scope mounted
Apparently its impossible to get ahold of the Burris XTB steel bases, LeBaron had them on backorder indefinitely.
So i bought some Warne scope bases instead. they look like this:
the reason i wanted the Burris XTBs is because they are more of a Picatinny style and have two mounting positions. with the Warne or Leupold bases, there is only a
single slot in the mount (although you can reverse the mount to get some more adjustment, its kindof silly that they didnt just machine in a second slot).
These are around $14 in the states, and $30+ in Canada. so with exhange rate factored in they cost well over double here. hurray for Canadian bulls**t pricing, but whatever - i needed a mount
now, not in 6 weeks.
the ideal front mount, if i could design one, would be longer - it would extend back about another 3/8" to fit flush with the front of the ejection port, and have one more slot machined into it to allow the scope to be mounted further back. as it is mounted now, the scope could only move back another 1/16" before the front mount touched the objective bell. Luckily it was enough, but just barely - on 9x power i have
just enough eye relief. stay away from the Leupold 2-piece mounts of any type as people are complaining that they actually overhang
into the ejection port and look like sh*t - and may interfere with feeding/ejection.
i skimmed the bottom of the bases with a thin even coat of heavy gun grease before mounting them onto the rifle (then wiped off what squished out), to seal out any moisture that may get between the base and rifle and cause rust.
The rings are the Leupold QRW 1" Low rings. reasonably well made, although on closer examination the Torx screws werent even centered and seemed
very low quality (the heads were not on at 90 degrees so when you were screwing them in the heads wobbled, as if you were cross-threading them), not exactly what i would expect from a $70 set of rings.
here is a closeup of what i mean:
I would expect this from a set of $10 weaver rings, but the Leupold QRW series is supposed to be of much higher quality than this. whats the point of good rings when the screws that hold your scope are of such sh*t quality?
the rings are also very heavy - i would not recommend them for a lightweight design: together with the bases these probably weighed over a pound, which is
nuts considering i am trying to make this a lightweight all-weather rifle. i would recommend looking into aluminum bases and aluminum rings for a lightweight hunting setup - make sure you get quality aluminum rings with at least 2-3 screws holding your scope and tighten them well, but dont strip the threads.
another small issue is that the rear ocular of the Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40mm is huge, so you dont get very much bolt clearance. you
must work the bolt with your palm or grasp the very tip, if you try to grasp it further down or have fat fingers youre going to have a very sore (or broken) thumb since the Savage bolt is ####-on-opening and
really whacks the bolt handle up.
Overall, however, I am pleased with the mount style that i chose. im just outlining the issues that you will run into, although its rare that youll run into a scope mount setup that is absolutely 'perfect' - there are always compromises.
With this setup i can remove the scope in seconds and swap it out with something like a Burris Fastfire reflex sight for a closer range work or for general toting around in the bush.
