I'm not far away from buying a Tikka CTR (6.5CM) and am thinking about scope options. The new Nikon FX1000 has caught my eye and right now they have a promotion where you get a scope mount with the purchase of the scope.

The 2 mounts they have for it are slightly different in design. The one with a built in 20 MOA cant is a cantilever style where front mount hangs out past the rail attachment. I'm not crazy about the look of it, but the 20 MOA would be nice to have.


This one looks more sturdy but doesn't offer to 20 MOA cant.


Has anyone ever had bad experiences with a cantilever style scope mount? Any reason why I should stay away from it?

Also, anyone put their hands on one of Nikon's new FX1000 scopes? I'd be interested in the 6-24 version.

I'd take the Bushy LRHSi that can be had from GAP for $750 right now over anything Nikon makes. The FX is from the Phillipines, the LRHS Japan, and is a proven commodity. As for mounts, we put Warne's on my son's CTR that mount directly to the rail. They are very strong and solid.

Not impressed with the Nikon. That Bushnell already stated is much better

Scott, if you selected the Nikon FX1000 ( Link here), that scope has 17 mils internal elevation. Convert that to moa, that puts it at 61.2 moa of internal elevation (17 x 3.6). If you went zero moa base, your available adjustment would put your zero in the middle of the scope tube, which would be about 30.6 moa up and down. If you went 20 moa base, you would add 20 moa to that, which is 50.6 moa of up elevation, and minus 20 moa for down, which is 10.6 moa available down travel. With a 100 yard zero, you would have about 10.6 moa of available down to zero your rifle. When calculating these numbers, this is "calculated" with what's available. In reality, once you have the base and rings installed, this 10 moa is the cushion amount or error factor I allow for. So 10 moa is at my minimum amount of available down travel allowed to make sure you have enough internal elevation in the scope for proper usage. You could, in theory, be ok with a 20 moa base with this set up.

But, a 6.5 CM with 140 grain bullet running about 2700 fps in a 20" barrel, you will need about 31 moa to get to 1K yards. So, you will be maxing out the scope to get to 1K, without using the reticle to hold more. With the 20 moa base, it would get you to 1300 yards (50 moa come up), which is about the effective range of the 6.5 CM with this set up. Just something to ponder.

^^^ he said go 20 moa bass. That’s what I heard. FWIW I agree 100%. You may not currently intend to shoot 1000+ but why limit yourself. From what I understand that rifle recently performed very well in a precision competition out to 800 yards. Again, can’t imag putting a limit on that thing.

I’ve never laid eyes on the scope in question from from what I understand there’s better scopes for the same money.

Appreciate the input, I'll dig deeper in to the Bushnell. I have a couple newer Nikons and have been happy with them. I recently got hits out to 700 yards with my 300BO using a Nikon 2-7 P300BO. Granted it took a few shots but it was very consistent at 200-500 yards.

I had a front row seat to see the CTR you referenced hit a 1/2 moa target at 800 yards. That gun has been on my radar for a while and no one's going to talk me out of it! I have a T3 Lite in 300WM and love everything about it, except the recoil.

I do plan on shooting out to 1,000 and hopefully beyond where the range is available.

Thanks for the calculation on the total elevation adjustment available & 20 MOA base (and showing your work so I can follow along). My main question is with the front "ring" in that style canteliver mount hanging off the front. I've seen other ring/mount manufacturers make that style. Is there any concern of it being less stable or reliable? Does it move under recoil?

Should I just plan on getting a 20 MOA rail instead of a mount that has the cant built into it?

Yes. It works. All my rifles wear this, and every scope is in Badger Ordnance rings. Moving and zeroing scopes is a breeze, and you've probably seen me accidentally bang a scope against a barricade, but it all holds up.

I recommend an EGW base and any number of quality rings. I would stay away from the lite weight rings if you’re going to actually put it to use. Yes before anyone says it I run Talley LWs on some of my wood stock guns but they have their purpose too.

What am I missing here? The OP is considering using an AR mount on a bolt action rifle. I would think it would be almost impossible to get a good cheek weld unless the CTR comb is the same height relative to the top of the receiver as an AR.

Scott, we should talk.. I am in Austin
No need for type of mount either
You don't need a 20 MOA base either on a 6.5 with the right scope