Burris FFII Scope on the way---now for the mounts

[Lonestar.45]

I have a Burris Fullfield II on the way from Cabelas. It's going on a new Remington 700 ADL .270 w/syntetic stock.

Question--what kind of mounts would you guys use? I am going to take the irons off, so I don't need any quick detach or see-throughs.

I am going to mount this myself. With that in mind, I'm thinking Burris Signature mounts, medium height. What would be better/easier, the dual dovetail or the standard? One piece base or two?

Any other suggestions for mounts? I'd rather not have to go through the lapping process. Thanks.

 

[ArmedBear]

My FF II sits on a Weatherby .30-06 with a Howa action, which uses the same mounts as the 700.

I got Warne mounts with Warne QD rings. From what I can tell so far, they're great; you can remove the scope and put it back on while it holds zero. This allows you to have two sighted-in scopes for that hunting trip, and to remove the scope for cleaning or otherwise working on the rifle.

Warne makes non-QD rings as well, for cheaper. There's no particular reason to take off the irons, though. They're already there, and it never hurts to have backup sights if you don't have to pay extra for 'em.

What size is the FF II? A 40mm will work with low rings AFAIK -- it does on the Weatherby, which has a big fat chamber. This is nice if your rifle has a stock meant for iron sights, and just to keep a nice balance to the thing. A 50mm requires mediums. Check first, of course, to be sure.

 

[Lonestar.45]

The Burris coming in for me is the FFII 3x9x40.
I thought about the Warnes, and they looked pretty good. My one concern is lapping--did you lap yours, or do you have to? I've heard different things about having or not having to lap the Warnes.

I may end up keeping the iron sights on, if I do that I may look at the quick detach. I was kinda thinking of keeping the gun a little lighter by taking off the irons and not using the Warnes, which are heavier from what I understand. But having the quick detach option and irons would be good too. I just can't decide which route to go.

 

[ArmedBear]

Heavier? Not by any appreciable amount.

Low mounts should work, but again, make sure.

Lap? Tell you the truth, I just screwed 'em on. The scope was already bore-sighted when I checked. The mounts are really nice and solid, and well-made.

 

[dakotasin]

www.talleyrings.com and go for the lightweight option. $40, no bases to install or ring to twist in. you'll want the low option.

if you do feel the need to go w/ dd's or std's, get the 2-piece bases, and again, low rings.

yes, the warnes are heavier - nice chunk of steel. you won't save much weight by removing the 'iron' sights, but you will clean the gun's looks up appreciably.

 

[One of Many]

With the QD rings and bases, will the iron sights be visible above the bases with the scope removed?

I used a Leupold one piece base to mount a Burris Signature on my Savage 99; that way there is no question that the front and rear ring seats are aligned with each other. The Leupold base is aluminum, where the Burris is steel. Burris makes rings with inserts that can be used to compensate for a small misalignment if you do go with a two piece base.

Leupold is also making a QD base now.

 

[coyote204]

I have a 700 ADL synthetic in .270 myself and mounted a Nikon ProStaff 3x9x40 on it with Leupold two piece mounts. I left the irons in place and used medium rings (front dovetail only). The 40mm objective hit the iron sight with low rings. I always use threadlock on the threads and have not had a single problem with this setup in over 300 rounds.