Gentlemens:

I am looking for advice and suggestions on scope mounts for a Fraser single shot rifle with a full length rib. I would like the rib to be as clean as possible when the scope is removed. I was figuring on dovetailing the mounts into the rib, or perhaps even making them integral. This latter could be done with something like the Leupold mounts.

Something more or less traditional would be ideal.

Thanks in advance for you help,

Glenn

How about these, they look smart but costly I'll bet.

http://smithson-gunmaker.com/mounts.htm

Do you remember the rings made by Lehman circa 1960? I first saw them in Gun Digest. They were to fit internally adjustable scopes to target bases. I had a set on a 44 1/2 custom with a quarter rib that was essentially a long target scope block. The Lehman rings are split vertically, held together by four small socket head cap screws - maybe #6 x 1/2". If you machined locating pads into the sides of the rib, there would be almost nothing to see when the scope was off. Disadvantage is that you have to sight in every time the scope is reinstalled s the rings will be off the scope.

I will photograph and e-mail to you the scope mounts for my take down high wall by Classic Arms. They are tip off incorporated into a rib, somewhat like the above photo of Smithson's. There are plugs to fill the holes when the scope is off, so vey clean appearance.

The Smithson website doesn't describe anything like the neat system pictured. Do you have more information on the pictured mounting system?

Glenn, have you considered the Talley or, alternatively, the early Kimber or Warne Premier mounting system(s), very similar if not identical to the earlier Lenard Brownell and G&H styles of lever-detachable rings? The Kimbers/Warnes use a standard 3/8" dovetail and the Talleys require a larger one; you can't get much lower and more unobtrusive than a dovetail in a rib. Of course you could always use the Leupold QR gunsmith bases inletted into the rib as long as you had clearance for the side levers but IMO the levers belong on the rings and not the rifle.

The rings are available in several heights and can be had in either a simple non-detachable model or a quick-detachable style with levers or knobs. A heavy kicker will need some sort of recoil shoulder. These rings will return to zero within 1/2 MOA or less, proven by personal test.

I wrote an article on these mounting systems several years ago but events intervened and it's never been published. I use them regularly and recommend them highly.
Regards, Joe

Glenn,

Have something very similar to what J.D. described.

A number of years ago found a Webley falling block action and had it barrelled in hand-detachable .375 and .300 flanged magnum. Set up both barrels to use a scope with older Warne QD rings that slid onto a milled rib. Recoil stop for the .375 barrel was the back sight. The .300 barrel has two flat-sided short pins: one that screwed into the rib at a point down the rib to use an EER scope, and the other at the same distance as the back sight of the .375 so I can just move the scope from one barrel to the other and reset the height and windage adjustments.

Key was once Warne brought out those new levers that you can ratchet so as to tighten/loosen regardless of how close to the barrel itself you are. For those new Warne rings, just mill off the integral recoil stop so that you can use the back sight or the pins you set in the rib. Oh, scope is a Leupold Vari-X III 1.5x5. LOP is 14-1/2".

Works very well in the field.

If this is confusing shout and I'll try to take some pix.

Regards, Tim

I have a HiWall with Burgess metalwork, barrel has a quarter rib, the rear of the rib is machined as a Redfield Jr. scope base. No obstructions when the scope is off except the tops of the two rear locking screws which are quite low and not in the line of the iron sights.

Gentlemens:

Thank you all for your help. I have limited experience with these new fangled internal adjustment scope and their mounts. This has been most helpful.

I like the looks of those Smithson bases on the double rifle. That certainly is an option. Thanks for that picture, Rob.

The rib dimensions from an original Fraser are .460 at the breech end tapering to .350 at the muzzle. It would not be much of a stretch to make it .500" wide for a 1/2" dovetail. Another option would be to bump out the rib to .500" at the two mount points for a 1/2" dovetail. I would have to draw that for a look. It might resemble a snake that has eaten a rodent. Inserting a wider piece such as was done by Smithson is yet another option.

Mr. Steele: I checked the Warne web site and was unable to locate any "premier" rings. They did have a Maxima grooved receiver ring set that seemed to fit the description, but I saw no dovetail dimensions. These look to have some promise though...One could mill off the locating lug and fit up something more discrete as Mr. Carney suggests.

The Talley might be a good option if one went the snake and rodent route. Unlike the other Warne detachable they don't use the locking screw as a recoil lug. I don't want to mill a cross slot in the rib.

Any other ideas or thoughts would be most welcome. I would just as soon stay with currently available rings so I could work out a design and stay with it for a while.

Mr. Carney, I would really appreciate a picture of your Webley with the Leupold 1.5 - 5x. Both the mounting system and the scope location would be of great interest.

Thank you all for your help.

Glenn

Glenn, unfortunately Warne has discontinued their smaller Premier mounting system and so components are available only from ebay and bench fabrication. Talleys are still available and I imagine that the original G&H top-mount styles are still available from Billingsley (formerly Billingsley & Brownell).

IMO most modern smiths make their ribs entirely too high and awkward-looking. I build a fair number of single shots and have had good luck using low ribs that DO NOT extend back over the receiver, with the rear scope ring mounted immediately in front of the receiver. I'm 6'4" now, shrunk an inch or so in my old age, and I have no difficulty with eye relief using Leupold and other scopes, even with pull lengths well over 14".

An alternative recoil shoulder can be provided by milling shallow depressions (~ 1/16" or less) across the rib's top surface that match the full dimensions of the rings's bases. The rings then will sit down into the depressions and be locked by the shallow shoulders. Or unobtrusive horizontal cross-pins can be installed across the dovetail just below the rib's top line, to act as shoulders along the lower front corners of the rings. Don't forget the lesson of Paul Simon's Fifty Ways song...
Good luck, Joe

Joe:

Make a new plan, Stan?

No tall rib. I would post a pitcher of what I have in mind, but Photobucket won't play nice with my computer today. In any event the rib will be based on true events, as accurate as I can replicate it from pictures of an original. Thanks to the generosity of a lurker here, I have some very good pictures to work with.

There are a couple socially acceptable ways of shouldering the recoil. The hole in the rib ala Smithson in the picture above is one. I might be inclined towards two smaller holes with mating pins in the bottom of the rings. Setting the rings down in a shallow mortise would certainly work, but the visual impact is a little greater than I would like.

I will do a little more poking around. A letter to Warne inquiring into the dovetail sizes of their grooved receiver rings is next.

Thanks!

Glenn

Glenn, the Warne Premier is the same size as the Kimber and also most RF tipoff mounts, to fit a 3/8" (I believe) dovetail. Warne doesn't make the Premier any longer, they use the Weaver size now. Warne Premier rings are basically the same as Kimber rings except the Warnes have a built-in recoil lug on one side that requires a very unsightly slot in the rib. There are a few other differences but they're minor for the most part. When I use Warnes I always grind off the lug so they'll fit my unslotted ribs.

I haven't yet tried the cross-pin recoil shoulder idea but it's becoming more & more appealing to me and will be on my next job. It allows a completely clean & uniform top rib surface with no 'busyness' or other unsightliness except the merest bumps in the dovetails on the rib sides.

A 40mm objective will require the high rings on a long rib, the mediums will work with a 40mm on a short (6" or so) rib. Of course anything will work with a straight tube. I have a stash of NOS 1" and 30mm Kimber and Warne rings if you want to try them, and I could possibly be talked out of a set...

BTW it finally got cool enough down here so that I had to put on my long pants yesterday. Columbus Day has come and gone so now it's (finally) cool enough to do some shooting. My favorite time of year except for the snakes.
Regards, Joe

Joe:

Now it becomes necessary to decide whether to go big or go home.

If I go with the current Warne or Talley, I will have to made the rib 1/2" wide, or bump it out at the mounts. If I went with the Warne Premier then I could have to mortise the sides of the rib for the 3/8" dovetail. The latter would have a greater visual impact, but would provide recoil shoulders where the sides of the rib are rebated.

I am a fan of low rings and small scopes. This will be chambered in .400-.350 (think .35 Whelen) and a Leupold 1.5-5x or equivalent would be fine.

Glenn

Glenn, the current Warne rings are the Maxima type which fit the Weaver-size bases, IOW they require a large wide base section with a large unsightly cross-slot. IMO their visual impact is strong, very strong (as in olfactory, VBG). The Talleys will require the same dovetail teatment as the Kimbers/Warne Premiers except slightly wider, but I believe the Talleys also have an unobtrusive recoil shoulder requiring only small elongated holes in the top of the rib. The Talleys seem like a good bet to me but I suggest you ask another poster here to post some picture details of their recoil shoulder system, sorry I don't own any Talleys or I would do it. The Talleys, of course, are also ultra-PC and would be considered desirable and appropriate by almost everyone.
Good luck, Joe

He just has the pictures up, you'll have to contact him for more info.

I've emailed Mr. Smithson asking about getting scope mount bases and rings installed on a small German .250-3000 DR which I currently own. I asked specifically about pricing, as well.

I'll post the information when he replies.

Although I have never done any of this kind of work, I shot those pix for Joe Smithson and currently have three Ralf Martini integral barrels in the shop all set-up for Talley mounts.
Smithsons mount is quite remarkable in that it is the cleanest instalation I've seen for adapting older rifles to modern scope. that said it is not the easiest to remove and replace he scope from because it must slide on and off straight back or forward. Kind of the opposite of claw mounts, there is NO tilt factor so scopes with objective bells and rear sights can get in the way of each other. Seems obvious, but until you ding the bell sliding it back to hit a rear sight...

The breech must be opened to remove/replace with a double rifle, better with the brls removed. The slotted mating of the rings to the bases don't allow any tightening for wear. (also note, this rib mount has the male part on the brl, normal bolt rifle mounts would have the male on the ring.) Last I heard, Joe had only sold a few components to gunmakers for installation outside his shop. Not cheep, but very high quality.
I've got more experience with talley although the only field use on my own rifle and I've never removed the scope except to upgrade it once.
Talley's, when removed, offer some very sharp corners and edges that somewhat dangerous and might be considered unsightly. Here's a pic of Talley mounted on Hagn brld action.

A you can seem Ralf mills his with the rear base cut from the brl cylinder.
(These pic were taken to show action remodeling.)


I have found a problem with eye relief, even with Leupold 1.5-5 which is my favorite scope for modern rifles. It had better be mounted as far back as possible, preferably with the rear base on top of the aciton.
I have no inclination to make recommendations, just thought these pics might be helpful. Let me know if you want to see somethign else. also good ideas for stylish ribs. (Im also revealing that I'm th worlds worst typest but have a ton of other things to do at the momnt and am only going to do minimal editing, whic I usually spend as much time as I do writing!)
Best,
steve

Steve:

Thanks for the information and the pictures. Pictures always help. I think you guys have me pointed in the right direction.

Right now I am leaning towards the Talley rings because they are available and the dovetail size seems compatible with the planned rib dimensions. Tentatively I plan on setting the rings down on the top of the rib instead of letting them into a mortise. Hopefully it will suffice to use a vertical pin in the bottom of the ring that mates with a shallow hole in the rib to take the recoil.

Howsomever, I do have some concerns about being able to move the scope far enough back. I don't really want to put the mount on the action if it is at all avoidable. I would look at making offset rings before I did that. I suppose the only thing for it is to make a mock up of the scope and see how it fits.

Thanks to all!

Glenn

Gentlemens:

I finally convinced my computer to play nice with Photobucket. Here are a couple three pictures of the Fraser rib I wish to copy.

One more thing... how close together can scope rings be place before there are problems with strength and rigidity? Any rule of thumb there?

Glenn

I like to see the original rifle, thanks. Please don't replicate the barrel contours?!?! Thsoe wafer inserts are great but you may need a recoil abutment.
Again, I don't do this kind of work, but the ring placement for modern scopes (which they keep making shorter 'n shorter) is mostly (I think) determined by the location of the adjustment turret.
The basic problem is: are you trying to adapt a modern scope with internal adjustmens to a vintage rifle, or place an external adjustment scope on a modern stocked hunting rifle? A quandry in this shop?!?!
Please correct me if I'm amiss?!?!

Steve:

A quandary you say? Well, I reckon I won't be first in line at that.

First of all, yes, I am duplicating the barrel contour. It is not nearly as ugly as it looks. <g>

I am looking at replicating the original Fraser stalking rifle and be able to add a scope to it as may be required. That is why I am looking for as low of an impact as possible for the scope mounts.

A period scope would be great, but there aren't any. The only option if one wishes for glass is to use a modern scope as attractively as possible. Certainly it is a compromise, but I see no way around it.

Glenn

Glen, I'm going to post a couple of pix of my hunting rifle to give an idea of eye relief and scope positioning. (The barrel work of this rifle was done by the late genius metalsmith John Madole and the scope mounts with Tally rings were done by Ed Webber.)



There is a small recoil shoulder on the rear base. The scope's front lense is just about where the gold ring is and I don't like to put the front ring over the lense, so that's about as far back as I'm comportable mounting the scope. The eye relief is fine on low power but when cranked up to 5x it's starting to get a bit edgy.

I'd think about an old El Paso Weaver low power scope. I've got a couple (2.5X) I've picked up at gun shows, in nearly new conidtion for very low prices. (who knows, they might be getting collectable?!?) They have a yard of eye relief, are close to the style that might have been on a Fraser, and repairable. Here are a couple more pics of my sidelever. (Also, my forend treatment was a take-off on the Fraser with quarter panels. This is a very heavy barrel.)


Curiously, the lower toe is where the English walnut was grafted to a black walnut rootstock. It only shows on teh cheekpiece side and I didn't notice it until I was trying to fill the pores and that area wouldn't fill. When I lived in the Willamette Valley there was a walnut orchard about a mile from my house and all the trees had a bulge about a foot and a half off the ground where the graft was.

Steve:

Man, Madole sure did a fine job on that lever. The lines are wonderful!

Thanks for the pictures. I will compare this action with the Ruger and get a good idea if I can get away with both mounts on the barrel. I believe the Fraser is a shorter action than the Ruger.

Glenn

The real long eye-relief Weavers are the first two or three K series up through the K-60A. The K2.5, K2.5 60, and K2.5 60A had about 5" of eye relief and could be mounted ahead of unaltered bolt handles on 1903s and 1898 Mausers. The K3s of those series about the same. The K4s were perhaps .5 to .75" shorter in eye relief but if LOP was not overlong would still go ahead of a bolt handle. These early scopes did not have self centering reticles, which came in with the 60B series when the eye relief was drastically shortened. By that time the great wave of postwar sporterizing military rifles was ebbing, the techniques for bolt alteration were well understood, commercial rifles were adapted for scopes, and the long eye relief of the early Ks, Noskes and Lyman Alaskans was no longer needed.

Steve, That is a wonderful rifle! I'm sure it shoots as good as it looks.

I'm looking forward to seeing Glenn's solution to his quandry but I know it will be very very nice.

See you in Reno.

Thanks for that info Mark, my unscientific approach has my Weaver eye relief at about 4 1/2".
How do you tell the model # or series? Mine don't seem to be labled?

Glenn, Doug, thanks guys, I do feel privilaged to own and hunt this rifle. I built it for a client who traded it back to me about 12 years ago and have taken 17 head of big game. Will be mule deer hunting next month.
Madole was a great craftsman and a wonderful friend. I recently had a call from a close friend of his in Kentucky who had the third Madole sidelever, the .22 Hornet, the first I had heard of that rifle. BTW the lever and it's pivot shaft are integral, lathe turned from solid, think about that!

Glenn, here's a pic of a roughed-out rib for my new 'Primitive' high wall, shown with a low wall action in the approximate position it will occupy in its final form. The scope is an old 1x-4x Leupold and is one of the shortest around. I hope you can see that it sits plenty far enough to the rear for almost anyone, in fact I've used this setup with the scope ring ahead of the receiver ring on several Winchesters and Martinis with great success. Of course the Ruger action is longer and I can see why it would require a cantilevered mount.



Here's a closeup of the recoil pin installation.



The rib and the rings are both low, almost as low as one could wish, but are they low enough for your new project?
Regards, Joe

Mr. Steele:

Thank you again for your help.

I have been studying pitchers of rifles with these new fangled scopes on them and it seems that the location of the ocular end of the scope varies from being even with the trigger to extending about two inches rearward of the trigger. Most seem to be between one and two inches rearward. In that the stock is largely dimensioned to the trigger, I think that should be a reasonable reference point.

The position you demonstrate is very similar to the scope location Mr. Hughes has on his rifle.


I am thinking that the rings you show would actually be too low for what I have in mind. My rib will be just below the top of the receiver ring. They are good looking rings. Who is the manufacturer of them?

Glenn

Glenn - Joe, The location behind the trigger of the ocular lense is 1 1/4" on my sidelever. That long base sure gives you plenty of adjustment of the ring location. You could even chop it into pieces once you have the locations perfectly figued.

I have an original High Wall here with a modern scope, but it is completely stripped for stock finishing and I'll have to wait till it's back together before measuring it.
It looks like the distance between the hammer and the scope is more of a potential problem with the Low Wall as shown, which mimics my issue with my High Wall project. (Can't do much shaping on an original Win. hammer for various reasons.) Something I hadn't considered seriously enough until late in the game.

So I would causion anyone converting an archaic action to a modern scope, be aware of a very low scope mounting even if the rifle doesn't have a hammer.

Glenn & Steve, the rings shown are Kimbers, the levers are hidden on the opposite side. The rings are the low height, I used the medium height on my other walls with no problems. Later I'll try to show a pic of my low wall K-Hornet with a 3x-9xEFR Leupold and I'll measure the pertinent dimension as well. I find the Kimber or Warne Premier rings to be some of the most graceful, with the early Kimbers being the shapeliest IMO.

I've seen the wall hammer spurs bent down slightly for thummb clearance, and you can gain some room that way. Brent's superb back-bored low wall is done that way and it worked well, also I have done the same successfully. Too much bend, however, will cause interference with the spur's rear end so go easy here.
More later, regards, Joe

Here's a photo of my low wall K-Hornet with 3x-9xEFR Leupold mounted on a low rib with medium Kimber rings. The eyepiece end is 1.5" behind the trigger and the position seems perfect for me except it's still too high. It would probably be fine for the average shooter however, since I need much less drop and commonly use trap-dimension stocks on my personal guns and rifles. I intend to change the shape of the rib's nose slightly and to eventually use low rings instead of the mediums on this rifle.



Here's a photo of the three types of Kimber/Warne rings that fit the small dovetail. The plain Kimber type on the left is essentially the same as the later Warne Premier except that the Warne has a recoil lug built integrally into the bottom of its base, to mate into a corresponding deep unsightly groove across the rib's top surface. The center ring is the early Kimber type with the more-delicately-shaped lever; the later Warne Premier levers are much more angular & sharp-edged albeit much more easily adjusted for angle. The knob ring on the right is a later Warne Premier in the rare alloy model; you can see the integral recoil lugs (barely) and also the separate steel claw on the off side, screwed to the alloy ring itself rather than made integrally like the all-steel models. The knob rings and the plain rings remained essentially unchanged in visible shape after the transition from Kimber to Warne, but the lever rings went through several iterations over the years and IMO the later models are less desirable because they feel uncomfortably sharp-edged to me.



These rings were made in low, medium and high heights and I've heard of an extra-high but have never seen one. The high rings will mount a 40mm scope on a long rib with good objective lens clearance. The Warnes were made in 30mm size but I've never seen Kimbers in this size.

As I understand it, the Warne Premiers are copies of the Kimbers which were copies of the earlier Billingsley/Brownells which were copies of the still-earlier and presumably original G&H top mounts. However I've never examined any of the G&H or Billingsley/Brownell rings so can't say for sure. FYI FWIW.
Regards, Joe

Steve, if your Weaver is stamped simply "K2.5", "K4", or perhaps K-2.5, K-4, it is an early pre 60 model. The sixty series have "60" in a box after the magnification. Then the 60A and 60B are so marked. The very first K2.5 and K4 had uncovered adjustments like the old 330, the first modification was to use screw on caps but the optics were not changed. Then the sixty series and later scopes came in. The Weaver repair service used to send out a little card with the various series noted, but I can't find mine.

Thanks Mark, they are both K2.5, one a near mint Micro Trac. Also thanks for the Krag, a great rifle with a great cartridge.

Steve, thear microtrac is a modern scope, not one of the classics, much superior optically and mechanically to the oldies but shorter on eye relief. I find the older scopes aesthetically more pleasing because their eyepieces do not have to hang back past the rear end of the action.

For those interested, Talley still makes 7/8" rings; not shown in the catalog, but available. This allows the use of some great old scopes like Lyman Alaskans and some German brands.

On a similar note, the bases Glenn is trying to duplicate look very much like the old Krieghoff slide-on mount system made for drillings and double rifles. The rings were mounted high and had a sidelever to cam the springy "legs" down on the base. Looked kind of like a bow-legged cowboy from the end-on view. They also had a transverse bolt slot/recoil lug on one base.

C.