Stevens 200 scope mounting question

N

ndking1126

New member
I just got a 200 in .223. I picked the standard 2 piece Leupold base and standard medium height rings (both labeled for Savage 10). When I put the rear piece on, I couldn't raise the bolt handle up far enough to cycle the action. It hit the clamps (sorry, don't know the tech term) that hold the rear ring in place. In a pinch, I flipped it around so that the clamps were facing the front rings. It didn't interfere with loading the ammo, and the rings didn't line up with the turrets, so I tighted it down and went shooting.

Did I miss something? Should it have mounted the normal way?
Could mounting it backwards possibly damage the scope? I really can't see how it would, but a little perplexed as to why its working out this way.

Thanks!
 
If I read your post correctly, it sounds like you got the Weaver style Leupold base and rings. I get that from the way you described "clamps". If that is the case, I think you would be better off going to non-weaver style when you do your permanant mounting. The Leupold Standard base won't stick out as much on the sides and shouldn't cause a clearance problem.
 
Looking at my own Savage 12 BVSS and Stevens 200, I can see why the standard rear base would be in the way when it's mounted 'correctly'. The adjustment screws look like they'd be hanging out over the rear of the bolt.

Heck, even looking at my Rem 700, that long--- rear base looks like it'd be in the way of the bolt handle.

My Remy uses the Leupold one piece standard base, it only has the one hole at the rear, and that lines up with the forward-most rear hole.

My Savage uses a B-Square Weaver-style one piece, my Stevens uses Weaver 2-piece base.
 
I think Kimber has the right answer. You'll probably need to go with the non-adjustable base that used the same kind of dovetail in the rear as it does in the front.
 
Heck, even looking at my Rem 700, that long--- rear base looks like it'd be in the way of the bolt handle.
Click to expand...

I've got the leupold 1 piece with adjustment screws on my Rem 700. No problems.

I almost went with Weaver style rings, but went with leupold just because I was familiar with it and had no problems in the past.
 
200 mounts

I'm assuming you got the correct bases. The 200 I mounted a scope on last month used the newer AccuTrigger bases(both round bottom). If you got bases for the older Model 10 the rear base is wrong. There are Weaver bases designed to move the front or rear ring away from the normal location to accomodate odd scopes or achieve longer eye relief. The rear extended base would surely interfere with the bolt handle if turned back.
 
I'm assuming you got the correct bases. The 200 I mounted a scope on last month used the newer AccuTrigger bases(both round bottom).
Click to expand...

I have never heard of there being different bases for the accutrigger. Do you have a link to a picture and/or more info?

kimber, yeah if the savage rear base was designed like the tikka rear base, it would have been perfect,
 
ndking,

What mobuck is describing is simply this:

Before Savage came out with the accutrigger, the top of the reciever behind the ejection port was machined flat, similar to the Remington. When Savage came out with the accutrigger, they did away with the extra machining and left the reciever round from front to rear.

Hence the question: Pre-accutrigger or post-accutrigger.

Here is a picture post with a flat rear reciever. http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f42/wtb-wtt-savage-large-shank-long-action-barrel-pics-42759/
The fourth pic down shows it best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top