Extremely poor experience with Leupold Mount

[Master Blaster]

I wanted to share my less than stellar experience with my Leupold mount on my Savage 10FP LE1 rifle in .308.

When I purchased this rifle in July of 2003, I began my search for a mount and due to the fact that it was a new model with a different receiver top than the older savages, it was somewhat difficult to find a mount This is the accutrigger model, and now there are many more mounts availible (including the Farrel mount folks here have posted about).
I ended up purchasing a Leupold redfield style mount, one piece, three screws hold it to the receiver, rear is windage adjustible front is a turn in dovetail.

The day I rec'd it I tried to mount it to the rifle and I had the front screws strip on me, they were simply too short to tighten even slightly. So I called Leupold and had them send me new screws, they insisted that 2 threads were enough to hold the mount on, and that I over tightened them (12 inch pounds is all it takes) , But to humor me they sent me some slightly longer screws that had a 3.5 thread engagement. So I was able to tighten the front screws carefully and I loctited them for good measure. The scope I mounted was a Nikon 4.5-14 AO, not a small scope but not a Hubble telescope either.

First two range outings no problem (40 rounds fired each time)

Third outing the scope was creeping forward in the rings under recoil.
So I remounted it using a little silicon glue and the scope stayed put for the next five outings. Now I'm starting to get some cloverleaf groups at 100 yards.

This past Sunday I went out to the range with my accuracy load 43 grains IMR 4064, and a 168 Sierra HPBT match king.

I start firing and the first 3 shots are nearly one hole.

All of a sudden the groups open up and by shot 15 they are off the paper!!!!

***???????? I check the mount suspecting it and I discover that the front two screws have loosened, and the mount is rocking up and down.

So I take the scope off and try to tighten the front screws up and BOTH of THEM are stripped!!!!!!!! They pulled out of the receiver!!!!!! :banghead:

I will now throw this hunk of Junk Leupold calls a mount away, and replace it with a simple reliable weaver mount and some millet rings.

What gives with this Leupold JUNK. Did they forget how to make a reliable mount????

BTW the reciever is fine, and the forward mounting holes can accomodate about 6 threads of engagement, so I have to wonder If the engineers at Leupold even saw this rifle before they designed the mounts.

I want Leupold to give me a refund, has anyone else here had a similar problem??????

 

[Rockstar]

I'm pretty sure that Leupold's Torx screws take more than 12 inch/lbs of torque, but I could be wrong. My guess is that the screws stripped under recoil, due to their not being tight enough. You don't use Loctite on Torx screws, you use a small drop of oil.

Of course, Leupold just MIGHT have screwed up on designing that mount!

Just checked info on Leupold's website; they don't give general Torx torque specs, but do give an example that one of their mounts takes 65 in/lbs.

 

[mtnbkr]

My Leupold two piece mounts have worked flawlessly on my Winchester. Everything has held tight over the course of a year, 600+ rounds, and being dropped once. No zero shift, no problems.

Chris

 

[Master Blaster]

rockstar the information I posted is what the tech at Leupold told me, last July when I called them, It makes no sense to me either, nor did the short screws they sent me. I am calling them today.

 

[dakotasin]

problems like yours are frustrating, definitely, but i don't think the mount is the problem. i run this style of mount on over a dozen different rifles ranging from 223 to a 338 win mag and have never had troubles w/ their bases or rings... i have killed a few scopes (none were leupold's, yet), but never a mounting problem.

i tighten my bases down crazy tight. i don't measure it w/ a torque wrench, but my bases are all on very tight... i have a couple of bent torx wrenches as testament ... i don't hammer the rings on as tight as the bases, but they are also pretty tight, and have yet to have a leupold ring slip.

either you are doing something horribly wrong, or you got ahold of a lemon.

i like the leupold windage mounts because i can get my scopes optically centered for windage - helps consistency.

if you are wanting to replace your leupold mounts, i'm sure that the 2 steps down you'll take w/ millet isn't the answer. but, as an alternative to leupold's system, get ahold of some talley lightweights. about $35 and the rings are integral to the base. a quality system, and boy is it light! i just ran some tests w/ these rings on a 30-06 w/ a massive scope (big, heavy scopes are harder for the rings to keep in place than light scopes)... i had no troubles w/ the talleys. quality units. no windage adjustment, though, and they look much cleaner than weaver mounts.

 

[Edward429451]

Sounds like your difficulty with the mount is associated with improper installation (not tight enough). Rings are just as if not more important than the base in my mind. I had a Leopuld mount and Control rings on my 700 30/06 and it never shifted at all with a steadyish diet of 180's. Re zero year after year and never had a prob, never even had to change scope settings for my preferred hunting load.

I did have the shop mount it up though. Good luck.

Threads can stretch. I think if a mount is removed from a rifle and transferred to another then new screws should be used.

 

[Master Blaster]

I just got off the phone with Leupold customer service.

.

Sounds like your difficulty with the mount is associated with improper installation (not tight enough).

A Big NO on that, if Itightened tham any tighter they would and did strip on me.

They say do NOT tighten the mounting screws more than 18 inch pounds, according to them you are way overtightening the screws. I could not tighten the screws even that tight without them stripping!!

They are sending me some .210, some .225 and some .270 length screws to try the .210 screws are the standard ones, they .225 are the next size up that pulled out on me, they .270 may be too long according to them.

A Ken Farrel mount anyone???????

As far as weaver mounts go, I have never had a problem with one, and I noticed in the american Rifleman article on the M-24 sniper rifle it looks like they are using weaver mounts on it, no doubt beefed up, and the rings use a hex bolt to secure to the mounts

 

[ocabj]

I had the exact same problem as you did with the Leupold STD mounts for the Savage 10FP with Accutrigger.

IIRC, the problem is that the screw is actually too short. I think what I did was email Leupold to send me varying length screws. They sent me 3 pairs of screws, two long, two medium, and two short (the same length the bases came with). I tested the long screw and tightened it down pretty tight using the "hold short end of the Torx wrench with single-hand and turn until your fingers hurt" trick and it didn't strip. I then tried the medium and it appeared to work for me and so I used those and didn't have to trim the screw to clear the bolt lug/barrel.

I later moved on to the Ken Farrell after the first 200 rounds in my Savage. I had no problems with the screws except I remember I had to trim one of them. I can't remember if it was the front screw ablove the bolt lug or if it was one of the rear screws.

BTW: Base to receiver screws should be only 15 in/lbs. Beyond that and you risk stripping the receiver threads.

I believe the M24 you are referring to uses a Picatinny rail and not a Weaver rail. The Ken Farrell uses Weaver cuts whereas the Badger Ordnance uses Picatinny cuts. There is a difference.

Though, I believe that Picatinny rings will work on a Weaver rail, but Weaver rings will not work on a Picatinny rail. Someone may have to correct me on that statement, so don't quote me.

Going back to your problem, see if Leupold will send you a few pairs of varying length screws and go from there.

If you want to give up on the Leupold bases, which is probably the better idea, then try the Ken Farrell. It's only $40 and change. As far as Weaver rings, I use the Burris Signature Zee rings myself, but Tactical Precision Systems (http://www.tacticalprecision.com/) rings have been getting some good word of mouth. I'd probably go with the TPS rings since they use the hex nut for the rings to base screw and you can get the proper torque. The Burris Signature Zee rings are nice, but my only beef with them is the ring to base screws are slotted and not hex or Torx headed. I ended up buying some hex head screws from a member on RimfireCentral who sells them specifically for the Burris Signature Zee rings because other people have complained about the slotted screws. I have yet to use them though, because I haven't broken down my current scope and mount system since I installed it initially.

The Badger Ordnance is the best base and rings you can probably get for a tactical precision rifle, but not that they only come in 20moa slopes (Ken Farrell's come in 0, 10, or 20moa, your choice). If you want to shoot up to 1000 yards, then this is good. But if you actually want a 100yd zero, a 20moa slope may not allow this.

Good luck. Once you get the mount situation down, I'm sure you'll be happy with your Savage 10FP. I am.

 

[ocabj]

FYI: Here are urls for getting information on stuff I mentioned above:

http://www.kenfarrell.com
http://www.badgerordnance.com
http://www.tacticalprecision.com
http://www.burrisoptics.com


To get the Ken Farrell base, the following links have them for cheaper than buying direct from the Ken Farrell site:

http://www.sinclairintl.com
http://www.savageshooters.com/sharpshooters/

 

[Master Blaster]

Thanks OCABJ I'm glad too know that I'm not the only one who had this problem, and that its not a figment of my imagination

 

[Badger Arms]

The scope slipping forward... that's not the mount's problem or the scope rings. I'd venture to guess that problem would always be with not tightening the rings enough. On a gun that heavy that kicks as light as it does, you should have had no problem. As for the screws stripping out, that's almost always one of two problems. Either your screws were too short in the first place or you tightened them TOO TIGHT. It's possible. I prefer the Remington 788 for one because it uses larger screws and you can really crank down on them. Of course, while you might not think that tidbit will help you, you can have the holes drilled out oversize and use the larger screws.

My advice would be to get the longer screws and install them. You'll love yourself for it in the morning. Make sure the receiver threads aren't dickered up too bad. They may need to be chased or, like I said, drilled out. On a gun that's intended to be THAT accurate you might also want to unitize your mounting system. That is, if you use a steel Weaver-style base, epoxy the base to the receiver. It's also a good idea if it's a non-adjustable scope mount to epoxy the bottom half of the scope ring to the mount or at least use locktite to unitize the system. If you ever decide you want them removed, good luck. You can replace the scope but it'll take a few well-placed hammer blows to detatch the mounting system. IIRC, The Marines also glue their barreled actions to the stock for better stability.

 

[9 m&m]

I have a Leopold mount on my Savage 110 .270. It has gave me no problems and has been tight as a tick since its been on there.

 

[cratz2]

Well, I'm definately sorry to hear of your problems but I'm in the camp of, "I've used a bunch of them on many rifles over many years and have never had a single problem." I torque them down with a DeWalt drill and, while I'm not sure what the actual torque is, but it's well over 10 in/lbs... I'm guessing in the 25 in/lb range. I've even mounted Leupold mounts on three Savages of my own. Of course, maybe they got the wrong screws in the package or the packages I got had a different length of screw... who knows?

And I've always put a single drop of CLP or FP-10 on each mount and ring screw... never used Loctite.

I do hope the longer screws fixes everything up for you.

 

[larryw]

18 inch pounds?

From the Leupold web site:

What is the Proper Amount of Torque for Torx Screws?
The tightening of Torx screws on Leupold products is not best explained in terms of inch pounds or any other torque measurement. Specific torque measurements are generally only found on items that are both under the control of the same manufacturer, as in the case of the Leupold Mark 4 ring cross bolt, for which 65 inch pounds are recommended for proper installation. In cases where Leupold screws are being installed into other manufacturers products, as is the case with all firearms, we advise that screws be tightened until secure. This is always best done by feel; if the screw feels securely snug, it generally is.

 

[0007]

Minimum threaded-depth for a threaded hole should be equal to the diameter of the screw. Trying to hold anything with any screw using only two threads is asking for problems.

 

[Temp430]

Leupold Base Screws Too Short?

I had a similar experience in 2001 when mounting a scope with Leupold’s 2 piece dual dovetail base and rings for a Rem. 700 SA in .260 Rem. While installing the base I twisted the head off one of the torx base mount screws. At the time I was surprised when it happened because I did not apply that much force with the supplied L wrench. (Typically, I will snug up such screws with my thumb and one finger and then go another 60 degrees or one flat.) I obtained another screw from a local gun shop and talked to Leupold customer service since the supplied screws for the base seemed too short. Leupold also told me that 2 threads into the receiver was sufficient to mount and recommended using only 5 (five) in-lbs of torque. At the time it did not seem like enough treads in to the receiver or torque, but heck, they should know what’s best, right? So, I carefully mounted the base and lightly tightened the screws with the torx L wrench and used blue Loctite on the screws. I have not been highly confident of the mount but in all fairness to Leupold the scope has stayed zeroed for seven years and about 20 rounds.

Well, I’m now planning to mount a different scope on the rifle. I wonder if Leupold has changed their two thread view w.r.t. base screws in the last few years? If not, I think I will go with another brand for the mounts such as Warne which I’ve had good luck.

 

[MMCSRET]

I had a similar happening 20 years ago with a T/C Contender in 35 Remington. Finally went to Weaver bases and rings and eliminated the problems. Moved the Leupold set up to a 22 Long Rifle and its still holding. I consider it a learning experience and have conducted my buying power appropriately ever since.

 

[Kingcreek]

I've never had a problem with them but I don't have a savage and maybe mine just have more thread engagement? I've got one still holding tight with a 3.5x10 on .300mag remington 700 and a .270 winchester M70. both have been mountain horse tested for durability.
I just recently had great customer service from Leupold on a laser rangefinder that decided to lose a battery cover and my experience with thier CS has been great in the past.

 

[SwampWolf]

T

hough, I believe that Picatinny rings will work on a Weaver rail, but Weaver rings will not work on a Picatinny rail. Someone may have to correct me on that statement, so don't quote me.

My Weaver rings fit fine on my Picatinny rails (RRA AR15). I always thought they were interchangeable both ways.

 

[DRYHUMOR]

It could be a variance in the rifle or the mount. I've pulled mounts off of one rifle (not Leupold by the way) and tried to place it on another rifle- same model and caliber. It would not fit, went to another rifle, same model, different caliber. It fit like a glove.

I've run Farrell mounts on several rifles, and never had any problems with them. Everything else I run Talleys on, again, no problems.
Both companies have great service.

I'll pull a mount or scope off in a heartbeat, and put it on something else, I like the repeatability of the Farrell rings and mounts. As long as the torque's are duplicated, there is very little movement from zero.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

Since when did we start using oil instead of loctite?