Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I determined what has been causing my scope to keep losing zero - the aluminum Weaver 63B mount bent where it overlapped the front of the receiver and the mounting notches are bent as well. Does anyone know where to get a Weaver-style mount made from steel? The only thing saving my scope from being bent were the Burris rings with the plastic bushings I use - the scope rings opened up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,561 Posts
Did the rifle get dropped or something? I have never had any problems with Weaver anything, however, Leupold's one piece steel base and rings are your hunckleberry! I am a firm believer in having confidence in your equipment. I personally, do not like the 63B base, much prefering the older model 63, shorter, more slots. They are getting harder to find, I admit. I had a B-Square picatinny type rail, it was not made right, had to chuck it. The Warnes.other types are also steel. Good luck to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
No, it hadn't been dropped - the recoil over a couple of hundred rounds caused the damage. I took a look at the Leupold weaver-style and it is also aluminum, however, it's advertised to be T6 aircraft. I can't see anywhere that the weaver mount is T6 - it just says aluminum. I may try the Leupold mount to see if it is stronger. Geez, these mounts are around $10, i'm willing to pay 2-3x for steel.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,618 Posts
I just received two Leupold bases (55910 Matte). I thought I would try them since I have nothing but Weaver bases and been hearing bad things. Personally I haven't had any trouble on 444P, 1895G & 1895M. These will go on an 1894P and a 336D.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,666 Posts
I have never had problems with Weaver bases in either one or two piece bases. I have also had no problem with Redfield or Leupold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,457 Posts
Those must be some stout loads?, and a heavy scope?, I've got six riffles with 63B bases on them and also have never had any issues with them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
The scope is a Burris Fullfield II (3X - 9X - 40mm) using low height Burris Signature rings. I'm shooting Beartooth 425gr using Marshall's go-to load of 50gr H322 (I'm using Win brass and primers). I estimate around 1850 fps out of my GBL.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,465 Posts
I've never had a failure of any kind with Weaver bases, and I've used literally several dozens of them on rifles of all sizes. All I have on my Marlins are 63B's and some of the two piece bases that WalMart sells.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,693 Posts
Hopefully the Leupold Rifleman bases are strong enough. That's what I have on my 336, and have yet to have any problems. I actually started with a Weaver but switched to the Leupold base as it allows me to mount the scope farther forward. The Weaver 63 base design was changed at some point...it actually used to sit farther forward as the Leupold does. Now it goes no farther than the front of the receiver. The old Weaver and new Leupold rifleman go beyond the receiver a bit.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,963 Posts
I'm not a fan of Aluminum mounts, or ring components, either..........And never a fan of the Weaver design.......

Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,306 Posts
Hi Canuck,
Yeah, big ditto on the EGW stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I very much appreciate everyone's response. Optics Planet lists the EGW mount as 6061 T6 aircraft aluminum. I emailed my problem with the 63B to EGW to see what their response is comparing their mount to the 63B. From the pic it does look pretty solid. At $30 it is 3x the 63B but would be well worth it, especially when I consider how many rounds I've wasted re-zeroing. The leupold appears to also be made from the same stuff as the EGW. I plan to use Marshall's 350gr Piledriver Lite for scoped applications going forward - Marshall assures me that it will have significantly less muzzle jump the the 425gr which is what I think is bending the mount over the front of the receiver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,306 Posts
Hi PC,
I have the EGW on my GBL, I use Leupold quick detachable mounts with a leupold 1.5-5x20mm scope. When I remove the scope with the qt mounts I can use the open sights as the mount has a half moon cut out on the top, so you can clearly see the open sights. I like that feature.
For your info,
Graeme.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Good point, I forgot about that.

moofy07 said:
Hi PC,
I have the EGW on my GBL, I use Leupold quick detachable mounts with a leupold 1.5-5x20mm scope. When I remove the scope with the qt mounts I can use the open sights as the mount has a half moon cut out on the top, so you can clearly see the open sights. I like that feature.
For your info,
Graeme.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Thanks, to all. By far, the best reply was from EGW's president:

Hi Sir,

The base is machined from 6061 T6 aluminum. Much thicker than the extrusion
other companies use. There is at least .060 at the thinnest point below the
screw on our rails typically .100. I have seen rails offered that are as
skinny as .01 in this critical area.

We have sold north of 130,000 rails and I can assure you that they are
working very well.

Best regards,
geo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Pumpkin Chucker said:
I determined what has been causing my scope to keep losing zero - the aluminum Weaver 63B mount bent where it overlapped the front of the receiver and the mounting notches are bent as well. Does anyone know where to get a Weaver-style mount made from steel? The only thing saving my scope from being bent were the Burris rings with the plastic bushings I use - the scope rings opened up.
I have used the Weaver aluminum mounts with no problems on my SDG with some pretty heavy loads. I have the Leupold mounted on Warne QDW rings and trust those completely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Pumpkin Chucker: I don't think the base is necessarily bad, or a bad design. I think you just exceeded it's limits. I've had a '95 since before most reviewers ever wrote their first review. Longer than a substantial number of the posters on this and other sites have been alive. "Back in the day" of the 60's and 70's, scopes used were lower power, smaller, and LIGHTER than today. A typical 2.5X or 4X FIXED Loopy was 8 to 9 oz. I consider (by the logic I grew up with) the Fullfiield II to be "heavy". Burris lists the weight of your scope at 13 oz. This is 50% MORE than what a typical scope was at the time the mounts were being designed. Also, the 1972/73 Model 1895 was a 22 in barreled rifle with a straight grip stock. Shorten the barrel, lighten the rifle, maybe put a pistol grip stock on it (with a different drop) and you substantially change the recoil velocitites (remember, velocity is SPEED and DIRECTION). Much more of the "velocity" may be upward/rotational than the original rifle. You're shooting a 425 grainer at 1850 fps? The factory loads in the 70's were 405's at 1330 fps, followed shortly after the rifle caught on with the big improvement 0f 300's at 1880 fps or so. Compared to how most shooters today are using a HUGH scope, compared to the standard of the day when the rifle was introduced and the first mounts designed, I'm very surprised more failures like yours aren't reported.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top