Author Topic: Scope School (Read 49064 times)

Thernlund · « **Reply #50 on:** June 23, 2009, 03:39:11 pm »

Quote from: FMJ on June 23, 2009, 03:09:17 am

I'm sorry I constantly ask so many questions here on WTA, but what can I do? I'm not going to go learn stuff from COD 4. Not in the real world.

That might be the happiest thing I've heard this week. *tear*

-T.

WeTheArmed.com

Harm · « **Reply #51 on:** June 23, 2009, 04:40:48 pm »

I've got nothing much to add to this since I know SO much about scopes and all

BUT I did need to point out a correction for T:

Quote

The lack of parallax is how cinematographers achieve "forced perspective". That is, placing one object further away than another in order to make one appear smaller that the other. This technique was used to great effect in Lord of the Rings. If however the camera had moved in the scenes where forced perspective had been used, the effect would have been blown as you would have seen the two objects move differently in relation to each other as the perspective changed.

Not quite accurate. It used to be, but with motion controlled sets they were able to use forced perspective AND change the camera positioning. So it's all about manipulation. I studied film and theater in College. Thats my arena. Had to toss that out there. If you'd like to see what I'm talking about the Making of Video's on the Extended Directors Cuts of The Fellowship and The Two Towers both address this technique.

Thernlund · « **Reply #52 on:** June 23, 2009, 04:42:53 pm »

Good to know.

-T.

Harm · « **Reply #53 on:** June 23, 2009, 04:53:33 pm »

T when you watch it you'll see what I mean. Literally the sets were machines that came apart and shifted perspective with the camera's motion to then reset for a different perspective.

As an aside forced perspective can be seen anytime gandalf is interacting with the hobbits.

FMJ · « **Reply #54 on:** June 23, 2009, 07:08:59 pm »

Well, I meant to ask how are the scope rings actually out on receivers.

I've heard of X gun that comes with a drilled and tapped receiver, for example. Does that mean that you screw the rings directly onto the receiver?

Mumbles · « **Reply #55 on:** June 23, 2009, 07:56:33 pm »

Generally speaking, you screw the scope base into the receiver. Sometimes, like with a Surgeon action, the rail and receiver are all machined out of the same piece of metal. There are various styles of scope bases: Picatinny, Weaver, Clip Slot, various sizes of dovetail, etc. Picatinny and Weaver are nice because they prevent the scope from sliding forward under recoil, and give you a reference point for remounting if you remove the optic. On rifles intended for long range shooting, the base is frequently canted forward to prevent you from burning up a lot of the erector travel just getting the scope zeroed, not leaving you much room for adjustment for dialing elevation.

JesseL · « **Reply #56 on:** June 23, 2009, 08:03:50 pm »

Quote from: FMJ on June 23, 2009, 07:08:59 pm

Well, I meant to ask how are the scope rings actually out on receivers.

I've heard of X gun that comes with a drilled and tapped receiver, for example. Does that mean that you screw the rings directly onto the receiver?

Sometimes rings are screwed directly to the receiver. I've only personally seen this on a Ruger 10/22.

Other times scope bases are an integral part of the receiver; whether the 3/8" dovetail common on .22s, Ruger's proprietary system, Weaver/Picatinny 1913, or something else entirely.

More often some sort of bases are screwed to the receiver, which then has the rings mounted to it. There are all sorts of base systems, but the most popular these days is of course the Weaver/Picatinny 1913 style.

The Weaver/Picatinny 1913 style uses a dovetail rail with cross slots. The rings clamp to the rail with screws that pass through the slots to resist shifting under recoil. It's a good idea when mounting rings to this kind of rail, to push them forward as they're being tightened so that the cross screw contacts the forward side of the slot to avoid shifting the first time the rifle is fired.

Another popular base system is the Redfield style which uses a twist in dovetail for the front ring and wedges the rear ring between a pair of screws that can be adjusted for windage:

(I personally hate these and hope they go away)

Mumbles · « **Reply #57 on:** June 23, 2009, 08:28:40 pm »

Quote

The Weaver/Picatinny 1913 style uses a dovetail rail with cross slots.

Just to clarify, these are not the same thing. Very similar in appearance, and sometimes you can get away with interchanging systems, but not the same thing.

chiwar7178 · « **Reply #58 on:** June 26, 2009, 08:44:03 am »

Quote from: JesseL on June 23, 2009, 08:03:50 pm

(I personally hate these and hope they go away)

AMEN!

cpaspr · « **Reply #59 on:** November 13, 2009, 04:39:47 pm »

Okay. I have to ask. Why is that particular style so hated?

The reason I ask, is that I need to add a base to a K98 Mauser action (now chambered in 30-06). There is already one screw hole drilled in the back for the current scope base setup (something wierd from about 1950 - Willson or Wilson, I think) which houses a Kollmorgan 26mm tube, 4x scope. The current base has two screw holes in the front, but they're side by side, not in line. We intend to re-use the rear hole, and plug the current front holes and drill and tap new ones.

It's been recommended that I get a Leupold one-piece base, which looks just like the dreaded one in the picture.

JesseL · « **Reply #60 on:** November 13, 2009, 04:53:29 pm »

Quote from: cpaspr on November 13, 2009, 04:39:47 pm

Okay. I have to ask. Why is that particular style so hated?

1. It leaves the front ring doing most of the work.
2. I feel that using the windage knobs on the rear ring puts unnecessary stress on the scope tube.

If I were you, I get a base like this, and a couple of these rings.

cpaspr · « **Reply #61 on:** November 14, 2009, 02:14:25 pm »

Thanks Jesse. That makes sense. No disrepected intended, as I can understand your point. I just hate the looks of Picatinny style rails on hunting rifles. Are there other bases that aren't so Picatinny-esque?

JesseL · « **Reply #62 on:** November 14, 2009, 02:46:27 pm »

No offense taken. I agree with you, Picatinny rails don't look right on hunting rifles.

You can get some two piece weaver bases. The classic problem with two piece bases is alignment. If they're not mounted perfectly, the rings won't line up perfectly, and the scope gets tweaked. The spherical bushings in the Burris Signature rings make that less of an issue.

That's exactly the setup I used on this Mauser:

cpaspr · « **Reply #63 on:** November 16, 2009, 04:53:51 pm »

Thanks Jesse.

That looks a lot like my setup, except mine has a stainless bull barrel and a plain jane composite stock. (I think. I guess I haven't really paid that much attention to the stock. It holds the action and the barrel, and it's black plastic, so I really haven't noticed if it has the checkering moulded in.)

The reason we (the friend who is helping me with this) were going to use a one-piece base is that the rear mount hole is already available. The Williams (or Wilson, whatever) current setup is two piece, but the rear mount only has one screw. We were going to fill the two side-by-side front mount holes and re-drill in-line for the one-piece mount.

bmitchell · « **Reply #64 on:** January 05, 2010, 11:13:45 am »

I recently picked up a good deal on a Savage 11 in 300WSM and I'm looking at 1" scopes to fit the two piece rings I've got coming.
MadOgre's scope comparisons are helping a ton but right now what I'm trying to decide is whether to go with the Nikon ProStaff now or wait a while and get a Leupold VX-II. What are y'all's thoughts?
Lapping and alignment of two-piece rings? The ones I've got on the way are some Talley Light rings that are both base and ring in one solid piece.

Ben

bmitchell · « **Reply #65 on:** January 06, 2010, 01:00:45 pm »

Talked to the Ogre today. He gave me a rundown on the Leupold prices Basin Sports has and steered me toward a Zeiss Conquest.

Ben

Survivalized · « **Reply #66 on:** September 16, 2010, 01:35:34 pm »

I'm interested in attended and LRI course next spring some time, but I can't seem to find a website or anything for them. Any of you guys know where I can find scheduling and pricing info for them?

Garaballo · « **Reply #67 on:** September 16, 2010, 02:43:37 pm »

Last time I asked Little Lebowski about it, he didn't send an answer back, their site is down last time I checked so maybe LL's brother is in deployment/ folded the company, who knows, it's meere speculation, Ogre's link to the L.R.I. forums gets me a blockpage.cgi, but I'm at work right now, so might as well check later.

Question, I have a rifle with 11mm dovetails, I have a scope with a certain diameter, what's the measure that matters when buying a pair of rings for a scope?, let's say I have a Bushnell Banner 4x32mm scope, should I measure the Ocular lens's tube diameter and then the base rings distance between the ring's contact surface with the base to the center of the rings? what about cheek weld? If the scope would sit too high, is there any other way other than adding pads to the stock?

Thernlund · « **Reply #68 on:** September 16, 2010, 03:13:00 pm »

Quote from: Cperry on September 16, 2010, 01:35:34 pm

I'm interested in attended and LRI course next spring some time, but I can't seem to find a website or anything for them. Any of you guys know where I can find scheduling and pricing info for them?

I don't think LRI is currently operating. I couldn't guess as to whether that's a permanent situation or not.

-T.

Survivalized · « **Reply #69 on:** September 16, 2010, 06:14:42 pm »

Bummer.

ksuguy · « **Reply #70 on:** September 16, 2010, 06:49:03 pm »

Quote from: Thernlund on September 16, 2010, 03:13:00 pm

I don't think LRI is currently operating. I couldn't guess as to whether that's a permanent situation or not.

-T.

I've also heard good things about the long range courses at Badlands Tactical in Oklahoma. However, I haven't taken any classes there, so I can't personally attest to their quality.

http://www.badlandstactical.net/home.htm

Tom The Impaler · « **Reply #71 on:** November 28, 2011, 08:05:06 pm »

Here's a nice question, Is there a valid way to test or examine scopes indoors? I've now spent good money on what I think to be a good scope, a Bushnell Tactical 6-24X50. I think it's pretty decent because I can readily spot .308 holes in paper at 150 yards, but there's no way to know that shopping inside a store is there? Or is there? Can resolution be checked within the confines of a shop? Or light transmission?

Thernlund · « **Reply #72 on:** November 28, 2011, 08:08:03 pm »

Generally if you stick to brands you know, you'll be fine.

I know quite a few stores (the local Cabela's here does this) put an eye chart on a far wall so as to allow the customer to test the optic.

They even had a rifle stock with little foam rubber "rings" that you could pop the scope in and out of to test.

-T.

Panhead Bill · « **Reply #73 on:** November 28, 2011, 08:51:43 pm »

Ok, I'm relatively new to the whole scope thing, but I'm glad I came across this thread, and a few other scope-related threads on WTA recently, as I almost bought a $70.00 scope at a chain sporting goods store a couple of weeks ago. A LOT of info I'm trying to process on scopes here, and I'm still not sure why exactly the cheap ones are bad, except I get that they are not good.

I'm not out long-distance hunting (for now), I just want to be able to see what I'm doing at the range at 100 yards with my Mini-14. But granted, I do want consistent accuracy when I do my part. Hell, back in the Corps I was hitting well at 500 yards and iron sights, but now my older eyes I can barely see the man-sized silhouette at 100 yards. I can hit decent sized groups with iron sights at 100 yards, but I would like to try it with a scope (never used one before - and I'm kind of sick of walking down range every 10 rounds to see where my shots are. (I tried a pair of cheap binos I had floating around but I still couldn't see the .223 sized holes).

I can't afford much (hence why I was even looking at a $70 scope), and the Mini-14 didn't cost me anything (so the scope costing the same as the rifle doesn't help any), so I'm trying to figure out what's a reasonable price range to spend on a scope for it, when it's more or less for plinking, although I'd like to get more out of it in the future.

Any suggestions on where I should start looking? Or do I wait until I can afford a $500+ scope and live with the iron sights and walking to see my POI until then?

Bill

Tom The Impaler · « **Reply #74 on:** November 28, 2011, 10:58:13 pm »

Well, as to why cheap is bad, I got the $50 cheapie Bushnell for my Ruger 10-22, ran about 200 rounds through it, and the reticle broke loose. I could tell because the groups moved from 2" at 85 yards at my range to "where the hell are they going?!". Mind you Wal-Mart replaced the scope free of charge but still.....

Also as you spend more for better quality you'll get better resolution (see above) and as your eyes get older you'll definitely appreciate it. You can still get decent optics without breaking the bank, just don't ask for too much for too little, and know that the $50 Bushnell is made in the same plant as the NC star probably is, better money buys better lenses, coatings, and sometimes waterproofing. you'll have to look carefully at the specs. Expectations play a big part in satisfaction. An easier cheat is to look at the reviews of the scopes at online retailers

To give an apples to apples comparison to the above, My 10X40 tactical Bushnell ($200) has helped me put 5 bullets into 1/2" at 100 yards with my .308, and the scope which replaced it, another, $700+ model tactical, can spot .308 holes at 150 yards, which the other couldn't, pretty nice.

A rule of thumb used often is to spend as much on the optic as the gun it goes on, that can be really hard to do as the price of the gun goes up, but I can't completely refute the statement. For your Ruger Mini 14 for instance, durability trumps clarity, as the mini 14 isn't known for it's accuracy, but ALL centerfire semi autos are well known to abuse scopes. My ROMAK AK gutted a Trijicon Tri Power same as the Bushnell mentioned above. The difference in that case? No retailer returns, I sent it back to Trijicon and they replaced it free of charge. pretty nice for an optic that pricey. So my advice would be to go Trijicon if you can afford it, or another premium red dot or low magnification scope, such as The Leupold tactical prismatic 1X.