Scopes and Mounts

[northmn]

This came up in the thread on TC rifles and could make for an interesting discussion.

Being retired now I have also come to find scope sights to be more necessary for older eyes and scopes themselves are pretty nice even with the best eyes. Probably one of the issues is the worry about their durability. First question is whether greater durability comes with greater cost? I have felt that there is a reasonable acceptable level of price where the Law of Diminishing Returns steps in. This is for a hunting rifle at more normal ranges. An individual shooting at very long ranges might have a different level of performance than an individual shooting under 200 yards.

I had an old 2 1/2 powder on a 300 Savage once. Made a very pretty shot with it by threading through the brush but it was a difficult shot because the optics were a bit hazy. Newer variables like Vortex would have been much clearer to see through. Had a couple of scopes take a spill and still hold zero to get a deer.

Then we get into the mounting. I just put a set of Picatinny bases and rings on my Savage Axis. Love the set up as I am fussy about scope mounting and want one that is "there" when I bring the rifle to my shoulder. These offer great adjustment. Also they seem to be very durable.

Saying around here I have heard more than once: "You should pay more for the scope than the rifle".


DP

[pietro]

.

I've long (45+ years) used inexpensive ($25) scopes on most of my RF rifles (a few have Leupold M8-4X Compacts) w/o any issues.

I've also used relatively inexpensive ($45) Simmons 2X20 scopes on several .45-70 rifles (since 1985), because of their very light weight (7oz) & long (5"+) eye relief, also w/o any issues.

I did however, treat myself one Christmas several years ago (12) to a $750 Trijicon Accupoint Safari low-powered variable (which I bought from SWFA for $395), whose main claim to fame is a non-battery fiber-optic illuminated reticle.

I move the Trijicon from one primary hunting rifle to another as needed - for the last few years it's been mounted on a Ruger 250-3000 boltgun.

I've had excellent service from Ruger's integral scope mount bases, and from various (Redfield, Leupold, Burris, etc) turn-in ringsets on other rifles.

I like a (single) Weaver base (from a 2 base application) to mount a short(base) reflex red dot sight, like a Burris FastFire.


The only failures I've ever had occurred when I was very young/poor, and mounted $25 scopes on CF rifles & took them to cold weather deer hunts that caused them to fog up.

I no longer bang my head against that particular door, anymore.


.

[samari46]

I've started to change over to Weaver grand Slam steel bases and Burris signature or "ZEE" rings with the polymer inserts. I believe Sako was one of the first commercial manufacturers to have the polymer inserts in their rings. My Sako 75 Hunter in 30-06 sadly discontinued is one such example. Haven't touched the knobs since I initally zeroed it in with my handload. As far as the steel weaver bases the weight difference isn't all that much and I think they look better.So I'm a believer in the Burris rings and weaver steel bases. My only complaint is that most of the scope makers have been decreasing the length of their scopes due to the mid length actions and compact ones. And playing around with extension rings only gets you so far. I have a couple older long length scopes that I used just for sighting in or load developement. when you try to scope a post 64 model 70 match rifle in their standard action length the shorter scopes become a pita. Have a 10x with adjustable objective Lyman All American sitting on just such a critter. Another 6x All American on another. I have cataracts so I get close to the objective bell on a scope. Frank

[northmn]

I've started to change over to Weaver grand Slam steel bases and Burris signature or "ZEE" rings with the polymer inserts. I believe Sako was one of the first commercial manufacturers to have the polymer inserts in their rings. My Sako 75 Hunter in 30-06 sadly discontinued is one such example. Haven't touched the knobs since I initally zeroed it in with my handload. As far as the steel weaver bases the weight difference isn't all that much and I think they look better.So I'm a believer in the Burris rings and weaver steel bases. My only complaint is that most of the scope makers have been decreasing the length of their scopes due to the mid length actions and compact ones. And playing around with extension rings only gets you so far. I have a couple older long length scopes that I used just for sighting in or load developement. when you try to scope a post 64 model 70 match rifle in their standard action length the shorter scopes become a pita. Have a 10x with adjustable objective Lyman All American sitting on just such a critter. Another 6x All American on another. I have cataracts so I get close to the objective bell on a scope. Frank

I have the same gripe and just had to remove the recoil pad from my new Boyd's stock and put on an old butt plate that does not quite fit because I have a short scope like mentioned. I even used the Picatinny rails to get more extension, but the darn thing lacks enough eye relief and when wearing Northern MN clothing to deer hunt in temps ion the teens or 20's it does not permit proper sighting. Shot two deer using that scope but the first did not permit full view. Its a good scope, 2X7 which is about perfect for my uses, very clear and it adjusts according to the clicks on sight in. Shoot, measure, count clicks and you are in.

My luck with cheap scopes has not been as good as Pietros. Some work some don't. I have a $70 (now 80) on my old 35 Marlin that has held its zero for years now and is clear enough. I had one 6 power that would not hold adjustment. Sighted it in and next time out it would be off. Different scope fixed that. An old Tasco was reliable but fuzzy. I have a cheap Barska on my 8mm Mauser that provides enough adjustment to sight in the rifle with its slightly off mounts. I consider cheap scopes kind of hit or miss and don't know if they really save as I have had to toss a couple. But then again I paid about 200 for the Leopold/Redfield described that is too compact. But it is a very tough good scope otherwise.


DEP

[Texas by God]

This one has plenty of tube length

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[samari46]

I have a Ruger #1 in 45/70 that I literally have to crawl up on the stock when using a old Leupold scope. Went and bought some Ruger extension rings but they only give you about 5/8" added setback. That and the fact the buttstock on this rifle doesn't give me a decent cheek weld. I'm of the opinon that the buttstock was originally set up for iron sights. I had no trouble with cheekweld when first shooting this rifle with the factory iron sights. heck,I even splurged for a one piece conetrol base and rings hoping to better the situation. No joy on that one. To make this work I'd have to have the stock shortened by 1" and get a lace on or other type cheek piece to get closer to the scope and raise the comb for a better cheekweld. Frank

[northmn]

This one has plenty of tube length

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

That old fixed power scope is reminiscent of those seen on the old buffalo rifles.

I suspect that the Ruger #1 may have been made for irons. Switching from the recoil pad to the butt plate made a world of difference on the 2X7 I had mounted. Like that scope and now will have to find a butt plate that either fits the stock of can be fitted. Was only about 3/8 inch difference. Lots of old rifles had add on cheek pieces.

DEP

[Ateam]

DNZ game reaper one piece mount/ rings (all machined out of the same billet), bedded to the receiver with devcon to negate any scope tube binding (esp important with rounded receivers like savages), burris full field ii 4.5-14x42. This combo has served me so well that I put it on nearly everything these days.

[pietro]

I have a Ruger #1 in 45/70 that I literally have to crawl up on the stock when using a old Leupold scope.

Went and bought some Ruger extension rings but they only give you about 5/8" added setback.

That and the fact the buttstock on this rifle doesn't give me a decent cheek weld.
I even splurged for a one piece conetrol base and rings hoping to better the situation. No joy on that one.
Frank

Frank, one of the rifles I used a Simmons 2.5x20 Deerfield "shotgun" or "muzzleloader" scope successfully on was a .45-70 Ruger #1 - it was like using a peepsight with magnification.

Believe me when I tell you - it'll solve all your issues.

Those babies have about 7" of eye relief and weight 6oz-7oz - next to nothing.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Simmons-Dee...IAAOSwwRVbynmX

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Simmons-Dee....c100005.m1851

.

[FergusonTO35]

The Swift 1.5-4.5x20 is another one with lots of eye relief. I have one on a Marlin .30-30, and have it pushed all the way forward in the rings. Darn good scope for the price, honestly I don't think the Leupold VX-1 would really be an improvement.

[samari46]

Northmn,I'm seriously considering having the gunsmith take at least a inch off the buttstock or the same thickness of the new buttpad I'm thinking about. Had the Sako 75 Hunter in '06 done that way as the length of pull was too long for me.Since I don't hunt anymore i been seriously thinking of going to cast bullets for the Sako. I have about 1100 rounds down the tube and it shows almost no wear. Saw an article once and the just of it was that Sako makes the hardest barrels of most gunmakers.Frank

[samari46]

Pietro, is this the scope that has a ring around the crosshairs? I have one that on a Marlin 1894 in 44 magnum. I rarely shoot this past 100yds but does give nice accuracy
on that little carbine. Lent it to a buddy as he was going pig hunting on his lease. Down here pigs are considered nusiance animals and as a result no season on them so you can shoot them all year long. You do have to have a current big game hunting loisense though. I one day he and his friend shot 6 pigs all under 150 pounds. Anything much over that weight are too gamey and only fit for sausage. Those Hornady 240 grain JHP's worked great. Frank

[northmn]

I have read that cast bullets will not wear out a barrel for thousands of rounds.

A scope has to fit me on a hunting rifle. Been in more than one discussion on scout scopes vs a well adjusted standard scope. I want that scope to be there when I shoulder the rifle and I will modify the stock if needed to do so. I have a Vortex that seems have more eye relief and worked on another rifle where the Redfield did not, but I like the 2X7 so well.

I have heard that about pig hunting. Get the big boar out of your system and then shoot the smaller eaters.

DEP

[redhawk0]

I've had some pretty cheap scopes down through the years and most are not seeing duty any longer. They tend to get cloudy over time. I do still use two cheap scopes, two mid-range scopes, and one excellent scope. My two cheap ones are a Tasco 8-24x-44 scope that I keep on the 22-250 as my varminter, the other is a Simmons 3-9x40 on my squirrel rifle (Rem 572 pump 22LR). The midrange scopes are both Bushnell 3-9x40s (Trophy/Trophy Bone Collector). One on my Marlin 336 35 Rem and one on the Henry 22LR. My good scope is a Leupold 3-9x40 on the Ruger M77-MKII 30-06.

I had some old Bushnell banners that I had to retire due to fogging issues...but I got my money's worth out of those too.

As for the rings. I'm a huge fan of the Burris Signature Zee rings. They self align (no lapping)...and I've had good luck with being close to zero with all my mounts. I've never had to put in offset inserts.

redhawk

[pietro]

Pietro, is this the scope that has a ring around the crosshairs?

I had 3 of those Simmons scopes, mounted on different long guns, and all had plain crosshairs.

.

[Drm50]

I have a lot of Weaver scopes bought new in 60s. At the time Weavers were not considered cheap.
They were probably biggest selling scope in US. I will admitt they aren't as clear as new scopes but
they never were. I won't put a cheap scope on any rifle. You have to figure how much scope you need. For most deer hunters a $250-$300 scope is plenty. It also depends on your rifle, does it have
the accuracy to make it worth putting a $1500 scope on it? Some of the most useful hunting scopes
are 4x or less. Now days you can buy a 3x9 for less than a fixed power in most quality makes. I think
that's why you see 3x9s on 30/30s in the deer woods.

[northmn]

I have a lot of Weaver scopes bought new in 60s. At the time Weavers were not considered cheap.
They were probably biggest selling scope in US. I will admit they aren't as clear as new scopes but
they never were. I won't put a cheap scope on any rifle. You have to figure how much scope you need. For most deer hunters a $250-$300 z [B][It also depends on your rifle, does it have
the accuracy to make it worth putting a $1500 scope on it? /B]eSome of the most useful hunting scops
are 4x or less. Now days you can buy a 3x9 for less than a fixed power in most quality makes. I think
that's why you see 3x9s on 30/30s in the deer woods.

Totally agree with all that is said there. I remember when variable scopes were a novelty. We used 2 1/2 powers for the brush in Northern MN, Westerners used 4 powers or may 6 powered scopes and varmint hunters of ten went 6 power but used others like the one Texas by God pictured. I like my $200 2X7 and have shot a lot of deer with a 1 1/2 X 4.5 variable.
I shot my first deer with a new 270 I bought with an old Weaver 2 1/2 power with the old post sight, which I do not see now. It was a deer hunters sight for quick use. I put an inexpensive bubble wrapped 4X on my daughters rifle as I preferred to keep things simple for her when I worked over the rifle at her age. Since then she has been good for several deer for the last few years including this one with that cheap scope. Todays reticule with the 4 heavy posts and the fine hairs in the center are great but the old post was also quick. The choice of fine to course crosshairs back then was interesting.

Weavers were popular and utilitarian, Redfields were a step up and noted for better clarity as were Leopolds. My brother in law brought a scope back from Germany when he was stationed there that was a real gem with tapered crosshairs. Redfield got bought out by Leopold and there are numerous scope makers now.

DEP

[Drm50]

There use to be some decent scopes out of Germany up until 70s. They were of Weaver quality and
priced about the same or less. I use to buy 4x & 6x from Graf Dist from Germany. All the good mid
priced German stuff went off the market, including guns, knives and other optics.

[northmn]

There were some top German scopes that were claimed to have the best optics, then Japan started to come in. A Tasco scope I had had very poor optics but the top models were good. The German scopes that were top of the line were also expensive. I don't know if they could match some of the mid line scopes of today. I have 2 Vortex that are very clear. Both are Diamond backs.


DEP

[Texas by God]

Northmn,I'm seriously considering having the gunsmith take at least a inch off the buttstock or the same thickness of the new buttpad I'm thinking about. Had the Sako 75 Hunter in '06 done that way as the length of pull was too long for me.Since I don't hunt anymore i been seriously thinking of going to cast bullets for the Sako. I have about 1100 rounds down the tube and it shows almost no wear. Saw an article once and the just of it was that Sako makes the hardest barrels of most gunmakers.Frank

I read that Sako leaves their barrel blanks outdoors in the Scandinavian winter to season them before drilling. All I KNOW is that they make a darn good barrel!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk