Author Topic: 1710 weight (Read 1296 times)

billdncn · « **on:** October 10, 2004, 12:05:23 PM »

I Picked up a used 1710 today (traded in my Finnfire) and found out with my 6.5X20 EFR and BKL rings it seems it's about 4 ozs. too heavy (8lb.12oz). It's a 1710, not 1710D or FWT, just 1710. Nice wood stock, open sights, swivels. I already removed the front sight, swivels, and the sight shade from my scope. Will I need to drill out or replace the stock? Suggestions?

Thanks, Bill

anthonyg · « **Reply #1 on:** October 10, 2004, 02:43:20 PM »

hi bill i have a 1710 meister grade anschutz and it just makes weight. the best weight reduction is to buy talley light weight ring base. they are sculptured to your action and give nice eye relief the medium height will work good
with your leupold anthonyg

billdncn · « **Reply #2 on:** October 10, 2004, 10:31:38 PM »

Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I could try different rings. What is this, Talley Light weight ring base? I'm not using a scope ring base. I'm just clamping to the dovetail.

Thanks, Bill

ppk1 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:30:23 AM »

Removal of wood from the stock is probably the least effective way to reduce weight. To put it in perspective picture a cubic inch block of wood. This will weigh about .5 ozs. Than picture trying to take about 4 of these blocks out of the back of a stock for a reduction of only 2 ozs.
There is a lot of weight in the butt plates of these guns. Some have bakelite blocks, steel inserts and long metal screws. There is a least 8 ozs. in these assemblies and could be replaced with hard foam and plastic screws.
Rings and risers blocks made of aluminum also will help reduce weight. I also would suggest not being "right on the limit" because when you get to a big match there's no discusion if you are 1 oz over.

CB · « **Reply #4 on:** October 11, 2004, 06:30:55 AM »

You said you were already scope mounted with BKL rings? If they're like mine you've already got aluminum and as light as you're gonna get. unless height needs adjustment on scope thats done.
Above poster has right idea with butt plates etc. sometimes you still have to hollow out the butt to make it. wood density varies greatly, so does weight of an oily wood like walnut. oz. or so here or there acumulated adds up.

billdncn · « **Reply #5 on:** October 11, 2004, 10:51:47 AM »

Thanks to all for your input. Today I weighed it on more accurate scales @ work and it was just a few 10ths over 8.5lbs. I drove out the rear sight (primitive folding thing) and drilled out 1" dia. by approx. 1.5" deep in the butt stock. I now seem to be @ 8lbs. 7.584oz. I know this is probally too close for comfort but, I guess I'll shot it like this for a while till I decide to maybe shave some more ozs. What do ya think? I also adj. the trigger pull to 2lbs. 3ozs. Can I do anything about the over travel on the 5108 trigger?

Hornetx60 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 11, 2004, 02:10:54 PM »

Bill in my opinion the worst thing you can do is stop the over travel of a trigger. Look at it this way. You just broke a sear loose that took two lbs. of pressure, now you suddenly stop that pressure by slamming it into a stop screw....guess what happens to the gun ? it gets moved. I let all of my triggers have as much over travel as possible so they can't possibly hit anything to stop the rearward motion. but that's just one mans idea.

billdncn · « **Reply #7 on:** October 11, 2004, 10:17:57 PM »

Hornetx60, that's a very good point. I never thought of it that way. I see can how it might help with a smoother and more consistent follow thru.

billdncn · « **Reply #8 on:** October 17, 2004, 07:54:03 AM »

Just an update on the 1710, which appears to be a 1710D KL. I said just a 1710 because that's what the what's marked on the barrel. It has a single stage trigger and folding rear sight which I think makes it a 1710D KL? The wood is beautifully figured and I had someone at the match today refer to it as a Meister grade (overheard him talking). I don't have any info. on it as I bought it used with no box or anything.

Anyway, I got to the range Fri. to see how it grouped and sight it in. Best groups were with Rem/Eley Match EPS. I only shot 2 groups with this ammo. A .370" and .360". That told me all I needed to know.....

Also it appears to have been made in 2000. It has "AA" stamped on the barrel at the receiver end.

The butt plate is of plastic (no weight savings there). I don't like being just .4 ozs. under. Is this cause for concern?

Hornetx60 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 17, 2004, 09:18:10 AM »

Bill Duncan, I would remove enough wood from the butt stock to be able to install the sunshade on your scope. That is just my thoughts, I shoot at enough ranges where you have to use a sunshade in the morning. I would make sure the final weight is at least .5 ozs. under the weight limit. Shoot the gun for a while and get used to it then decide what you want to do. Bill R

billdncn · « **Reply #10 on:** October 31, 2004, 12:10:58 AM »

Hornetx60, good point and I agree. I took my stock back to work and drilled out the butt stock some more. I'm now @ .6 oz. under, w/o the sunshade. I'm guessing that'll weigh a couple of ozs.?

There are other options. Replacing the stock, or possibly having Kay C. Young cut the barrel (23.5") to 22' and recrowning.

I'll shoot it like this for awhile and think about it.
Thanks, Bill