Scope School

[Thernlund]

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.

[Harm]

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:

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]

Good to know.


-T.

[Harm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(I personally hate these and hope they go away)

AMEN!

[cpaspr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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