I've just been reading a large book called CENTREFIRE RIFLE ACCURACY Creating and Maintaining It by W. Hambly-Clark Jnr, and find his words have reinforced my existential questioning of the image-movement concept in riflescopes.

Because my interests concern mostly the larger calibres - and to help RIP's 'mission' to take the matter beyond 458 chapters - I have taken the argument to the 458 Winchester Magnum thread in the AR Big Bores forum.

Hope to see you there.

This is all anyone needs to know about scope mounting, period.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com...in-zero#Post12367363

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
This is all anyone needs to know about scope mounting, period.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com...in-zero#Post12367363

Not bad but I prefer to bed bases to action and scopes to rings...it works also.

I agree with most of what Formidilosus wrote, particularly his comments about scope failure, ring spacing, overtightening and fragile scope tubes.

The Bill Hambly-Clark book I mentioned, however, is concerned with building rifles to the finest specs in order to achieve the greatest accuracy possible - and it may be his scope-mounting procedure is even more precise than Formidilosus's.

My own take on it all is that if optics are to be installed with that precision, the need for scopes with constantly centred reticles evaporates, leaving high-minded gunsmiths working with a scope technology in essence unworthy of their skill.

As explained above, I've put the guts of my argument in the 458 Winchester Magnum thread.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
This is all anyone needs to know about scope mounting, period.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com...in-zero#Post12367363

Eyeballing the reticle vertical alignment? No thanks.

I put a level on the rail, then align the vertical with a 20 story building that I know to be without vertical taper (most structures are, but you can test by by ensuring the subtension of width is the same at the bottom as the top).

Very small error can result in horizontal errors as you dial up.

the best scope mounts ever are now and forever European claw mounts....Always know your scope is in working order before you start..shoot it.

Its easy to mount a scope properly with most of todays scope mounts,most problems turn out to be the scope itself...

I use a tad of glass bedding compound to anchor the screws and 8/40s beat 6/48s, and don't beat me up and tell me 6/48 work just fine, I know they do, but 8/40 are stronger with more metal, and that's just common since..

A little leather cement inside the rings is a plus also..I don't believe in grinding the inside of the rings, that is naughty IMO...

Properly fitted bases on a surface ground receiver is a double duty plus on any rifle and really helps return to zero with detachable rings..Custom bases are a plus to consider for the same reasons...

I do all these things on most of my rifles or did when I was hunting throughout most of the year and at the mercy of airline baggage handlers....

Accuracy most of the time depends on the gun unless you have a bad scope.Its an all togather separate matter IMO.....

Reliability is what you deal with in scopes and mounts..

quote:

Originally posted by matt salm:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
This is all anyone needs to know about scope mounting, period.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com...in-zero#Post12367363

Not bad but I prefer to bed bases to action and scopes to rings...it works also.

This times infinity, Plus 8x40 threads.

I almost exclusively use the Talley one piece base/rings mounts now. Base and rings are one piece and take away nearly all of the guesswork of alignment when the base and rings are made separately. I wouldn't go back to separate bases and rings.

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:
I almost exclusively use the Talley one piece base/rings mounts now. Base and rings are one piece and take away nearly all of the guesswork of alignment when the base and rings are made separately. I wouldn't go back to separate bases and rings.

I would be inclined to agree with that but was surprised to find Bill Hambly-Clark did not. His hunting for pigs etc required a lot of quick reloading where bridges got in the way. His alignment of the two-piece rings was greatly dependant on use of a mandrel.

In my hunting, however, that reloading need is much reduced, so I would do it your way.

As it happens, I'm buying a used Zastava 9.3x62 that has two-piece Talley mounts on it. I might try them with a Bausch & Lomb 'Custom' scope, which has no adjustments, just to see how well aligned they are. If good, I'll open the rings out to 26mm and mount an old Nickel Supra 2.5x scope. If they have just been thrown on for use with a modern scope, I'll replace them with adjustable mounts, maybe Leupold STDs.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
This is all anyone needs to know about scope mounting, period.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com...in-zero#Post12367363

Eyeballing the reticle vertical alignment? No thanks.

I put a level on the rail, then align the vertical with a 20 story building that I know to be without vertical taper (most structures are, but you can test by by ensuring the subtension of width is the same at the bottom as the top).

Very small error can result in horizontal errors as you dial up.

No offense, but this guy sees more rounds go down range in a year (over 500,000) than most anyone here does in 10 lifetimes. He knows what works and what doesn't as well as anyone, and better than most everyone.

Levels are horribly inaccurate, much better off eye balling it , or better yet using string on the wall.

Even machinist levels.

That post was good advice but I no longer trust loctite. I have had too many scope base screws come loose even red loctited in. For serious rifles, like my prone M70



hard to see the glue joint, but it is there:



I epoxy glued the base to the receiver. Much better than finding out during a match, which has happened to me, that the base is loose!

I also epoxied this base down, once it loosened up



and this one too:



Once base screws loosen up, I epoxy the base down.

Did this one too:





Had it for thirty years, no problem and then I noticed if I grabbed the scope, it moved!. Base screws had gotten loose.

In so far as establishing perpendicular on the cross hairs. I tried bubbles and levels. And now, I have given up on those. The absolute best way is to go to the range, set up a plumb bob on your target and aim low at the target, lets say 100 yards, and fire a round. Then, crank on your 600 or 1000 yard elevation (about 31 MOA up for 6,5's) and see if the bullet goes up straight. If it goes up at a cant, you have cant in your cross hairs. And while you are there, you loosen the scope ring screws and figure out which way to rotate the scope to get the cant out.

If you can't shoot a group, then it won't really matter. But I can, and I can see cant in my smallbore rifles, and I am only going up from 50 yards to 100 yards. But you know, if you want them in the middle, you have to take the cant out.



All it takes to shear the epoxy is a hit with a plastic mallet. Then you can scrape the epoxy off.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
This is all anyone rpimneeds to know about scope mounting, period.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com...in-zero#Post12367363

Eyeballing the reticle vertical alignment? No thanks.

I put a level on the rail, then align the vertical with a 20 story building that I know to be without vertical taper (most structures are, but you can test by by ensuring the subtension of width is the same at the bottom as the top).

Very small error can result in horizontal errors as you dial up.

No offense, but this guy sees more rounds go down range in a year (over 500,000) than most anyone here does in 10 lifetimes. He knows what works and what doesn't as well as anyone, and better than most everyone.

500,000 rounds is 1369 rounds every day, 365 days a year. There are only 1,440 minutes in a day, so if he is watching (you didn't say shooting) 12 hours a day, he is watching a bullet every 30 seconds. Not sure what he is learning doing that. It only takes a few bullets shot at long range with a cant to see the impacts.

Well he either eyeballs things perfectly or he doesn't shoot at long range. Canting matters; it is math, not an opinion.

It is fairly simple to level the reticle, but to be fair, if you don't mount a level, you probably cant in the field anyway, and for hunting at normal ranges it is of little consequence anyway.

He(and his "guys")test ammo, optics, rifles, bullets, trains snipers, etc for US DOD. It's his job to know what holds up and what doesn't. Lives depend on it. He goes by Formidilosis over on 24HCF if you don't believe his credentials.

On a bolt action. If the rails on the bottom of the receiver are square to the top of the action you can secure the bottom of the rails to a 4X4 with a C clamp or some non scaring device. You might even use a bungie.
Level the 4X4 (Y axis) On a secure saw horse.
Set up a plumb bob. Match the scope vertical / X axis cross hair to the plumb line. Tighten ring screws around scope.
Just have to remove the stock.


EZ

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
This is all anyone rpimneeds to know about scope mounting, period.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com...in-zero#Post12367363

Eyeballing the reticle vertical alignment? No thanks.

I put a level on the rail, then align the vertical with a 20 story building that I know to be without vertical taper (most structures are, but you can test by by ensuring the subtension of width is the same at the bottom as the top).

Very small error can result in horizontal errors as you dial up.

No offense, but this guy sees more rounds go down range in a year (over 500,000) than most anyone here does in 10 lifetimes. He knows what works and what doesn't as well as anyone, and better than most everyone.

500,000 rounds is 1369 rounds every day, 365 days a year. There are only 1,440 minutes in a day, so if he is watching (you didn't say shooting) 12 hours a day, he is watching a bullet every 30 seconds. Not sure what he is learning doing that. It only takes a few bullets shot at long range with a cant to see the impacts.

Well he either eyeballs things perfectly or he doesn't shoot at long range. Canting matters; it is math, not an opinion.

It is fairly simple to level the reticle, but to be fair, if you don't mount a level, you probably cant in the field anyway, and for hunting at normal ranges it is of little consequence anyway.

Get dude ain't all that and a bag of chips. I take him with a grain of salt, he has his agenda for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Abbispa:
Levels are horribly inaccurate, much better off eye balling it , or better yet using string on the wall.

Even machinist levels.

Totally disagree. What do you base this on? I put a level on the rail using a fitted square rod that meshes into the rail slot. While the rifle is level, I rotate the scope so that the vertical is perfectly aligned with a 20 story building that is plumb (I used to use the string method, but the building is much better). When the level on the rail is level, my vertical is aligned with the building, I rotate the scope level so that is is showing level. After things are tightened, I check the vertical by putting the crosshair at the lowest part of the building that I can see and then dial up, making sure the crosshair tracks against the vertical line of the building. When I get to the top I double check to make sure there is no space anywhere at between my horizontal crosshair and the top of the building.

Sometimes I wonder if any of you guys stating eyeballing is best have ever visited an F class match. The guy that built my last rifle built the rifle for the guy who just won the national F class championship (that guy is Brian Bowling).

I use a Reticle Tru alignment device. It's foolproof in getting the reticle aligned with the bore of your rifle. I don't trust myself t eyeball it perfectly.

https://parabola-llc.com/

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:


Get dude ain't all that and a bag of chips. I take him with a grain of salt, he has his agenda for sure.

So what exactly is his agenda?

I use a simple retical alighnment tool, but if it looks wrong to me and sometimes it does I just eyeball it. I will suggest that Sambarman takes into consideration truing the action to the world (surfact grind) or no QD is going work unless you get lucky, nor any fixed Talley for that matter, many come true from the manufacturer, as with barrels not all fit a with perfection but it doesn't take long to find out, a scope that's not in the center of its focal plane will not hold a zero as a rule. and the number of scopes Ive seen that were sighted in were in the very edge of its focal plane and that's not a good thing, and surprisingly over looked..

Yes Ray, for the precision Bill Hambly-Clark requires, truing the action is required. You would probably get even more out of his book than I have but might find some of his concerns obsessive, too.

I'm having fun at the moment setting up that Zastava 9.3x62, trying three types of mounts and three one-inch steel scopes but have not reamed any rings out for the 26mm Nickel Marburg. The Talley mounts lined up fine laterally but needed shims for elevation. That's no problem but it occurred to me that if our reaming of the rings is not perfect, things might go astray, so I put on some Burris windage mounts. I've also got modern QD Mauser mounts (from someone's recent Rigby ) but the upper ring has to snap over the tube and I was afraid of scratching the scope. (Is there a trick beyond brute force for getting them on?)

I took the rifle to the range with the better of those Unertl Hawks on it (a very nice scope with excellent field blending and eye relief). The coarse crosswires worked well on targets but I want the rifle for darker forests, so have since replaced it with my old Kahles 2.3-7. The rifle shot well but the impact was way below bore sight, so perhaps this action was not well trued.

Back home I added a tapering shim beneath the rear base but, inspired by that book, will remove the shim and get my fitter-turner buddy to mill a similar amount from under the front base. I shortened the over-long butt stock yesterday and am tempted to customise the rest of it, too.

You can insert some paper, I have some very tough thin paper that's used on ropes, the ropes that cowboys use, and it will protect your scope and work just fine...Those ropes are made by Fast Back, Classic, and Cactus, and Im sure they are available in Aussie land as many good ropers come from there..its a hard slick paper that's part of the label. There are other sources for the same paper, but I can't recall where, I just run across them and toss them in a box for future use. The also work well for checking the free float of your rifle barrel without tearing like regular paper..Sorry I can't give you more info on the stuff, just never thought about it until now.

I wonder if the majority of these problems would disappear if folks just used fixed power scopes??? I have never had a problem with my 3X and 4X Leupolds, not one and most of which are like me, older n' dirt, We've been friends since the centered reticle showed up. I know your no fan of the centered reticle, but does that include a "fixed" centered reticle.

Every scope Ive had to send back for repair or adjustment has been a variable. Not counting those a horse rolled over and broke into that Leupold replaced with a new one!! or one that a hunter twisted the power to hard and ruined it, and Leupold replaced, then binocs they replaced and today have never charged me a dime, not even postage, that in itself voids a lot of scope problems in my books..

I read the 24 hour post and have pretty much followed his procedure..other than I tap out 6/49s to 8/40s and use glass bedding to anchor scope base screws on heavy recoiling rifles.f

The only functional problems from the factory Ive had with todays scopes has been recoil related and I found the fix for those ugly big big bores is the Leupold 2.5X compact, it doesn't fail, but that's another subject..

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
You can insert some paper, I have some very tough thin paper that's used on ropes, the ropes that cowboys use, and it will protect your scope and work just fine...Those ropes are made by Fast Back, Classic, and Cactus, and Im sure they are available in Aussie land as many good ropers come from there..its a hard slick paper that's part of the label. There are other sources for the same paper, but I can't recall where, I just run across them and toss them in a box for future use. The also work well for checking the free float of your rifle barrel without tearing like regular paper..Sorry I can't give you more info on the stuff, just never thought about it until now.

Thanks Ray, is that paper reference to do with getting those two-thirds Mauser rings over scope barrels? I think I know the paper you mean, the slippery stuff big envelopes often have over the flap adhesive.

I asked the local gun dealer about the rings and he opined that Allen keys etc are usually used to strain them open far enough to prevent scratching the scope.

As to your question about '"fixed" centered reticles', I'm all for them. I have discovered that the Bausch & Lomb 'Custom' mounting system could take a toll on alloy scope tubes - but I would counter that by extending the ring assembly to include steel bands at the points of engagement with the cradle. Another means would be to replace B&L's front, windage 'cotton reels' with floating bearers giving more-extended engagement.

Yes, variables are much more likely to give trouble, especially since the zoom mechanism is all housed in the erector set, which has been let loose by constantly centring the reticles. I am even more suspicious about the enormous zoom multiples being trotted out now, considering the trouble makers had getting beyond three or four 60 years ago.

I love the magic pudding of makers giving new scopes for old (even if you got them from a pawn shop) but suspect they are often a desperate measure to cover the inherent fragility of alloy one-inch scopes with articulated erector tubes and laterally stressed springs.

They have a tiger by the tail. To make an old-style scope (for anyone but Ray Atkinson ) would be to admit that the emperor has no clothes, so they just hand out free scopes and hope the penny won't drop. Some scopes do get repaired, of course, and putting most of the guts in the erector tube does make this easier because everything comes out together and might be replaced with a new assembly.

As I've said before, Ray, if you ever feel like selling that one-off scope Leupold made for you, I'd like to buy it. I could get you to send it to a friend in the US, and worry about the export licence later.

Cheers
'Sam'

That's the stuff and it should work for you..

Im a bit confused now, what scope is it that you would like to have? The ones that come to mind are optics that were damaged by a horse rolling over and breaking it in half, and one of the scopes had the power ring twisted near off by a hunter, I did have a couple rattle like a BB in a box car from a 7.5 Lb. 505 gibbs Imp..but then it trashed a number of scopes, Nikon, Leupold, Redfield, sooner or later..ended up sold to a tough SOB who shot it with irons and loved it until it injured his eye.

Im more than pleased with leupold and that guarantee btw, and over the years with the exception of big bore recoil, and they fixed that some time back with the 2.5 Compact, and then the abuse that was uncalled for by a awkard horse and a awkard hunter, they have served me well indeed in the field..Better, in fact, than the others I tried..especially in the Idaho cold wherein other scopes fogged and cross hairs popped. Im not even nearly as knowledgeable on scopes as you are and I say that not in jest, its a fact, but I have to tell you I think Im grateful for that! you have definatly increased my knowledge of the glass sight considerably and for that Im grateful..BTW I picked up a couple of scopes and guns I purchased, a Swift and some other scope of unknown brand. I.ll check and see what they are, you may or may not want them.

Thanks Ray, I'm thinking of the one you used on the 458 Lott and 505 Gibbs for more than 1000 shots, then retired to your .375.

Leupold's saying you didn't need to worry about reliability because the reticle is under the turrets seems a dead give-away that it is reticle-movement. To simply put the reticle in the first focal plane on a modern scope with constantly centred reticle would, if anything, do the opposite, as there would be even more weight up front where recoil affects the erector tube most.