Well the mounts on my 340 Weatherby have caved in, which means I will be replacing both rings and mounts. The rifle is about average in terms of recoil I suppose, at least in comparison to other big boomers, and there has been some difficulty in keeping the scope in place. Haven't tried the Scothkote idea posted in the technical section yet, but when the bases start going nothing will help anyway. Does anyone have an opinion as to the best mounts and rings to use? I have my preferences, but have generally found most major manufacturers to be satisfactory over the years. On the other hand, most of my rifles haven't been particularly heavy in recoil (3006, 308, 7 mm, 7-08, 6.5, 6mm, 7BR), and, not surprisingly, this rifle is a special case. Thanks for any opinion on this. The purchase is probably going to leave a gap in my wallet and I wouldn't want to go down the wrong road. Fred

Fred,
the best mount, for the least money, will be probably be the Leupold Dual Dovetail base and rings in this case. They don't really cost any more than a standard base and ring set with the rear windage screw, but they are alot tougher. Burris also makes Dual Dovetail bases and rings for the Mk V. The onlty real downside to this setup is that it is best installed by someone who has the proper tools for aligning the rings and lapping them if possible. Once a set of these rings and bases is properly installed, I can't see anything that would make them come loose.

I use the Leupold QR rings and bases on my MK V in .340, which will leave a bigger hole in your wallet, needlessly, unless you want to be able to remove the scope quickly for the sake of open sight use or to have a pre-zeroed replacement at hand.

Hi kciH, thanks for the opinion. Dual dovetail Leupold was definitely one I was looking at. It really helps to know that someone else feels it is a good way to go with the 340. I do have the tools to align rings and lap them. In fact, it is pretty much a reflex for me to do this now whenever I make a change. In my experience you get less variation in zero after making sure everything is aligned. You can get the occasional surprise when you test alignment too, especially with high mounts, which I like to use for head position sometimes. Another thing which might be a good idea is to drill for larger screws, but I am reluctant to do this myself on the Weatherby, even though I have the kit from Brownell's. Maybe I will practice on a cheaper gun first. I have a friend that uses the same rings you do with a removable scope on his 375 H&H. They were pricey, in the $300 C range I believe, but he likes them very well. It is off topic, and maybe I should post somewhere else, but which loads do you use with your 340? Cheers! Fred

Fred, what scope do you have? Is it an option to switch to a smaller, lighter scope to reduce the stress on the bases/rings?

I have become a big fan of Warne rings and bases. I have them on almost all my rifles, including .375, .416, and .458, in Ruger Premier and Maxima and have not had a moments trouble out of any of them. QD rings that always return to zero too if that would interest you, or permanent if not.
Also, SCOTCHKOTE, SCOTCHKOTE, SCOTCHKOTE. Get in the habit of doing it on all your scopes and you will never have to worry about slipping again. Even if you don't think you need it, think of it as protecting your investment, one little slip can leave a very big scratch.

Mike G the scope is Var II Leupold 3X9X40. Sitting here I'm not sure of the weight, probably around 15-17 oz, give or take. Do you have a particular scope in mind that a guy might switch to? I'm thinking of buying a new scope for my 06 and I could switch the 3X9 Leupold to it very easily.

Gee whiz! You weren't kidding about the big bore, Big Bore. I have heard of Warne, of course, but have no experience with them. It was my impression that they were an upper end ring much as you are saying. The local merchants don't carry them and a quick glance in my catalogues suggests that I would have to make a special order. This doesn't cancel the idea out though, not by a long shot. I'm going to look around a bit more to see what I can find regarding them. Think I might look to see if Brownells carries them. There is a sports shop in a town north of here too and they are generally good to deal with. I haven't talked to them yet. You know this Scotchkote idea was a new one on me. I had tried resin as well as various tapes and so on without much success and was coming to the conclusion that a bare ring was best all things considered. Same situation here with Scotchkote that I face with Warne, by the way, the local hardware types hadn't heard of it. Found it myself, following clues I got at this website, listed on the 3M website. There seemed to be a few different applications for it and possibly different kinds or variations. So, I just wasn't sure what I was doing with it and couldn't go look at it on the shelf. Looks like it is primarily a sealant of some kind. You know I just had an idea, Home Depot just moved into Kamloops which is only about 45-60 minutes away from where I live. I never thought of trying them. This could be a solution to the problem. At any rate, thank you for sharing your experience Big Bore, much appreciated. Fred

Fred,
If you're thinking of a new scope also, you might want to take a look at the Leupold Vari-X 3 in 1.75-6. It weighs in at about 11 oz accoring to my kitchen scale. Alyeska338 turned me on this scope and I bought one early this year. I haven't regretted the decision in the least bit. This is also why I have the Leupold QR mounts on my Mk V. I use a higher powered scope for easier bench testing when trying to see what is the best load and can easily swap the hunting scope right back onto the rifle with no loss in zero. I switched them back and forth about 6 times this year to see how good the QR bases and rings are, the results have been great. The rings and bases are quite a bit under US$100, so they must be something different than you where thinking of.

The load I've settled on is a Barnes 210gr XLC-XBT with 93.0grs of Alliant RL-22 and a Federal 215M primer in Norma brass for about 3250fps from a 26" tube. That load is only for the XLC bullet, as the uncoated bullet was showing pressure signs with about 3 grs less powder, and the velocity was lower also. This is a max load in my rifle. Accuracy is typically about 1.25" for three shot, not the best but about as good as that rifle does with proper hunting type bullets. I've had a lot of bedding problems with this rifle, so I was happy to get it to where it is. I might try the Failsafe in it next year as I've had good results with it in other calibers. I can only take so much .340 Weatherby load development in one year.

Have to go with the dual dovetail as being solid...in the windage bases, the rear ring is really only attached by those little cuts for the screw head's rim...get a little lose, and the full force of recoil falls on the front ring.

Let the way your mount failed guide you. IF the scope/ring junction failed, then the rings need attention. if the mount/ring junction gave up, then try the dual dovetail. IF the mount/reciever junture failed, it's more about the screws than the mount system.

May consider having the reciever re-done in the next larger size screw...no matter how good the mount, it's only as strong as the screws that hold it to the rifle, so getting a good set of screws (Brownell's) is a good idea. Doesn't help to see the scope,rings, and base go sailing over your head.

Or into your face..has happened...esp. with early handgun mounts. Took a few stitches from cathing a Leup. 2X as it came sailing off a Mod. 29 to catch me at the hair line (at least back then...hairline today would need you to hit me from behind). Rings still wehre I put them on the scope, rings still attached to the mount, screws sheared.

Scotchkote is sold at Home Depot (at least mine has it) in the electrical department, about $13 a quart IIRC. A quart will last forever unless you leave the lid off, oops. It is used as an electrical coating for covering spices, joints...that may be in damp locations. At least that is where we have used it on the job. It may have other uses too as direct burial, but I have not used it for that. All you need to do is put 1/2 drop on one half of each ring. Leave the other half bare as if you don't you cannot get the rings off. Since Warne are a veritcal split ring, pick one side for teatment, any side, it doesn't matter.

Yes, Brownells does sell them but are a bit high (MSRP) unless you are a FFL, even C&R will get the dealer discount. Another company that use to sell them is Lock, Stock and Barrel. They do not list them but if you go to the Warne web page and get the part number of what you want, then e-mail LS&B with the number, they will shoot you back a price. Then you can call in the order if you want to place it. The rings are directly shipped to you from Warne, not LS&B. At least they use to do it that way. I used LS&B until I got my C&R, about two years ago, and now buy from Brownells using the discount.

http://www.lockstock.com/

http://www.brownells.com/

http://www.warnescopemounts.com/

Hi kciH. It is amazing how close our data is for the 340. I use 89 g of RL22 with 210 grain Nosler partition, F215 primer and Remington 300 Weatherby cases. The load yields 3150 in my rifle. Accuracy averages about the same as in yours. I think the best I have done is 3/4 inch (3 shot) at 100 meters but I usually shoot more open groups with it. With a slug that size of course, it just leaves a ragged hole with a group that good. I bedded mine in Devcon. Downside to this is that you have to grind like crazy if you ever want to take the Devcon out. Also took the pressure point under the barrel out of mine. Boy 3250 is some load with a 210 grain bullet!!! Sure like Norma Brass whenever I can get my hands on it. It is as good as Lapua in my opinion. I like the Barnes X bullets too. They have some reputation as being less accurate than other bullets up here, but my friend put one through both shoulders of a bull elk and there was over 90% weight retention. By the way, don't forget the exchange, shipping and middlemen when calculating cost up here. It mounts up believe me. Fred

Fred,
your load and velocity are about in line with what I've found with the uncoated bullets. If you decide to try the X-bullet, which has been less accurate in the 4 calibers I tried it in, I would go with the coated bullet. The velocity gains are real and it cleans up like a snap, something that cannot be said for X-bullets when you push them beyond 3000fps in my relativley limited experience with them at that velocity level. I like tiny groups but put bullet perfomance ahead of that. I can get better accuracy with the Nosler BT, but I consider it more of a varmint bullet than a hunting bullet. My bedding problems are a result of the tupperware stock on my rifle. The forearm is pretty flimsy and I've tried lots of things to make it better, I believe a new stock is going to solve the problem at this stage. Using some fiberglass strips and a healthy dose of accraglas, I was able to stiffen it up a bit to get where I am now.

The scope I mentioned earlier offers close to 5" of eye relief when on the lower power settings, something I've come to appreciate when the muzzle brake is removed and shooting from field, especially prone, positions.

Ribbonstone it was a mount/ring junction failure that finally did things in, but I have experienced scope movement with this particular set-up too. Geez I've never seen screws shear like that...scary stuff indeed! Did received a good case of scope eye not being careful enough about the change in relationship to the scope while shooting prone once, much as kciH is alluding to. I was shooting an old Spanish 308 Mauser at the time and couldn't believe how hard the scope hit me. Fred

Looks like it is Warne websight and Home Depot for me next Big Bore. The Scotchkote I found was used for sealing pipes, by the way. Looks like I will be looking for a lighter scope much as Mike and kciH are recommending too. I have a Leupold 12X in new condition that I can trade to help reduce the final price. I really like the idea of that 1.75 X 6 power Leupold. Have owned a variety of scopes over the years, in fact the scope on my 06 is an old Tasco International that has stood up surprisingly well, but I keep coming back to Leupold. I find the repeatability good on the turret system in their target scopes. They deliver on their warranty work too. Still, Leupold is pricey!

You know kciH I have been thinking of playing around with 225 grain bullets in the 340. In fact, I just loaded up a bunch using Reloader 19 and the load data in my Hornady manual. Have you ever looked in this direction? A guy might get the best of both worlds with this bullet weight, judging from the velocities anyway. One of my friends settled on the 225 in his 338. He actually gave me a box of 225 Hornadys which is why I'm testing them. The 250 grain bullet performs well in my rifle too, but the kick is something else...maybe even as pleasant as that load you are using for 70 yard trap :-) Fred

Fred,
with conventional bullets 225gr is probably the best bet, unless you're after big bears or something that can eat you, I'd go with the biggest bullets for that. I started with the 210gr using the X-bullet because my experience with those bullets is that the standard heavy for caliber and even medium weight bullets often do not shoot well at all.

Gentleman, I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but Brownells.com carries the full line of Warne scope mounts. I use both the Warne and Leuplod rings and they've never failed me yet. I did have a Redfield Jr. mount fail on me once but it was due to a defective screw used for the bases. I used the Leupold Dual Dovetail rings and mounts on my .300 Rem Ultra mag with a Leupold 4.5x-14x scope and it's never moved. I'll have to try the Scotchkote technique, sounds like a great idea. CEJ...

Would do something about that scope movement in the rings...nice bright polished scopes seem worse about this...but a light scope does help keep things together. Are supply houses that sell a kind of dip paint for making insulated grips for tools...a drop or two of that stuff in the rings works...some one already posted the ScotchKoat...and for that matter "goop" or silicone sealer works too (the stuff they sell for aquairums). All will release if you just have to remove the scope.

Screws shearing was a problem on handguns when scopes first became available...not much of one now as they know more about making mounts that physically interlock with the frame.

We're still on the same wavelength with bullets in this caliber kciH. I tried the 210's and 250's with the 210's shooting a little more accurately and flatter. The recoil was also a factor. My rifle is a real bear with the 250's. I noticed that you feel you get higher velocities with coated bullets. I am of two minds about this and for some reason I am reluctant to coat hunting bullets (superstitious behaviour?). When I first started moly coating bullets I noticed a drop off in velocity which you could regain by adding a little powder. It also took the rifle I was using at the time a number of shots to stabilize much like a 22 rimfire does with an ammo change. The only advantage to coated bullets I could find at the time was the possibility you didn't have to clean as often when shooting in matches. I am uncertain about this too, feeling that a match grade barrel properly broken in will clean up quickly anyway. Another thing to watch with coated bullets is that you have to make sure your chamber and the early part of your barrel stay clean. While I noticed this independently in my 7BR for some reason, I also had the privilege of meeting one of our national Palma team shooters last summer and he told me they had stopped using moly in their 308's because of build up in the early part of the barrel. I know this topic has been bounced back and forth ad nauseum. Still, it is all interesting. Cheers! Fred

Fred,

I've got a .358 Norma Mag on a Mauser action. I mounted a Leupold Vari - X III 1.5 x 5 set up in Conetrol rings and (two piece) bases. I've never had a problem with it.

Lobo in West Virginia

El Lobo, Conetrol rings are another item that I have a good impression of but no direct experience with. I notice you have a fairly light scope too. I'm convinced now that I have to move in that direction too. Fred

Fred, I have a 1.5x5 VX-III in Warne rings and bases on my .458. The eye relief is good enough that the rear bell of the scope is up against the back ring, so it can't slip forward anyway. Since that was the case I didn't use the scotch-kote.

I think that the 1.5x5 and the 1.75x6 VX-III scopes are the same basic external dimensions and weight, so whichever one you can get more conveniently should do the job.

If you're not hung up on a variable power scope, the straight 2.5x Leupold is also very light, and being a fixed power, one less thing to go wrong.

Good luck.

Fred,
I've never used any moly in any of my firearms. The coating I'm talking about is Barnes proprietary coating for their bullets alone, the bullets are actually blue. This is something applied at the factory, not by the end user. The coating is sprayed on and stays on, nothing on your hands etc. I'm not saying it wouln't come of from friction, but it is a dry lube that is pretty durable. In comparing it with the uncoated bullets of the same weight/shape it offers you about another 100fps with the x-bullets in the case of my .340. In the Barnes manual there is seperate data for the coated bullets.

Didn't know about the proprietary Barnes's coating kciH. My Barnes manual is the old one too, so no information about them. I do like the idea of coating the Barnes bullets because the copper they use is quite soft, at least it used to be, and it would copper up a barrel pretty bad if you were using other bullets. In fact, at the time I was using Barnes bullets they used to recommend not using other bullets for this reason. Obviously times and coatings have changed!

I am definitely going for another scope Mike, though I don't really want the 2.5X. I prefer somewhat more magnification in a few of the places I hunt. Also, will probably want at least 6 power to shoot in. If I were buying a single power, it would probably be 6X. I wonder about installing a scope so that it is blocked on one side. Does this really work? I have always avoided doing this because I had the feeling that the sucker might be hit twice in a way, i.e. hit by recoil then by the inertia of the ring. Is this far out? Fred

Fred,
it's still wise council to have a perfectly clean barrel before shooting the X-bullets. I never had any real problem cleaning the fouling with the original X bullets, but I didn't let the rifles get beyond 20 shots before taking the Sweets to it, or more recently the CR-10. Barnes also has a new uncoated X-bullet out that has grooves in the shank that is supposed to do everthing the coating did and allegedly provide for better accuracy than was previously the case with their bullets. I can attest to them not shooting well in some rifles. The bullet is called the Triple Shock and was tested recently by Barsness in either Rifle or Hanloader with apparent good results. You can take a peek at www.barnesbullets.com if you want to see the marketing hype and what calibers are initially offered.

Well Ribbonstone it looks like I might have to try one of your suggestions rather than ScotchKote. I tried out Home Depot yesterday and they hadn't heard of the stuff...go figure! I know I can find the dip used for covering handles. In fact, I was looking at some the other day. Good to know you can remove the scope... Fred

You're going to love this one kciH and others! I quit using Sweet's a number of years ago feeling that it is too hard on the steel. I was told that it is important to maintain lubricity in the steel too. (I believe CR-10 is even more aggressive than Sweets. Used it at one time with the Barnes bullets...familiar topic right!) Instead I use oil and vegetable based materials for cleaning and I am trying Ed's Red right now as well. Also concluded that it wasn't necessarily desirable to remove all copper from a barrel. I felt on some barrels that I was always having to re-break them in. Please don't think I am saying that I am necessarily right on this, let's just say that I have suspicions about the cleaning fetishes I often see at the range :-) and I haven't noticed any diminution in accuracy since I changed. Cheers! Fred

Fred, you just have to find what works best for a particular gun, whether squeaky-clean or a little bit fouled.

I don't see any harm in putting the scope up against the ring, if you have the eye relief. If you can prevent it from moving in the rings that's a good thing in my book.

If it damages my scope I will let you know....

Yup Mike I agree! Whatever works best with a particular firearm is the final thing in deciding what to do. My 06, for example, shoots the first shot consistently from a fired barrel for some reason, and that is the way I carry it. As for having the scope up against the rings, I realized while reading your post that I had avoided doing it, and was wondering if I had thought the idea through far enough. I remembered being concerned the scope would be jarred loose. When I started having trouble stabilizing scope position I worried about all sorts of things like this, just because I was having trouble rather than from any solid knowledge. It may be that having the scope against a solid surface stabilizes it more just as you have found so far. Would be sincerely interested if you ever found reason to change the way you have set things up. Fred

Fred, I have Leupold dovetail mounts and use their rings to mount a Leupold 2.5-8X Vari-X III to my 340. The scope weighs 11.5 ounces. This setup has been on my rifle for the past 14 years and has held up to many hundreds of rounds, several hunting trips, my horse rolling on my rifle while it was still in the scabbard and several other horror stories and is still tight and maintaining its zero. (My dad forewarned me to always take my rifle out of the scabbard whenever I dismounted. I got lazy once and that was the only time my horse ever rolled while saddled and tied to a tree. I don't get lazy anymore.) For loads I have used 250 gr. Nosler partitions behind 90 grs. of IMR 7828. Velocity is 2925 fps. I load Nosler's 225 gr. partitions with 91 grs. of Norma MRP for a velocity of 3080 fps. Barnes 225 gr. X-bullets behind 89 grs. of Reloader 22 give 3049 fps. All loads are with Federal 215 primers and Norma brass and testing was done at 70 degrees F. I load my brass 3x before discarding it and have not had any loose primer pockets or other signs of pressure. I worked my rifle up to these loads and they are safe in my rifle. This is the most accurrate rifle I own with all bullets going under 2 inches at 200 yards, the 225 gr. Noslers can hit 1 inch 3 shot groups at 200 yards when I am having a good day. My rifle is a McMillan Signature rifle bedded in a Sako classic stlye McMillan stock. With scope mounted it weighs 7.75 pounds. My younger brother has laid claims to this rifle should I ever give it up!!. Good luck, Rob

Fred, be careful with the Leupold 1.75-6x scope. That scope is not the same externally as the 1.5-5x as it has a 32mm objective lens. I have two 1.75-6x and don't really like either one. The first one is the standard 1.75-6x (no longer made) which gave me a devil of a time fitting to anything because of ring spacing. There is just no room to move the scope back and forth. The second one is the 1.75-6xE, or extended tube, and to be perfectly honest, it's not much better. The "E" model is the standard 1.75-6x now, but expect not to have very much room to move the scope fore and aft. That is the beauty of the 1.5-5x. No objective bell and you have lots of room to play with it to get the perfect eye relief. I also have three 2.5-7x VXIII scopes and they have a lot more room for adjustment fore and aft. IMO the 1.75-6 x is a terrible waste of a good scope. If you really want that extra half power of magnification then by all means make sure it will fit your Weatherby before buying. It may well need offset or double offset rings to make it work, which I had to use to make it work on a No. 1 I have. Actual mag of the 1.5-5x is 1.5-4.5 with a 100 yard FOV of 66 and 23 feet. The 1.75-6x is actually 1.9x to 5.6 x and the FOV is 47 and 18 feet at 100 yards. IMO you give up way more than you gain in the 1.75-6x scope, E or not.

BigBore, you are right, I don't know how I got it in my head that the 1.5x5 and 1.75x6 had the same tube dimensions. Maybe I saw a picture of one that was mislabeled? Just checked the Leupold site - it is as you described.

DocRob this just sounds like a fantastic rifle! Mine doesn't shoot with the accuracy you are getting from yours, but I still love it. It is a U.S. built Weatherby Mark V Stainless with 3X9X40 Leupold scope, and an extremely fine rifle for larger game. There is just a lot to like about the rifle, though I must say I would like to have the palm swell on that Sako stock of yours!!! My Weatherby hits like a ton of bricks. It is a plain Jane, simple, and virtually indestructible. The bolt throw is very fast with a shallow angle and the straight line of the stock means that felt recoil is minimized with such heavy loads. I had a 300 Weatherby Vangard Classic before and it would kick you into the middle of next week. In fact it was so bad I am amazed that I bought another Weatherby. It had a beautiful Monte Carlo stock on it that should have been in an art gallery it was such a work of art. But it would kick you so hard in the cheek you thought you were in a really bad street fight...looks aint everything right!!! I am testing the 225 Hornady Interlock bullet. Maybe I should rethink using Barnes X. Fred

Geez thanks Big Bore! I will be very careful about getting a scope that I can mount right. The last thing I need is more problems with mounting. You are right about the extra 1/2 X of course. I am going to check out Doc Rob's 2x8, the 2X7 and the 1.5X5. There will be no quick decisions here that's for sure. Matter of fact I am going to look up my own 2X9 too. I have found this thread to be of enormous help and I think all of you guys have saved me money and sweat. I even feel encouraged about my own rifle. I am more or less committed to a northern hunt next year. Guess what I will be packing!!! My sincere thanks to you all! Fred

there is not a better setup than the talley steel rings and bases jim brockman is making and selling talley bases that have really neat pop up peep sight for just about every thing you might wish to put a scope on