Picatinny rail for 40x

J

JBO

Guest
Greeting's Gent's

I need a little help and advice. I just purchased a Remington 40X 22lr rifle and want to make my Sightron SIII 8x32x56 interchangable with my 22-250.

I'm wondering if it's possible to put a picatinny rail on the 40X. I called Midway USA and they didn't know, I figure this is the place to find the

answer to my question. Your help would be appreciated

Thank You

JBO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warne

Warne makes a excellant one,it is called Maxima Tactical short action 1 piece Rem 700- Warne part #m673m---Ken Farrell also makes a good one, Weaver makes cheaper aluminum bases
 
Thanks Slick Willy, I'm new to this type of shooting and set up. I want to do it correct the first time so your advise is deeply appreciated. I didn't ask enough question with my bag and front rest and now I own a couple bags and a couple front rest.lol
 
JBO

A 40X receiver (RF or CF) is the same pattern as a short action 700. Because of popularity of the rifles there are more scope base choices for Remingtons than any other rifle type just as there are for aftermarket triggers.

BUT.......40X rimfires are notorious on this forum for atrocious misalignment of the base mounting holes on the top of the receiver. This may be most commonly encountered in US marked 40X's that where distributed by DCM and later CMP. My own US marked 40X RF required the application of 40 MOA of windage correction with Burris Signature rings to allow for reasonable remaining windage adjustment. Another approach would be a windage adjustable base of the Redfield pattern.

Another thing to consider is that two piece bases leave more room around the loading port and under the scope than some one piece bases for manipulation of those little bitty rimfire cartridges. You can't just throw them onto the loading ramp and expect them to align with the chamber as with a center fire. You might find a little more room for your fingers to be helpfull.

Your 40X may be close in base screw hole alignment to your 22-250 and require only a few clicks to adjust the scope to zero after a scope switch between your two rifles. Don't count on it though. You won't know till you know. Good luck.

Greg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Greg Culpepper said:
JBO

BUT.......40X rimfires are notorious on this forum for atrocious misalignment of the base mounting holes on the top of the receiver. This may be most commonly encountered in US marked 40X's that where distributed by DCM and later CMP. My own US marked 40X RF required the application of 40 MOA of windage correction with Burris Signature rings to allow for reasonable remaining windage adjustment. Another approach would be a windage adjustable base of the Redfield pattern.
Greg
Click to expand...

would you happen to know if it's the front or rear mounting holes that are the problem. I'm currently using Sig Zee rings with eccentric inserts but would like to switch to a setup I've seen on another forum. The picture I saw had the scope mounted with double ring on the front mount. I believe it was Davidson bases/Kelblys rings. I'd hate to buy everything and then still have the alignment problem. Unfortunately, it only looks like that would only work using the front mount.

Al
 
old_dood said:
would you happen to know if it's the front or rear mounting holes that are the problem.

Al
Click to expand...

Al,

It appears that the rear holes are rotated ccw on the action by reference to the front. I just pulled the scope off the rifle to see if I could judge with the help of a straightedge if I could eyeball an answer for you and that's what it seems to be. It is subtle though. At first I wondered if my situation was a bent scope. But I switched several scopes with compatible rings that had been zeroed on other rifles and they all pointed off to the right.
You would think that with that much error that you could see it just looking down at the top of the action.

In your post are you describing a scope mount that relies on a front base only with both rings mounted on the scope ahead of the turret?

Greg
 
Greg Culpepper said:
Al,

It appears that the rear holes are rotated ccw on the action by reference to the front. I just pulled the scope off the rifle to see if I could judge with the help of a straightedge if I could eyeball an answer for you and that's what it seems to be. It is subtle though. At first I wondered if my situation was a bent scope. But I switched several scopes with compatible rings that had been zeroed on other rifles and they all pointed off to the right.
You would think that with that much error that you could see it just looking down at the top of the action.

In your post are you describing a scope mount that relies on a front base only with both rings mounted on the scope ahead of the turret?

Greg
Click to expand...

that's correct. I was thinking on using the front Davidson mount only with 2 Kelblys rings on it and mounting the scope so that the rings were ahead of the turret.

Al
 
old_dood said:
that's correct. I was thinking on using the front Davidson mount only with 2 Kelblys rings on it and mounting the scope so that the rings were ahead of the turret.

Al
Click to expand...

Al,

That doesn't impress me as good solution. First, the centerline spacing of the screw holes of a single base are so close as to magnify the angular effect of any misalignment by comparison to the greater centerline distance between front and rear receiver rings. Secondly, mounting the scope with two rings so close together at one end with the other end cantilevered out in space creates a long lever and moment arm that multiplies any loads to the ocular end of the scope at the two front rings and the base attachment screws.

I'm too clumsy to consider a setup so much more fragile than a conventional one with four to five inches between rings. I generally spread my rings as far as the setup will permit.

Greg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have the scope mounted, thanks for everyones input very helpful.

JBO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top