Scoping a B-78

[oldrodder]

I recently bought a B-78 in 22-250. The rifle came with Talley bases and rings. The problem is that I can't position the scope far enough to the rear to be able to shoot without crawling the stock. Anybody else have this problem? How did you resolve it???
BTW, the scope is a Mueller 8-25 X 50
Thanks,
Mike

 

[duncansuds]

You can buy offset ring that can position back or forward an inch or so. Check out talley an Leupold sites. I'm sure you can find some.

 

[hoytcanon]

Usually you only require an offset ring in the rear position... many falling blocks suffer from that issue with standard scope ER, including Ruger No.1's.

 

[stubblejumper]

No such issue with my 1885s. What is the eye relief for your scope?

 

[B-78]

I have had 3-4 different scopes on my B-78 22-250 over the last 25yrs. I have never had a problem with eye relief on any of them but I do have the factory Browning rings and mounts on the rifle. I have a Leupold VX3 on it right now and if I was to take it out to the bench with a heavy winter parka on it may make a difference. The only time I have used the rifle in the last 12 yrs is on an annual Father's Day gopher shoot with my Dad and I can see that tradition ending in the next couple years.

 

[oldrodder]

.............. I do have the factory Browning rings and mounts on the rifle.

The Talley rings have the Browning logo on one side and "Talley" on the other, so, Original from the factory, I would think?

Stubblejumper,
I notice that the bottom setup has the scope much further back than the top one.
M

 

[hoytcanon]

It is not whether you can get the eye relief to work... with a 4" eye relief most scopes will work with straight rings... but scopes with ER of 3"-3.5" are often harder to work with... and the rear ring is often jammed against the turret housing. I personally do not like this for a couple reasons; it looks crappy, and it is not as strong of a mount as when the tube is gripped further back by the ring... the further apart the rings are, without encroaching on the ocular and objective bells, the better from a strength perspective. My Ruger No.1's all wear offset rings in the rear position... it looks better, is more flexible, and is stronger. I would say the same for the 1885's and a B-78 I have owned, but less so, as the Ruger fixed ring positions are further forward...

 

[stubblejumper]

It is not whether you can get the eye relief to work... with a 4" eye relief most scopes will work with straight rings... but scopes with ER of 3"-3.5" are often harder to work with... and the rear ring is often jammed against the turret housing. I personally do not like this for a couple reasons; it looks crappy, and it is not as strong of a mount as when the tube is gripped further back by the ring... the further apart the rings are, without encroaching on the ocular and objective bells, the better from a strength perspective. My Ruger No.1's all wear offset rings in the rear position... it looks better, is more flexible, and is stronger. I would say the same for the 1885's and a B-78 I have owned, but less so, as the Ruger fixed ring positions are further forward...

If you compare your pictures of your #1 rifles to the 1885 high wall in my picture, the rear ring sits in about the same position on the scope in both, due to the mount attaching to the receiver, rather than the barrel on the 1885/B78 rifles. While the offsight rings may be an advantage on a #1, in most cases they shouldn't be required on an 1885/B78.

 

[hoytcanon]

If you compare your pictures of your #1 rifles to the 1885 high wall in my picture, the rear ring sits in about the same position on the scope in both, due to the mount attaching to the receiver, rather than the barrel on the 1885/B78 rifles. While the offsight rings may be an advantage on a #1, in most cases they shouldn't be required on an 1885/B78.

As I said in the post you quoted an offset mount is not required, but it puts the ring in a better position... look at the position of the rear ring on your low wall... IMO it would be advantageous, for the above quoted reasons, to shift that position rearward approximately 3/4".

 

[stubblejumper]

As I said in the post you quoted an offset mount is not required, but it puts the ring in a better position... look at the position of the rear ring on your low wall... IMO it would be advantageous, for the above quoted reasons, to shift that position rearward approximately 3/4".

The OP is talking about a B-78 , which is a high wall, not a low wall. With my high wall the ring is pretty much dead center between the turret and the objective bell, pretty much like your rifles using an offset ring. I see no advantage to using an offset ring in that situation, which may in itself create a weaker mounting system compared to a ring that clamps onto the scope directly above the point where it attaches to the base. Basic applied mechanics tells me that an offset ring results in a great deal more torque being transferred to the point where the ring attaches to the base.

As for using an offset rear ring on my low wall, that would restrict access to the hammer/loading area, something which I certainly wouldn't consider to be an advantage. An offset ring would also reduce access to the hammer/loading area on a high wall.

 

[catnthehatt]

I've never had an issue with any of the 8 Brownings I have owned over the years, except for one, and I ended up putting the offset ring on the front because of the turret of a particular scope.
My Ruger no.1's normally get an offset ring on the rear mount except for the last one , for some reason it is not needed.
Here's a few pics



Cat

 

[hoytcanon]

The OP is talking about a B-78 , which is a high wall, not a low wall. With my high wall the ring is pretty much dead center between the turret and the objective bell, pretty much like your rifles using an offset ring. I see no advantage to using an offset ring in that situation, which may in itself create a weaker mounting system compared to a ring that clamps onto the scope directly above the point where it attaches to the base. Basic applied mechanics tells me that an offset ring results in a great deal more torque being transferred to the point where the ring attaches to the base.

As for using an offset rear ring on my low wall, that would restrict access to the hammer/loading area, something which I certainly wouldn't consider to be an advantage. An offset ring would also reduce access to the hammer/loading area on a high wall.

Well we will agree to disagree on the advantages of the offset ring, mechanically speaking. To me the weak point is not the base of the ring, it is the barrel of the scope... which would be substantially strong were it attached closer to the ends... regardless, I used offset rings in the rear position on both of my low walls... and on the one B78 I owned... none of which interfered with the hammer... the B78 with a standard VX-2 4-12X40mm had the rear ring jammed against the turret housing, which I was not happy with. It should be noted that individual shooters use different anchor points on stocks, different technique and different eye positions in relation to the ocular lens, even when ER is equal... so to a large degree this discussion will be subjective.

 

[stubblejumper]

Well we will agree to disagree on the advantages of the offset ring, mechanically speaking. To me the weak point is not the base of the ring, it is the barrel of the scope... which would be substantially strong were it attached closer to the ends... regardless, I used offset rings in the rear position on both of my low walls... and on the one B78 I owned... none of which interfered with the hammer... the B78 with a standard VX-2 4-12X40mm had the rear ring jammed against the turret housing, which I was not happy with. It should be noted that individual shooters use different anchor points on stocks, different technique and different eye positions in relation to the ocular lens, even when ER is equal... so to a large degree this discussion will be subjective.

I posted hammer/loading area, not just hammer. With the scope in place, there isn't a lot of extra room to push the rounds into the chamber, or remove them (extractor only on low wall) without an offset ring further restricting access. Cold weather and gloves will make this situation even less desirable.

As to different shooters holding guns differently, I do agree, and although I have seen a fair number B-78/1885 rifles with scopes, I haven't seen any with offset rear rings moving the ring location rearward , so it must not be a common situation.

Out of curiosity, I did a quick google search of B-78 and 1885 rifles, and after looking at over a hundred rifles with scopes mounted, I did see a couple of situations where the rear mount actually mounted the ring forward of the receiver, but I didn't see a single instance where an offset ring was used to move the ring location rearward over the falling block. Based on that, I must assume that it must be a very rare situation.