If I knew how to ask this as a poll I would but I don't so I will just ask; when outfitting a scope to your custom rifle do you always use function as your ruler or do you consider how the scope will look on your rifle? Thank you. Gary

Well, Gary, as with Modernist architecture, perhaps it is best to let form follow function. For extreme long range or low-light work you might need something long with a large front bell, otherwise keep it smallish with not too much hanging out the front.

Not only does a big scope make a rifle look top-heavy but is more vulnerable to bumps and needs a higher-combed stock to get your eye in alignment. Despite marketing trends, big, high-powered scopes are not needed for hunting big game at sporting distances.

quote:

Despite marketing trends, big, high-powered scopes are not needed for hunting big game at sporting distances.

Couldn't agree more.

quote:

it is best to let form follow function

Well said, Sambarman.

For a conventional game hunting rifle, a high-mounted, large objective, high-magnification scope is simply out of place -- both in form and in function. The magnification is not needed (and can be a hindrance) and its bulk and weight detract from the portability and handling qualities of the rifle. That's why a low-mounted and fairly compact scope looks better on such a rifle.

On the other hand, on a heavy-barreled varmint/target rifle you both need and expect a larger, higher-magnification scope, perhaps with parallax adjustment or other bells and whistles. That's why such a scope looks just fine on a heavy rifle (and a 4x Alaskan with its svelt 7/8" tube would look silly on such a rifle.)

So, yes, it is both function and appearance, but appropriate appearance is closely related to function.

Thanks Stonecreek. BTW I don't think I've sent you a book yet. PM me your address and I'll pop the latest, custom-enhanced version in the mail.