[greydog]

At a glance, it looks like the rear base is too high. You may have to go to a number 46 on the front. Either that, or the receiver bridge needs to be re-contoured. It was common practice to re-contour the Enfields to the same contour as the 700 but your's looks to be high at the rear.
Actually, it's not entirely correct to say the Enfields were typically contour like a 700. The truth is, the 700, and it's predecessors the 722 and 721, were contoured like the Enfield based Model 30.
One nice thing about Enfields is that the bolt handle and safety will work in conjunction with a low mounted scope. Your Enfield looks to be on it's way to being a good sporter. GD

[Tworr]

Thanks Greydog,

I still need a scope for the it, but I will certainly look into the number 46 mount. When I originally picked it up it has a solid one piece mount that had been cut and made to fit. I disliked how it felt in the way and grabbed my 700 mounts off the shelf and put on it. I'll go home tonight and double check the differences.

Thank you for noticing!!! That may have saved me headache and several $$$ in spent rounds trying to sight in.

I haven't even gotten to the range to shoot it. I've picked up a couple of new guns and a couple of other projects, so trying to decide which one gets a little money here and there has been hard. I'm ready to get a scope on it and have it sighted in for deer season this year.

Todd

[cpttango30]

IF they are out of alignment you would have ruined a scope mounting it like that.

My 1917 is different I had to have a custom mount made for my rear mount because that one needed to be a 1/4" higher to line them up.

[Tworr]

I finally picked up a scope and had a free weekend to get the Eddystone out of the safe and spend a little time shooting it between thunderstorms.

You guys were right about the 700 mounts not being aligned. There's no way they would have worked and it was obvious that a scope would not have fit.

I'm disappointed that the gunsmith did not do what I asked and only milled down a solid weaver mount and made it fit instead of taking the time to mill the back of the receiver down where a two piece would work.

I mounted a Bushnell Banner 3x9 rifle scope on it. It shot good and other than feeling like the solid mount was in the way, I didn't have any problems.
I sure had fun, but my shoulder on the other hand is screaming this morning. 20 shots with a rubber-less butt pad and it's going to be brushed and sore for a few days.

I took the one piece mount off this morning and will take it to see if I can get something to match up before I take it back to the gunsmith. The number on the solid mount was 86. I'm not sure how much was removed from the back portion to make it level.

I'll also be picking up a rubber butt pad and getting it on ASAP!!

[M14sRock]

Originally Posted by Tworr

I finally picked up a scope and had a free weekend to get the Eddystone out of the safe and spend a little time shooting it between thunderstorms.

You guys were right about the 700 mounts not being aligned. There's no way they would have worked and it was obvious that a scope would not have fit.

I'm disappointed that the gunsmith did not do what I asked and only milled down a solid weaver mount and made it fit instead of taking the time to mill the back of the receiver down where a two piece would work.

I mounted a Bushnell Banner 3x9 rifle scope on it. It shot good and other than feeling like the solid mount was in the way, I didn't have any problems.
I sure had fun, but my shoulder on the other hand is screaming this morning. 20 shots with a rubber-less butt pad and it's going to be brushed and sore for a few days.

I took the one piece mount off this morning and will take it to see if I can get something to match up before I take it back to the gunsmith. The number on the solid mount was 86. I'm not sure how much was removed from the back portion to make it level.

I'll also be picking up a rubber butt pad and getting it on ASAP!!

The rule is to always try and fit the part to the gun, rather than the gun to the part, whenever possible. And the 1917 receivers are extremely hard, so machining them is very expensive.

Did you take some pics for us?

[Tworr]

Originally Posted by M14sRock

The rule is to always try and fit the part to the gun, rather than the gun to the part, whenever possible. And the 1917 receivers are extremely hard, so machining them is very expensive.

Did you take some pics for us?

I can understand that.

When it was originally cut down it wasn't exactly perfect and you can see space under one side of the rear mount. That's why I had asked for it to be leveled and made to work with the Rem 700 mounts.

I'll post a picture of it tomorrow.

[CA357]

Keep us in the loop Tworr.

[Tworr]

Here you can see that I have little room and why I wanted the two piece mounts.




Here you can see under the edge of the rear of the mount.




Could it work? Yes... It's just not working for me and isn't what I asked for.

[Tworr]

It looks like the number 46 mount is what I am needing. It comes the closest to matching up to the number 36 mount on the rear. When I put a level across the top of the two mounts I see that the front or the rear mount will need to be taken down 1/16" to make it level.

Which recoil pads do you guys recommend?

How are the Remington SuperCell Recoil Pads?



Thank you!!

Todd

[CA357]

I used a Pachmayr grind to fit pad on mine.