has considerably more finish wear to the stock than yours; I think it might have transcended "honest" and gone all the way to "self-righteous"... It's a nice old Rem660 in .308 that I picked up a year or so back. It's missing the rear sight; it's got a ventilated Pachmayr recoil pad installed without cutting the stock, resulting in a long LOP of 14.5 inches; and it's wearing an old-school Weaver one-piece scope base. In other words...it's a dead ringer for my first 660, purchased back in the early 1970's at a gun show in Detroit and brazenly brought back across the border, where the customs guy admired it, hefted it and then waved me on my way. This one has much nicer figure and colour in the walnut than that long-ago first one.
The B&L Balvar 2-8x scope and Burris steel mounts seemed like a nice match for it, and since getting it I've replaced the plastic triggerguard unit with a steel one from Numrich. It's got a nice crisp trigger, produces very decent accuracy and has ended the careers of 3 or 4 coyotes this past winter. It's on the short list for taking a deer this year; sadly, I have more guns on that list than I will have tags, so I don't know if it will be in my hands when the moment of truth arrives.
But it gives me a nostalgic smile every time I pick it up...honest rifles do that...and that's good enough.
It's a nice old Rem660 in .308 that I picked up a year or so back. It's missing the rear sight; it's got a ventilated Pachmayr recoil pad installed without cutting the stock, resulting in a long LOP of 14.5 inches; and it's wearing an old-school Weaver one-piece scope base. In other words...it's a dead ringer for my first 660, purchased back in the early 1970's at a gun show in Detroit and brazenly brought back across the border, where the customs guy admired it, hefted it and then waved me on my way. This one has much nicer figure and colour in the walnut than that long-ago first one.The B&L Balvar 2-8x scope and Burris steel mounts seemed like a nice match for it, and since getting it I've replaced the plastic triggerguard unit with a steel one from Numrich. It's got a nice crisp trigger, produces very decent accuracy and has ended the careers of 3 or 4 coyotes this past winter. It's on the short list for taking a deer this year; sadly, I have more guns on that list than I will have tags, so I don't know if it will be in my hands when the moment of truth arrives.
But it gives me a nostalgic smile every time I pick it up...honest rifles do that...and that's good enough.
- Location
- AB foothills
The resounding comment is to replace the scope, which I will plan to do. I have a coupe of gloss 4x scopes from German makers, but just a matte 4x scope from Leupold. It seems fitting to go with a US scope for this rifle, so if I can find an older m8 or gloss FX-II 4x33, I think that would be a good pairing.
The first set of pictures didn't include the scope pivoted to use the iron sights, so correcting that omission, as well as a close up of the checkered aluminum buttplate.
I'm torn on the scope mount --- I recall (perhaps Johnn Peterson?) really liked those Weaver pivots, and they're period correct and seem quite functional to allow the iron sights to be used. The mount has low rings and fit the 32mm Tasco scope quite well. I usually run Leupold QR bases/rings, and I'm a little leery of the "strap" rings marring up the finish if I put a nicer scope on it.
I have a similar Tasco buried somewhere in the cabinet. It has a weird duplex with a secondary line below it reticle. Never seen another one like it. I should dig it out and post over in Optics and see if someone is familiar with it.
Side note - there’s been a few M8 4x’s recently over on Funpost.. keep an eye out there.
- Location
- AB foothills
I've never heard that, nor experienced it, with Weaver rings. They've got a bit of an agricultural style to them, and I'm not fond of the need to over-rotate the scope in the rings before tightening the ringtops to allow for the inevitable "roll" when the screws are tightened. But in functional terms, I think they work very well indeed.
On top of that, Weaver rings are very much a Poor Man's QD-style mounting system. If removed and then replaced carefully, into the same set of cross-grooves with a bit of forward pressure applied while those big-ass clamping screws are alternately tightened by degrees, a set of Weavers can usually be relied on to achieve a return-to-zero of 1MOA or a bit more. Perhaps not good enough for today's New Age shooters who slay animals on the next mountain over or in the adjacent province after doing some mathematical gymnastics on their phone and some fancy dialing on their scope turrets, but for mere mortals who tend to use rifles such as those shown in this thread, on animals within a few hundred yards...it's more than sufficient.
I'll even leave out the obligatory "...if you do your part..." caveat.
Last edited:
That is the first thing I would do. I saw nothing but problems with those particular rings...
For a rock solid stable mount I really liked Leupold dual dovetail rings in two piece bases...
And a Leupold 3.5-10x40... arguably the most popular in the last 30 years...
Next would be to install the newer one piece sear/safety cam...
Then I would remove the end of the safety that locks the bolt...
Then i would clean and adjust the trigger to a safe crisp 2 pounds...
Then glass bed the action and float the barrel and apply finish inside to seal the stock...
Clean the barrel... remove the sights...
Install a decelerator pad...
And go shoot 1/2 inch minus groups... like most 700's do.
Last edited:
slinkylegs
Regular
- Location
- Hudson Bay, SK
My only real "honest" rifle would the upper one. It's a Husqvarna chambered in 9.3x62. It has all the dents and dings of a rifle that was well used before I found it at a surplus store. It has a German claw mount with an old Bushnell 3-9x scope, complete with some post reticle. It isn't the clearest scope, but it holds a zero and looks good on the gun.
I've gone back and forth about selling it for the past year because I don't use it much, and have no real reason to have a rifle that big. However, every time I pick it up, it gets harder to part with!
I should add, I did get it bedded, a new recoil pad put on (the plastic was cracked on it when I saw it), and a gunsmith repaired a tang crack. Other than that, I've done nothing but shoot the sucker
Guys, guys! My issue is not Weaver rings! My issue is with Weaver pivoting “Tip off” rings as pictured in the OP. These are a totally different can of worms than a standard set of Weaver rings. Standard Weaver rings work fine, albeit with a tendency to leave marks on your scope tube and I personally find them about as ugly as sin.
Guntech, we are both on the same page!!
Guntech, we are both on the same page!!
