Side Scope Mounting on Top Eject Winchesters

[Idiot]

I occassionally run across Winchesters with either a scope mounted just off-center (to allow for spent ejection) or with holes drilled into the receiver to mount a side scope mount. I've purchased these from time to time and own one, maybe two (I don't remember what's stuck in this or that closet), at the moment. One thing I've noticed with this set up is that its very comfortable to use. Not having to hang my head over the stock to sight down the scope is a good thing. Anyway, I've got a question:

When using this set-up is it better to sight the scope straight down barrel and maintain a consistance half-inch to the left zero, or to sight it to hit point of aim at some distance (say 50 or 100 yards) and compensate for it shooting to the left after it crosses the vertical point of aim?

Is there a right way to do this?

[Pete44ru]

YMMV, but I've always sighted them parallel to the bore - since neither an animal, or I, can tell for sure whether my bullet'll impact within 1/2" one way or the other @ 100yds under hunting pressure.

[Idiot]

YMMV, but I've always sighted them parallel to the bore - since neither an animal, or I, can tell for sure whether my bullet'll impact within 1/2" one way or the other @ 100yds under hunting pressure.

Do you measure the distance between the bore and cross hair and then intentionally sight to the left that distance?

[mescalero1]

You had better bore sight.
When I worked at Weaver ( Olin Corporation was the parent company ) Winchester was also in that division.
Winchester engineering informed us ( we were trying to develop an improved scope mount for the 1894 Win.) that the barrel / receiver relationship could be off as much as 18 inches at 100 yards, and Winchester considered that acceptable!!!!!!!
Thier reasoning was that the sights were mounted on the barrel and that relationship remained constant

[Bruce Scott]

I just fitted one and sighted in to hit point of aim at 50 yards. I am yet to try it out at 100.

I used a Kwik-Site KSW-94A mount which does not require any drilling on the receiver.

[Idiot]

I used a Kwik-Site KSW-94A mount which does not require any drilling on the receiver.

Okay, I give. What do you screw the mount to? Or do you glue it?

[Bruce Scott]

I used a Kwik-Site KSW-94A mount which does not require any drilling on the receiver.

Okay, I give. What do you screw the mount to? Or do you glue it?

Nope . It fits on the two pre-drilled receiver sight holes and the one further forward (finger lever pin stop screw?). It comes with a set of longer screws. It also has an adjustable windage bushing in the mount to accommodate large windage corrections, if needed.

[Idiot]

Thanks Bruce. What will they think of next? That's the mount I will get from now on.

[GANJIRO]

I just fitted one and sighted in to hit point of aim at 50 yards. I am yet to try it out at 100.

I used a Kwik-Site KSW-94A mount which does not require any drilling on the receiver.

Thanks Bruce, I did not know such an animal existed, now these classic Winchesters can be shot by those of us with aging eyes without messing them up, not only that but these side mounts are VERY reasonable in cost.
http://www.natchezss.com/brand.cfm?cont ... DE%20MOUNT

[junkbug]

That mount will not work with older Model 94 examples that lack the receiver sight screw holes, unless of course, you, or your smith drill and tap two more holes. I don't think the factory started putting them there until the mid 1950s.

I have a Win 94 flat band (1947) that I bought at a very attractive price about a year or so ago that was selling cheap because it had a side mount on it. Fortunately, it still also had (has) a Weaver K-4 monted to it. The bore is pristine, and the action is tight, but otherwise, it is a worn looking carbine. The scope is also reasonably clear.

I have had the same problems you are probably having, and haven't completely decided what to do about them. If I sight in at 50 yard to point of impact, there is a noticeable sideways deflection, as well as the group rising in height at 100 yards. The group must still be climbing at 100 yards since the rifle is evidently pointed upward in relation to the scope sight line. Right now, I don't have regular access to a range longer than 100 yards.

I will probably pick a load to sight to at 100 yard, perhaps even factory Remington 170 gr loads, and then just leave the sights alone until I have some real time to wring them out.That way, I will have a rifle sighted in for factory ammo I can buy almost anywhere.

I agree the real answer is to buy a bore scope, and adjust the mounting screw tention so the scope is absolutely parallel to the bore. Then center both the elevation and windabe adjustments, and go from there, shooting at 25 and 50 yards without touching the adjustments. Once I see
what the rifle is doing at "Zero Adjustment", I will decide how I want to keep it sighted in.

All this really makes me wonder how the US Army handled the same issue with the scoped M-1C and M-1D Garand rifles. That would be some really useful information.

Good luck with your rifle.

By the way, I also agree that the configuration is awkward to shoot. Once I'm sighted in with factory ammo, the first priority is to find a cast load that shoots to "close enough" at 50 and 100 yards that I can practice with it ALOT.

I'll try to take a picture of it this weekend, and take a stab at posting the photo.

Sean

[mescalero1]

Junkbug,
you are correct in your assumtion, remember the mis-alighnment between c/l of bore and c/l of receiver as deemed allowable by Winchester.
Get the scope and the bore paralel FIRST
then go from there
I can just imagine the intersecting lines problem some of you guys are going thru.
I remember years ago (maybe 20 or so ) a poular magazine had a picture of a hunting guide in Montana with a long eye relief scope mounted on the barrel of a 1894, this is the way to go; if you can stomach the unconventional look

[junkbug]

I remember that picture, LOOONG before anyone talked or wrote about making a lever-action carbine into a "Scout Rifle". I belive it may have been in a "Gun World", or "Outdoor Life" annual. It still looks like a cool set-up, if you can find a gunsmith you trust enough to drill and tap the barrel.

[mescalero1]

Yikes!!!!!!!
You must be as old as me!!!!

[mescalero1]

I think it was soldered on and then the bases were put on it.
It would seem someone of talent could get the XS mount to work on winchester, they do have the dovetail to use for an anchor point.

[Malamute]

The barrel mount for pistol scopes has been around since the 60's anyway. Leupold had one, and someone else also did I believe.


I don't mind the side mount, I'm setting one of my carbines up with a side mount. The older guns had a smaller lever pin plug screw, I had a couple screws made to work with the Weaver side mount (also been around since the 50's or so). The only down side, you can't use both a receiver sight and the side mount. Williams (?) had a combination side mount and receiver sight at one time, thats the best of both worlds. Wish I could find one of those sight/scope base setups.

BTW, the "pre-64" Weaver side mount is the evil one that uses 4 evenly spaced holes to mount the scope base, none are factory holes. This is the mount that was responsible for all the trashed old Winchesters. The "post-64" mount works fine for earlier guns when a screw is made to fit the smaller plug screw hole, assuming that the gun is drilled and tapped for a receiver sight, or you don't mind d&T'ing it for one when you do the scope setup. Too bad weaver didnt do some extra homework and make some mounts that fit existing holes on older guns, or was designed to make useful (receiver sight) ones if you had to D&T.


I'm also starting the process of having my smith make some very low, small bases to work with Ruger rings for a forward scope mount for a 94. I want them as low profile as possible, so when the scope is off (most of the time) the bases arent so noticable. If it works out well, I'm going to do the 86 carbine the same way. I'm going to have him screw and sweat the bases on. The Ruger ring bases are the narrowest I could find.


Interesting about the allowed variance in Winchester barrels/receivers. I have 2 pre-64 carbines that have the rear peep way over to the right. They both shoot well, so I ignore it otherwise.

[mescalero1]

Malamute,
That was the one we were trying to correct when I came on the scene, what we wound up with was a comprimise I would not sign on for, Fred, the director of engineering over ruled and we wound up with that second generation mount that was just marginally better, engineering would just not let go of 4 mounting screws.
I did not help matters by shearing the screws on the 3 screw model and putting 3 stiches in my head.

[Malamute]

What caliber gun sheared the screws?

Was this the model that uses the receiver sight holes?

I've wondered in the past if it would be worthwhile to have the receiver sight screwholes enlarged to the next size up. Would let you torque it a little better.

[mescalero1]

I would recomend larger screws.
1894 .32 Win Special
Weaver V-9
way too heavy a scope

[Malamute]

Well, being a 32 Winchester Special explains why it let go. On a 30-30 it likely woulda lasted a lifetime.












Maybe the big heavy scope had something to do with it tho,.......

[mescalero1]

That was probably #3 of developmental models that went by us, there were more.
I argued that no one REALLY mounted V-9's on leverguns, but the V-9 was everybody's darling ( except me )
In my collection there is no varible glass

[junkbug]

Malamute;
That souns like a great idea for the bases. The high blocks are why I never seriously consisered having a forward scope set-up on a lever-gun. The quick detach feature adds a lot to the desirability.

The Win 94 with that big Weaver K-4 off to the side is kind of funky. However, picking it up still reminds me of a M-1C Garand, which is cool in itself.

Too bad that old mount doesn't have the quick release feature. But it is still good, as it is. Just need to get it lined up as well as possible. Its hard to believe, but even a Winchester 94 with a side mount is beginning to look "Classic".

At least to me.

Sean

[mescalero1]

Junkbug,
If you could get around to a picture, I would appreciate it

[Pete44ru]

[All this really makes me wonder how the US Army handled the same issue with the scoped M-1C and M-1D Garand rifles.]

IIRC, the manual said to zero those rifles at 300 yards.

Under that distance, the POI would be only a little, perspectively, to the right.
Over that distance, the POI would be to the left.

At an extended sniping distance, say 1200 yards, that's 8"-10" - close enough that a shot centered on a man's chest would take him out.


On a sporting/hunting rifle, like the Winchester 94, I still stand by my statement:
Sight in parallel to, & to the left of, the bore.

The bullet's normal trajectory will take place an inch or less to the right of that line-of-sight - not enough to make a difference on game.

[Pepe Ray]

Water under the bridge!!
Back in the '70's Redfield made the "Frontier" model mount AND scope for the IER concept. It was only later that Col. Cooper made the Scout concept semi popular.
The Redfields were 3/4" tubed. Mine is a 2 3/4 X w/post. Base utilized the Dovetail and bbl. band.
Later, in the '80's Burris lead the pack by introducing the first true 1" Scout Scope (IER). They made bases for Winnie carbs and rifles. I got several while they were going. Tried to find some recently, to no avail. Seems that they didn't sell good enough to keep in inventory.
Being only one old fanny burp I didn't try to convince them that they needed to reintroduce a discontinued item.
If anyone wants the parts numbers, I'll look 'em up.
Pepe Ray