1997 Anschutz 1710 incorrectly drilled and tapped

[n4rod]

I recently purchased a used Anschutz 1710 D KL Monte Carlo in 22 L.R. It's a beautiful rifle. It has the barrel code JH indicating it was made in 1997. I own several rifles, both rimfire and centerfire. My gunsmith has me convinced to use a 1-piece Picatinny rail base, and Burris XTR rings on all my guns. These items produce a very sturdy scope mount. They are also used by a considerable number of departments and groups on their sniper rifles. He also builds and competes in precision rifle events and uses these bases and rings. And with the same rings mounted to the various scopes at the same spacing for each Pic rail, I can play "musical scopes" at will.

So I ordered a 1-piece Picatinny rail base for my Anschutz 1710. It's stamped "A54" indicating it's made for an Anschutz 54 action, which is used for the 1710 model. Only problem is the holes in the base do not match up with the drilled and tapped holes in the receiver. I obtained the engineering drawing I uploaded with this post, and discovered my receiver is not drilled and tapped to these factory specifications.

I contacted Anschutz North America, who told me they were sending an Email to Anschutz, J.G. in Germany to find out if the hole spacing on the model 1710 has remained the same during all the years of production, or changed during those production years. I also sent an email to Anschutz, J. G. in Germany, but I have never had any luck receiving a reply from the Germans at the factory. I have emailed them about various subjects over the past 25 years and have NEVER received the respect of a reply. I lived and worked in Germany as a N.A.T.O. sniper from 1972 through 1976 and those folks over there are different from what we may expect.

The engineering drawings indicate a center to center hole spacing of 3 1/2 inches. That would be from the center of the front hole in the forward pair, to the center of the front hole in the rearward pair. The pair spacing on both the forward and rearward pairs is 1/2 inch. My gun has the 1/2 inch pair spacing, but the overall hole spacing on my particular gun is 3 3/8 inches, 1/8 inch too short.

So no matter what the brand of 1-piece base mounts, they will not fit my gun. There are several manufacturers who make 2-piece bases on 1/2 inch hole spacing. And there are 1-piece Picatinny rail base manufacturers who make "blank" Picatinny rails in various lengths. They would need to be "radiused" on the bottom for the curve in the top of the receiver, machined to relieve the cut out for the ejection port, and drilled at a 3 3/8 inch hole spacing for my particular gun.

I ordered a set of 2-piece bases where the bottom ring is 1-piece with the base. The rings are held in place with 4 screws per cap. I think that will be sturdy enough for my rimfire rifle. But it ain't a 1-piece Pic rail.

I mounted a Leupold VX2, 4-12X40 AO fine reticle scope on the gun using these 2-piece mounts, and the gun shoots 1-hole, 5-shot groups at 50 yds using Federal Premium Gold Medal UM22 ammo, S K Match ammo, and Wolff Match Extra ammo. So it's a keeper! The photo shows the Leupold scope mounted on the rifle with Redfield standard 2-piece bases. They came off a Remington 541-THB I sold to get some of the funds needed to buy the 1710. They also have 1/2 inch hole spacing, so went right on. I removed them and put the new 2-piece bases on that came a couple days ago.

 

[mongo chicago]

Is it possible that it was drilled for a base that only Anschutz makes????

 

[n4rod]

If it was drilled for a base only Anschutz makes, don't you think it would have been drilled & tapped to their own engineering drawings that indicates a 3 1/2 inch hole spacing? Since my gun was drilled to 3 3/8 inch hole spacing, I do not think it was drilled for any base that Anschutz makes. If their engineering drawings indicate a 3 1/2 inch hole spacing, ALL their guns should be drilled to THAT specification. Only saying that as a retired engineer myself.

 

[longbow]

One Gorgeous Gun!

 

[Boyd L.]

....but the overall hole spacing on my particular gun is 3 3/8 inches, 1/8 inch too short.

I suspect you were given information about the spacing dimensions for a Match 54. While Anschutz refers to the Match 54 and the 1700 Series rifles as “54 actions” they are very different.

...there are 1-piece Picatinny rail base manufacturers who make "blank" Picatinny rails in various lengths. They would need to be "radiused" on the bottom for the curve in the top of the receiver, machined to relieve the cut out for the ejection port, and drilled at a 3 3/8 inch hole spacing for my particular gun.

I ran into a similar problem when I decided I needed a bit more elevation for my silhouette rifles. As a lark I perused the Weaver base dimension sheet for a base with a similar traverse radius and some built in elevation. I discovered that the #81 base, originally created for the H&R 360 series rifles (I think these were either Sako or Husqvarna manufactured) had an appropriate radius and (assuming my measurements and math is correct) around 7 moa of elevation built into the base. While this gave me the extra adjustment I desired, I realize that you desire more moa. With a bit shopping you may find an appropriate base that just needs holes drilled to match your receiver.

 

[dolek]

Was there a question in all this ?

 

[n4rod]

I was provided engineering drawings for the "1700 series receivers," not a Match 54 receiver. And this is the statement as provided to their distributors by Anschutz, "The Anschutz Match 54 target bolt action, which is also used in the Anschutz series 1710/1712 hunting repeater has dominated national and international competitions including the Olympic Games and the world championships in the small bore rifle disciplines."

I also looked at the engineering drawing for the Match 54 action. It indicates a 3 1/2 inch hole spacing for the drilled & tapped mounting holes, and with 1/2 inch pair spacing, identical to the specs in the 1710 drawing. My local gun shop has a Match 54 and a Match 64 in stock. I have measured both of those rifles in the past week. They both have 3 1/2 inch hole spacing with 1/2 inch pair spacing, exactly according to the respective engineering drawings.

I contacted Anschutz North America about scope bases. I figured if Anschutz made a scope base for my particular rifle, they would have it. They sell 11 mm dovetail clamp on rings by Kelbly, which they recommend as the best for the 1710 model rifle.

All I wanted was a gun that was made to factory specifications and that 1-piece scope bases made by Talley, EGW, Millet, Leupold, Contessa, DIP, Rusan, and Knightforce would fit. Unfortunately none of those will fit my rifle as they are all drilled at 3 1/2 inch hole spacing, the Anschutz factory spacing for the model 1710 rifle. I have 3 friends who own Anschutz 1710 rifles. One of those rifles was purchased from me last year. It was not the Monte Carlo stocked rifle, so I sold it. I had purchased a Talley 1-piece Picatinny rail and mounted it on that gun. Both the rifle and the Pic rail were drilled to the correct 3 1/2 inch hole spacing. My other 2 friends who have the model 1710 also have 1-piece bases on their guns. Both their rifles and bases are drilled correctly to the 3 1/2 inch hole spacing.

So why isn't my rifle drilled and tapped to 3 1/2 inch hole spacing, but 1/8th inch too short at 3 3/8 inch hole spacing? Anschutz will not answer any emails about this situation. And the engineering drawings, which are still in use today, have been used for decades longer than when my rifle was made.

Does every post need to be about a question, or can't manufacturing processes be discussed? My question is, "Does one expect a $2,000 rifle to be built within manufacturer specifications?" If a $200 Ruger 10/22 comes from the factory properly drilled and tapped to specifications, shouldn't a rifle that cost 10 times that be expected to be made correctly to the factory's own specifications?

Not knowing if Anschutz changed specs and made a lot of these guns with the shorter 3 3/8 inch hole spacing, or mine was a 1-gun mistake, I posted on here hoping that someone else had a similar situation with their Anschutz 1710, and found a solution with a particular 1-piece Pic rail. There are a lot of companies making "blank" Pic rails, and a solution is to have my gunsmith customize one of those to my rifle.

 

[hogpatrol]

If it was drilled for a base only Anschutz makes, don't you think it would have been drilled & tapped to their own engineering drawings that indicates a 3 1/2 inch hole spacing? Since my gun was drilled to 3 3/8 inch hole spacing, I do not think it was drilled for any base that Anschutz makes. If their engineering drawings indicate a 3 1/2 inch hole spacing, ALL their guns should be drilled to THAT specification. Only saying that as a retired engineer myself.

Having looked at thousands of prints over many decades, I would opine you were given the incorrect one, i.e. you need the one with a revision that fits your rifle.

 

[dolek]

I was provided engineering drawings for the "1700 series receivers," not a Match 54 receiver. And this is the statement as provided to their distributors by Anschutz, "The Anschutz Match 54 target bolt action, which is also used in the Anschutz series 1710/1712 hunting repeater has dominated national and international competitions including the Olympic Games and the world championships in the small bore rifle disciplines."

I also looked at the engineering drawing for the Match 54 action. It indicates a 3 1/2 inch hole spacing for the drilled & tapped mounting holes, and with 1/2 inch pair spacing, identical to the specs in the 1710 drawing. My local gun shop has a Match 54 and a Match 64 in stock. I have measured both of those rifles in the past week. They both have 3 1/2 inch hole spacing with 1/2 inch pair spacing, exactly according to the respective engineering drawings.

I contacted Anschutz North America about scope bases. I figured if Anschutz made a scope base for my particular rifle, they would have it. They sell 11 mm dovetail clamp on rings by Kelbly, which they recommend as the best for the 1710 model rifle.

All I wanted was a gun that was made to factory specifications and that 1-piece scope bases made by Talley, EGW, Millet, Leupold, Contessa, DIP, Rusan, and Knightforce would fit. Unfortunately none of those will fit my rifle as they are all drilled at 3 1/2 inch hole spacing, the Anschutz factory spacing for the model 1710 rifle. I have 3 friends who own Anschutz 1710 rifles. One of those rifles was purchased from me last year. It was not the Monte Carlo stocked rifle, so I sold it. I had purchased a Talley 1-piece Picatinny rail and mounted it on that gun. Both the rifle and the Pic rail were drilled to the correct 3 1/2 inch hole spacing. My other 2 friends who have the model 1710 also have 1-piece bases on their guns. Both their rifles and bases are drilled correctly to the 3 1/2 inch hole spacing.

So why isn't my rifle drilled and tapped to 3 1/2 inch hole spacing, but 1/8th inch too short at 3 3/8 inch hole spacing? Anschutz will not answer any emails about this situation. And the engineering drawings, which are still in use today, have been used for decades longer than when my rifle was made.

Does every post need to be about a question, or can't manufacturing processes be discussed? My question is, "Does one expect a $2,000 rifle to be built within manufacturer specifications?" If a $200 Ruger 10/22 comes from the factory properly drilled and tapped to specifications, shouldn't a rifle that cost 10 times that be expected to be made correctly to the factory's own specifications?

Not knowing if Anschutz changed specs and made a lot of these guns with the shorter 3 3/8 inch hole spacing, or mine was a 1-gun mistake, I posted on here hoping that someone else had a similar situation with their Anschutz 1710, and found a solution with a particular 1-piece Pic rail. There are a lot of companies making "blank" Pic rails, and a solution is to have my gunsmith customize one of those to my rifle.

....Does every post need to be about a question, or can't manufacturing processes be discussed? My question is, "Does one expect a $2,000 rifle to be built within manufacturer specifications?" If a $200 Ruger 10/22 comes from the factory properly drilled and tapped to specifications, shouldn't a rifle that cost 10 times that be expected to be made correctly to the factory's own specifications?...

I was asking a simple question,just like you just did ? Now I lost interest.

 

[dolek]

Having looked at thousands of prints over many decades, I would opine you were given the incorrect one, i.e. you need the one with a revision that fits your rifle.

And there you have it,obviously there was a revision .You may never find a drawing,but it sure did happen.

 

[hogpatrol]

I have a question. Why not just use the dovetail? BKL Technologies makes some good rings for rimfires.

http://www.bkltech.com/Scope-Rings-and-Mounts-s/2.htm

 

[n4rod]

Well, I have several rifles. Rimfires and centerfires. All of them have 1-piece Picatinny rails on the receivers. All of them have Leupold scopes mounted on those bases, using Burris XTR rings. This is the set up my gunsmith uses, as well as numerous departments, agencies, and groups who count on precision shooting. It is a heavy duty mounting solution to say the least. And with the Pic rails having the same spacing, the rings/scopes are "interchangeable." I can move the scopes from rifle to rifle without any problems if the need arises. Only have to re sight in after the move. I'm sure the clamp on rings would be fine for a rimfire. Just don't like or use them.

But I believe I have found a solution. I have been emailing companies who sell Picatinny rails listed for Anschutz 54 receivers. I explained my rifle seems to have a different hole spacing as any other 1710 that I have encountered. And I was not having any success in locating revised engineering drawings to indicate Anschutz had changed their specs at any time on this model. If they had, why does all the Pic rail and 1-piece base manufacturers make only 3 1/2 inch hole spacing mounts? If the specs had changed, wouldn't there be different listings for the different hole spacing bases? I asked if they would please measure the Pic rails they had in stock to see if any would fit the 3 3/8 inch hole spacing on my gun.

The model 1710 I sold last year was made in 1991. It had 3 1/2 inch hole spacing. The gun I have now was made in 1997 and it has 3 3/8 inch hole spacing. But the new guns in stock at Anschutz North America, made in 2015, 2016 and 2017 all have 3 1/2 inch hole spacing. So somewhere between 1991 and 1997 did Anschutz revise their specs and change the hole spacing to 3 3/8 inches, and then sometime after 1997 they revised the revision and switched back to 3 1/2 inch hole spacing? Talk about changing horses in the middle of a stream!

I received a reply today telling me about a Pic rail made by DIP Inc. The front 2 holes are circular and located in the correct position that will align the ejection port cut out on the base with the ejection port on the receiver. The rear 2 holes are "elongated" and will fit hole spacing of either 3 1/2 or 3 3/8 inches. I went to that website and the photo showed only circular holes front or rear. Guess that could have been a "stock" photo.

I emailed the manufacturer and asked if their Pic rail for the Anschutz 54/1710 does actually have elongated rear holes and will fit both the 3 1/2 and 3 3/8 inch spacing. If the rail is to that spec, my problem is solved and I will soon have a Pic rail on this rifle.

 

[dolek]

Well, I have several rifles. Rimfires and centerfires. All of them have 1-piece Picatinny rails on the receivers. All of them have Leupold scopes mounted on those bases, using Burris XTR rings. This is the set up my gunsmith uses, as well as numerous departments, agencies, and groups who count on precision shooting. It is a heavy duty mounting solution to say the least. And with the Pic rails having the same spacing, the rings/scopes are "interchangeable." I can move the scopes from rifle to rifle without any problems if the need arises. Only have to re sight in after the move. I'm sure the clamp on rings would be fine for a rimfire. Just don't like or use them.

But I believe I have found a solution. I have been emailing companies who sell Picatinny rails listed for Anschutz 54 receivers. I explained my rifle seems to have a different hole spacing as any other 1710 that I have encountered. And I was not having any success in locating revised engineering drawings to indicate Anschutz had changed their specs at any time on this model. If they had, why does all the Pic rail and 1-piece base manufacturers make only 3 1/2 inch hole spacing mounts? If the specs had changed, wouldn't there be different listings for the different hole spacing bases? I asked if they would please measure the Pic rails they had in stock to see if any would fit the 3 3/8 inch hole spacing on my gun.

The model 1710 I sold last year was made in 1991. It had 3 1/2 inch hole spacing. The gun I have now was made in 1997 and it has 3 3/8 inch hole spacing. But the new guns in stock at Anschutz North America, made in 2015, 2016 and 2017 all have 3 1/2 inch hole spacing. So somewhere between 1991 and 1997 did Anschutz revise their specs and change the hole spacing to 3 3/8 inches, and then sometime after 1997 they revised the revision and switched back to 3 1/2 inch hole spacing? Talk about changing horses in the middle of a stream!

I received a reply today telling me about a Pic rail made by DIP Inc. The front 2 holes are circular and located in the correct position that will align the ejection port cut out on the base with the ejection port on the receiver. The rear 2 holes are "elongated" and will fit hole spacing of either 3 1/2 or 3 3/8 inches. I went to that website and the photo showed only circular holes front or rear. Guess that could have been a "stock" photo.

I emailed the manufacturer and asked if their Pic rail for the Anschutz 54/1710 does actually have elongated rear holes and will fit both the 3 1/2 and 3 3/8 inch spacing. If the rail is to that spec, my problem is solved and I will soon have a Pic rail on this rifle.

Excellent news,glad it worked out.