I have been talking to a gunmaker about a project I have ongoing, and the resulting rig is anticipated to have an extremely 'quick' recoil. 270 Winchester caliber range.

Question is, this maker suggests that this type of recoil is prone to 'tearing out' the erector assembly on scopes such as Swaro or Zeiss. I have never had an issue with either of these scopes, have once with a Leupold. I am curious if folks have insight to durability of Zeiss or Swaro scopes in this circumstance.

Thanks for any feedback--Don

Fish:

I use and have used the bigger Swaro and Zeiss (2.5x10x56mm, 4-16x50mm, and a couple of the small 3-9x) scopes mounted on 257 and 300 weatherbys (no muzzle brake), 30-378 and 338-378 weatherbys (with muzzle brakes) and I have not had a failure in 10 years of using these scopes...that's not to say that they will not fail but I have not seen one fail....my friends use them as well...

I can not imagine having a problem with a 270 winchester???? Who is the maker of the rifle???

Most of my scopes are Swaro. I never had a failure in cal. 7x64, .300 Win, .338 Win, 9x3x62, 9,3x74R. I once examined a dented Swaro scope whose adjustments worked as good as when new. It sat on the rifle of a Scottish Highlands gamekeeper (they're not known for babying their "tools") who said he had "tried" many and retained Swaro for it's ruggedness...

quote:

Originally posted by Fish30114:
...the resulting rig is anticipated to have an extremely 'quick' recoil. 270 Winchester caliber range.
Don

Don, I'm not quite sure I understand your description above?? Is the intention to build a .277 cal rifle using some mega wildcat??

Kirby Allen - who used to (and still does?) post here under the alias "fiftydriver" - builds some of the wildest .270 wild cats I have come across. I have a picture of Kirby with his .270 AM and a woodchuck (or something) shot at over 1000 yds... The scope used on that rifle is a Leupold - most likely one of their LR or tactical models. Sorry not to be more specific.

- mike

i think maybe your smith has a bit of a B.S. problem

I once had a problem with a Zeiss Diavari 1.5-6x42 T* that I mounted on a Win 70 416 Rem Mag. I had contacted Zeiss and asked them whether mounting it on a 416 would be OK, and they wrote back "go ahead". After about 100 round the reticle became loose. I sent it back to Zeiss. They repaired it and included a "we don´t know why this happened" note. I put it back onto the 416, and after only 50 rounds my groups started to scatter: again the reticle...

I am now using Leupolds VXIII on the 416 and I have had no problems whatsoever with them. Naturally, the optical quality of the Leupold does not match the Zeiss´.

I learnt from that experience that strong recoil is not a good thing for large relatively massive scopes.

Recoil on scopes can be a weird thing. I once read someplace that pellet air rifle scopes had to be built much stronger than magnum rifle scopes, due to the fact that there is a two-way recoil that is more damaging on the scope mechanisms.

I haven't yet managed to break a Swarovski or Kahles. I have more than a dozen of them mounted on everything from 270 Wins and WSM's, 300 Ultra's, 375 H&H's even a 458 Lott. I'm not expecting the one on the 458 Lott to last forever but I don't shoot it at Prarie dog towns. I've read that the PH models with the coil springs tend to be more durable which is probably the case, but I've had the AV's on a number of Magnums also. A buddy of mine has managed to smash a few Swarovski items and has received exemplary service from Swaro, so I know that when one does break I won't worry about it much, it will get fixed quick.
I have managed to break a few Leupolds which is one reason that I've been investing in Swarovski's as often as possible.

I haven't yet managed to break a Swarovski or Kahles. I have more than a dozen of them mounted on everything from 270 Wins and WSM's, 300 Ultra's, 375 H&H's even a 458 Lott. I'm not expecting the one on the 458 Lott to last forever but I don't shoot it at Prarie dog towns. I've read that the PH models with the coil springs tend to be more durable which is probably the case, but I've had the AV's on a number of Magnums also. A buddy of mine has managed to smash a few Swarovski items and has received exemplary service from Swaro, so I know that when one does break I won't worry about it much, it will get fixed quick.
I have managed to break a few Leupolds which is one reason that I've been investing in Swarovski's as often as possible. I've had some good service from Leupold but I did have one occassion where they didn't and wouldn't repair a scope that was giving me problems. I had 2 scopes in QD rings with the Leupold the gun shot 4" groups, immediately switched out to a Swaro and the same gun, same day, same ammo off the same bench shot 1/2" groups, Leupold told me there was nothing wrong with the scope.
If I can afford them I'll always buy Swaro over a Leupold, though with the Euro so high Leupy's are seeming more attractive................DJ

Thanks for the replies folks, The rifle is a plain jane .270 Winchester. I am a big Swarovski fan, I've got 16 of them and 3 pairs of their Binoculars. I have several Zeiss scopes 4 or 5 Conquests among them. I have only had one scope problem, and it was a Leupold on a .270 Weatherby. Fair, but not great customer service, slow turn around and I got rid of that scope.

I was planning on putting a Swaro 4x12x50 on this rig, and just wanted to see if there was something I was missing. I'm hoping it's what butchloc said.

I wasn't wanting to point out the riflemaker, but in light of the feedback I think it's OK, the rifle is a New Ultra Light Arms, and Melvin has just stated that; 'I used to not say anything, but I have seen this problem with quite a few Swarovski and Zeiss scopes, and when we changed the scope, the problem went away, so we know it was the previous scope. The scopes we found out what the actual issue was, it turned out to be the erector assembly.'

Melvin warned me that the recoil on his rifle, due to them being so light would be very fast, and cause scopes to be more susceptible to problems than typical. Even in a non magnum round like the .270, he just forewarned that it would just be a matter of time before I had an issue.

I've got Swaro's and Zeiss scopes on .300 Win MAg's, 300 WSM's, and a bunch of others, .270 Win and WSM,among them, and have never had a problem, I just wanted to be thorough and ask the AR gang if they felt there was any merit to this issue.

I think I'm comfortable to put one more Swaro 4x12x50 on and rock and roll....

Thanks again guys--Don

Fish, If you can try and get the TDS or even better the TDS-4 on your 4-12x50. I have TDS's on 2 of my 270's and they work great with 130 and 140gr bullets, I haven't tried them with 150's.
Forbes might have a point you might keep us posted if you have any problems. I have 2 of the Colt light rifles supposedly designed with his help and on those I used Leupy's because the bolt clearance was a little tight with the wider ocular end of a Swaro and the leupy's fit better. You might ask Forbes about bolt clearance.
Just my unwanted opinion but on my Finnlite 270 I went with the 3-10x42 TDS because it was a little lighter on the lightweight rifle and used the 4-12x50 on a slightly heavier 270. I have more of the 4-12's though. I'm not sure which is better overall but I think those are my two overall favorite lightweight scopes...............DJ

DJ, that's a good thought about the 3x10x42 being lighter. I've got a couple of the 4x12x50's with the TDS, I haven't familiarized myself with the TDS 4 yet, I'll have to check it out. It might be worth it to go with the 42 TDS on this rig, I was looking for it to be a long range light weight antelope rig.....

Thanks--Don

quote:

think maybe your smith has a bit of a B.S. problem

I agree.Having owned six swarovski scopes mounted on rifles chambered for cartridges including the 300ultramags and 375h&h,I have found them totally reliable.

There might be something to the ultra light rifle beating up scopes. The only scopes I have seen mounted on them have been Leupolds..I can say one thing if Melvin Forbes has reservations about them then there is something to it. I wouldn't have a problem with a Zeiss or Swaro on a heavier rifle but he may be onto something. That said I am going to pickup my new 3.5-10x42 tomorrow

I have (2) NULA's from Melvin Forbes in 270 WSM and 300 WSM. They both wear 4.5-14 Zeiss Conquests and I have had no problems. They both had Vari X III's on them when I purchased (no problems either), but I changed to Zeiss only because my eyes like the optics a little better. I also have a Colt light with Lone Wolf stock in 300 Win. that has worn both Zeiss and Leupold Vari X III's with no problems. I respect Melvin's word and don't doubt him, but I have experienced zero problems. By the way, love his rifles!

Coltchris, thanks for the info. What mounts do you have on your NULA's?

Sempre, let us know how your 3x10x42 suits you!

Thanks guys--Don

Could it be that Mr. Forbes predisposition towards "built in USA" or his ultralight mentality (am right the Leupold is many oz lighter) could have anything to do with his reccomendation?