300wm model 70 Winchester MOA travel

Sandstrom22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
185
Location
Oregon
Hey guys,

I'm wondering if some of you have a similar set up and can help me out or trouble shoot this. I was shooting over the weekend with a friend who was shooting his extreme weather model 70 Winchester chambered in 300 wm, topped with a vortex viper 6-24x50 30mm tube HS-T along with a 20moa rail and nightforce medium rings. And his rifle is particulary limited to MOA travel as we shot further. With his rifle zeroed at 200yds he only had 19MOA of travel with a 180 grain pill. So I started running through the check list as to what is wrong. The Rifle isn't spraying on target with his groups so I'm not thinking it's a broken reticle or anything. And I've checked the simple stuff like rings not being seated into the picatiny, I checked his rail to make sure it wasn't on backwards or showing daylight where it seats against the receiver, screws are torqued on the rail, the rings are lapped and fit good, you can see the obvious slope on the scope from the 20moa rail. It feels sturdy and tight with a hand check. I'm kind of dumbfounded as to what the problem is. I'm thinking the tube on the scope is either bent, or the receiver face is way out of true. And I tried some other bullets along with some light hand loads and it still was putting him in the mid twenties for moa travel. I'm thinking he should have around 40-50 moa travel with this scope on This set up? My next test is to take my scope off of my 7x300wm and try it on his gun to rule out the scope this coming weekend? Any suggestions
 
I fought this for a long time on two m70 rifles. One had 19 and one had 25. Both had a 20moa rail and vortex 6-20 viper 30mm tube. I think it is an issue with how the m70 rifles are made. I know that's not what you want to hear but I am hoping to save you some time and aggravation. I changed the rails rings and scopes and I finally bought Burris rings with the eccentrics to gain more moa. Now I can reach out a little further. I believe it is 1350 with my 165 BT out of my 300wm
 
Last edited:
I think I just read a thread that mentioned a 40 moa rail maybe give that a try. If what 105Coues said is true that rail should help and may be a cheaper fix. Hope you guys can get this figured out.
 
I just looked at the specs for that scope, it states 40MoA adjustment for windage & elevation.
If that is true, have you re-centred the reticle by winding the turret all the way from one side to the other counting how many clicks and re-zeroing everything then bore site the gun?

Cheers.
:eek:
 
The 40 moa rail would be my first choice if you find one reasonable. At the time I did this i would have had to have one made which was way more costly than the rings. I can't count the frustrating hours I spent working on this because I just could not accept both rifles were wrong. Until I eliminated every thing else at great time expense.
 
Ya I'm glad I posted a thread about this. My buddy was planning on getting a 30 moa rail already and switching from mediums to lows on rings. I was unaware there are 40 moa rails
 
He may want to try the rail first as it will lower the bell of the scope. I found the 40 very available for all rifles except the win long action when I was looking at long time ago. Hopefully they are more available now.
 
What make is the rail? I've seen a rail with the rise cut backward so you lost 20 MOA mounting it. This was on a buddies gun with some "Wong foo" rail he got for $9 off amazon...

My 6-24 HST has 51 up, on my 300 win mag. So my zero plus the 20 MOA was pretty much dead on for the travel.
 
What make is the rail? I've seen a rail with the rise cut backward so you lost 20 MOA mounting it. This was on a buddies gun with some "Wong foo" rail he got for $9 off amazon...

My 6-24 HST has 51 up, on my 300 win mag. So my zero plus the 20 MOA was pretty much dead on for the travel.

If I remember right it's a Talley, and you can see the obvious can't on the scope from the rail lowering the bell end on the objective
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top