savage 110 scope mount

[bigghoss]

so a while back I bought a used savage 110 in .30-06. this is the non accu-trigger version with the rear flat receiver. when I purchased the rifle it had a 4-16x scope mounted on see-thru cantilever rings which were too tall for my taste. I got myself some standard mounts and low rings only to find out that standard rings are too far apart.

I'm wanting to put a 3-9x scope on the rifle so I need recommendations for a scope with a long enough body to fit the rings or for a different mount/rings.

[Don Robison]

Here you go
http://www.kenfarrell.com/scan/fi=products/st=db/co=yes/sf=category/se=Savage%20Old%20Style/op=eq.html?id=mALv6peh

or depending on when it was made

http://www.kenfarrell.com/scan/fi=products/st=db/co=yes/sf=category/se=Savage%20new%20short/op=eq.html

[bigghoss]

I'm guessing pre-2003 is the flat rear receiver without the accu-trigger? I'm thinking about this one.

http://www.kwiksitecorp.com/p-170-ksbl-110-la.aspx

[DMR]

I currently use Ken Farrels on mine 110. The base is a little tall though and I may end up swapping it for a Seekins which I understand to be shorter.

[lostwake]

i have weaver on my pre accutrigger 110fp

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8908/1000276u.th.jpg (http://img4.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1000276u.jpg)

[PALADIN-hgwt]

xxxxx

[DMR]

In my experience, with the Farrel base on my 110FP the Leupold "low" height rings positioned my glass TOO LOW, and required adjusting my natural cheek weld each time it was shouldered. With Leupold "medium" height rings, a full field of view is instantly available when shouldered rapidly. After that "discovery", I now mount each height of EMPTY rings when scoping bolt action rifles, and use the height which provides a "circle within a circle" view when shouldered with a good cheek weld. HTH.

Paladin

3x9-50 Leupold with Farrel base and Leupold medium rings. The multiple slots on the Farrel base have room to move the glass forward a notch or two for prone shooting, or back a notch or two for offhand and bench use.

I'm sure that is true for you, with your set up it looks like you might be hard pressed for the objective bell to clear the barrel if set up to my preferances.

This is my test rife with a 20MOA base, low rings and a :o SS 10X(hey, I didn't say duty rifle).

http://pro-patria.us/110-M.jpg

I snapped this shot last year during barrel break in. As set up the scope is higher then I prefer it. I can make it work, but it's not going any lower without a differant base. I also prefer non adjustable cheek pieces, so again I'm hard pressed to adjust. I will say it's not to bad for off hand (execpt the rifle weigths 13 lbs. but I mostly shoot it prone.

BTW mine is an older flat bridge.

Sadly, I had to selve further testing, but hope to come back to it this summer. (deleted)

[PALADIN-hgwt]

xxxxx

[DMR]

My comments could have been read as a bit of an attitude. This is my first bolt "precision" rig in 15 years so I by no means consider myself an expert in this area, so I suppose I should have just kept my mouth shut. You gave a great explaination of how to determine proper cheekweld and solid position. For my rifle and (from the looks of your picture) your rifle the scope is too high for my scrawny face. Since my scope is as low as it goes before it bottoms out on the bases it's hard to bring it down. I can make it work, but would like it to be lower.

It's a test rifle, so things were not expected to be perfect from round 1. I was testing some ideals/concepts and need a rifle now, not 6 or 7 months from now and this is what a could build in the time and budget needed. I got the data I needed and shelved it. That said I plan on coming back to it and will look at some of the notes, such as this, that need to be addressed. First thing to be addressed is scope, mounting system and the floor plate or rather the lack there of.