I have a AHR modified CZ in 458 lott and I just picked up a Zeiss Duralyt 1.2-6 x36 scope from camera land.

(1) Scope work for lott?

(2) Quick detach rings to - Alaskan arms or Warne.

Thanks,

Mike

I recommend the Alaskan Arms rings.
Let us know how many rounds it takes before you are sighting through a kaleidoscope.

I looked at that scope good price but kinda too little eye relief for me. 3.5"?

Eye relief (and durability) are the only novel issues to me on scoping a Lott. Eye relief is my main concern, althouh I've had one scope go haywire.

As noted 3.5" is not nearly enough. Frankly, after being kissed, and not finding a suitable scope with sufficient eye relief, I'm tempted to go to a red dot or holographic.

My Lott has Talley bases and a big front bead. I have a Talley peep that fits on the rear base. That's the main sight.

What I thought about for somewhat longer ranges is a red dot or holographic on the front base.

Welcome thouthts.

D`Arch Echols simply will not mount any variable on a .458 Lott. Make of that what you will.

Damn this was supposed to be an easy set up.

Recoil does not bother me. But then I have not pushed it - max in bolt is 458 lott and 470 in a double.

However, I don't like getting whacked with a scope. Main reason I don't shoot the most accurate rifle I own - a remington custom awr 7 mm. The scope whacked me once and it was not too bad a whack but I stopped shooting the gun.

I am thinking now of getting a base from Wayne to put a Dr optic or trijicon or aimpoint on.

Thanks for info.

Mike

Put a Leupold 2.5 on it. Tons of eye relief and a tough scope.

The Leupold 2.5X fixed might work. Haven't checked the eye relief. But I've kind of become a fan of the red dots. They are more accurate than they should be.

The big bores can be amazingly accurate but any animal that requires you to use a 458 Lott probably doesn't need too much magnification.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
The big bores can be amazingly accurate but any animal that requires you to use a 458 Lott probably doesn't need too much magnification.

Now that is a ZEN master statement---the obvious clarifies our clouded minds.

I am pretty sure you can get a scope to work as others have with .505 Gibbs. That said I have a peep on my Lott and so far just a big dot and express sights on the .505. Eye relief and durability would be my main concerns. If it goes tango uniform in the field better have a backup plan

Nikon makes some great scopes that are more rugged than Leupold. They have great glass, long eye-relief and are reasonably priced.

For example, on a 458 Lott, you might try

Nikon Slughunter 1.65-5x36, often listed under shotgun scopes. It has a 5" eye-relief at all magnifications. 75 yard parallax.

For an all-around calibre try
Nikon Inline 3-9x40. It also has 5" eye-relief at all magnifications. 100 yard parallax.

The one caveat on the above scopes is that the mounting part of the scope is only 4.75" long. On a CZ you need to buy a mount directly from CZ in Europe, or else slide the front ring back into the magazine opening.

To avoid mounting problems, one could pick one of the Nikon 1-4's or go with the Nikon Monarch 2-8 compact. This last scope fits on a CZ and comes with 4" eye-relief all around. We used them for five years on our 416Rigbys and like them alot.

I've had Leupold and Nightforce variables on mine with no issues.

Mike,

There are quite few discontinued M8 3X around on the second hand market and I think the Leupold custom shop will build you a new one. Optically I think they are better than the 2.5 Compact Leupold and I've had excellent luck with them on my big rifles. I also just bought a Burris red dot sight and that has made me wonder why I ever thought a receiver sight was the trick.

Mark

I think Mark's idea of finding an older Leupold 3X is an excellent plan. I used one as a test scope for many, many, many years for dozens upon dozens of rifles from 375 to the Lott without any hiccups what so ever. I can not say the same about the zariable I have caved in made by Swaro's, Zeiss, Leica's, Leupold or S&B's

A Fixed Leupold 3X was made for the Lott. The longer eye relief is jut that, a relief and the longer tube length aids in mounting issues with longer actions.

I trashed two of my 3X leupolds on my .458 Lott. Sent them back to Leupold, at which time Leupold sent me a 2.5X compacts to replace one of them...The 2.5X compact with the adjustments placed under the turrets held up fine and is still on that rifle after maybe 10 or more years, and my 3X,s are for the 416 and under...

I found that all the scopes I tried on a Lott lasted up to 250 rounds in some cases, but usually they trashed out and rattled like a BB in a box car at about 25 to 100 rounds of full bore ammo..

If I still had my .458 Lott I would recommend a receiver sight, probably a Talley on their bases and a 2.5X compact in Talle QDs, realizing that scope use is essential for some of todays shooters.

In my case I think I would just use a shallow V on the barrel or a ghost sight peep of some kind. Its not a long range gun and irons suit me for ranges up to 150 or even 200 yards on about any rifle.

Big bores are not scope friendly, and will go tits up at the worst of moments IMO.

416Tanzan..
I picked up a Nikon Monarch 1x4 to put on a Lott at the advice of many on this forum, great scope for the money my only problem is that the Turrets are too big. The Windage Turret is big enough so that it impedes the loading of the weapon, I do not have this problem with other scopes. The scope is happily now sitting on a AR

quote:

Originally posted by Zephyr:
416Tanzan..
I picked up a Nikon Monarch 1x4 to put on a Lott at the advice of many on this forum, great scope for the money my only problem is that the Turrets are too big. The Windage Turret is big enough so that it impedes the loading of the weapon, I do not have this problem with other scopes. The scope is happily now sitting on a AR

Sorry, to hear about the loading problems with the windage turret. Haven't had the problem with CZs or Rugers.
In a duplex reticle that could be solved by rotating 90degrees counterclockwise, using the windage for vertical and the verticle, functioning as windage, would be on the left side of the rifle.

My wife really likes the 3-9 Nikon Inline(muzzleloader) on her 375 Ruger. It gives a very bright, crisp sightpicture, and helps to maintain eyerelief (5") by becoming crisp with a full black reticle when at the proper distance.

Turning the turrets was the next move until a good friend lent me a Swarovski 1.25x4.

My Lott has been put together for a Buffalo Cull Hunt this August in Aus. Like Ray I really like my Irons and am quite comfortable shooting them out to 100yrd, the scope on Talley QD rings is there for confidence in case I need some. I have been playing with a Burris Fast Fire III on this rifle but the jury is still out. I find I have to look for the dot and aesthetically I just can't warm up to the Burris, a rifle without a scope has such clean and lovely lines and as of now my eyes are still able to see the Irons. I am also running a green fiber optic on the front sight........ the guns comes up I put the green dot on the target and press the trigger.

On the weekend i put a Zeiss victory 1-4x20 on my 458 Lott after two or three shots a black fleck of internal paint flicked on to the lense ,is that whats meant by a ''Kaleido ''scope ? ,should i remove it ? and replace it with a Nikon ? before the Zeiss has a terminal ?

Tank
Return it to Zeiss, look for a Leupold 3x

quote:

and replace it with a Nikon ?

Yes, a good recommendation.

Maybe scope manufacturers [the more expensive ones at least] should have Recommendations as to what calibers their scopes will handle ,a bit like Woodleigh having velocity limits on their boxes for their projectiles .I put a Zeiss Conquest 3-9 on a braked 378, and from the first shots it was all over the place ! hopeless ,thought it was the rifle ,so replaced it with a Meopta Meostar and it started to group .The other alternative is the Nickel Magnum scope but at $3438.00 U.S too much for me .In this day and age they still cant make a decent big bore scopes ?? maybe those old Tascos they used to advertise that could handle 100s of 458 rounds

Will be interesting to see how my Swaros will fare atop a 416 B&M in a few weeks.

The Nikkon Inline muzzleloader and Slughunter shotgun scopes all have 5" eye relief throughout the magnification. They are crystal clear with clean black reticles at 5 inches and keep the scope off the forward. Oh, and they don't break under the heaviest recoil. They set a new standard in big bore scopes.

Did you try an Aimpoint hunter ?

I have never used one on a huge 458 but they seem very very strong.... could be an option.

I have a z6i 1-6 EER and it works perfect on a bolt gun. Its only 5" I believe instead of the 3 1/2". Got one on a M70 with leupold QR rings. Great scope but pretty heavy

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Having a pretty chewed up right eyebow, I've developed some ideas re scoping the big guns.

I mounted a 1-4 Kahles on my 500 Jeff. I knew eye relief was not much, but mounted it as far forward as possible and used a longer pull. I'd gotten "kissed' a few times, but figured with all the streching I had to do now, I should be OK.

Well..in the excitement of a buff, I could have put the scope near the muizzle and sill found a way to crawl up to it.

I really got split open...didn''t notice it or feel it, on followup shot, did it again! Now...that one got my attention!

So...eye relief is important no matter what LOP, since most shooters will place their head where they get a full field..just automatic!

The new extended eye relief by Swarovski (EER) seems like a good idea, but not worth much on a bolt gun. To acually utilize the EER, the ocular would end up partly over the ejection port...try to figure a mount for that one!

On a single shot or double,,,should be great.

I see nothing wrong with using a variable, but would give up that feature for longer eye relief, keeping in mind possible mounting constraints

The nikon will be about $2000+ less though which makes them a good deal

The Leupold 2.5 has 4.9 inches of eye relief. I have a Leupold 3X and it is less.

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
The nikon will be about $2000+ less though which makes them a good deal

Think there's an extra zero on that cost.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
416 Tanzan: Do you happen to have a photo of such a scope mounted on a bolt gun?

Here is something, though I might not know what you are asking:



The Ruger front ring is extended and with a different finish that relected light. Apologies for the grainy picture. Scope is Nikon Slughunter 1.65-5, 75 yard parallax. My wife's Nikon Inline is 3-9 and 40mm rather than 36mm, same Ruger ring set up, but without a picture.

I'm posting this for Duane Wiebe (CG&R) as his photo posting skills are somewhat below his gunmaking skills...

quote:

Here's the parameters: Shooter is 6-1, 14" LOP, blue tape is where his eye is positioned.

If the 5" eye relief is actually used, the ocular bell ends up on top of the bridge.

Normal 3.5 eye relief JUST allows for ring placement....This is the point I'm trying to make.

I suppose that some of this depends on the style of holding the head. How erect is the head positioned? How much forward lean is wanted. I've always naturally gravitated toward what I've assumed is a more 'British,' vertical, reserved head position rather than leaning into a scope and creeping forward on the comb.

In fact, I regularly keep back where the sight picture is less than full. With a 5" eyerelief I am able to get a full sight picture and be more acurately situated. However, ftr, we have been using 4" eyerelief 2-8 Nikon Monarchs on three separate 416Rigbys. I have a Nikon Omega Muzzleloader on a CZ shortbase ringholder in TZ, but we haven't been using it and it sits as a sidelined backup scope.

Neither my son or I have ever been creased on the eyebrow, though mistakes can always happen. This includes the eighties when we used to use the 2.5-8 Leupie, 3.6" eye-relief (on 338's) and others on 300's and 375's.

Here is a picture of my wife shooting a 375 Ruger with a Nikon Inline 3-9x40 with 5" eye relief from three weeks ago.



Length of pull is 13.5" using original Ruger recoil pad.

Here is a follow up picture with my wife holding a 500 AccRel Nyati, 14" LOP, Nikon slughunter scope, 5" eyereleif. (No she doesn't shoot it, but watches me bounce on the bench and asks me if I am allright after the shots.)



On the bench is her 375 Ruger with Nikon Inline 3-9 with 5-inch eyerelief.

I reckon it all comes down to how the shooter was/is taught to mount the rifle.

Me... I'm a stock crawler, always have been so very unlikely to change. Throw in a 35" sleeve length, the typical factory 13 1/2" LOP, and a scope with short eye relief and I'm ready made for "scope smiley faces" - which finally happened in June 2010.

As a result of the June scope encounter I've gone solely to rifle scopes having a static 4" eye relief throughout their variable power range. That at least has eliminated the need to stock crawl with the scope set to higher power settings.

Plus I now carry a couple of velcro secured removable recoil pads with me in case I shoot someone else's rifle.

An issue I'm working through right now is...
Swept back bolt handle (M70, M77, etc) and I'm good to go with 14 1/2" LOP wearing a thin summer shirt (with stock butt firmly planted) - plenty of room to cycle the bolt and not crawl to close to my scope.
But, my customized Mausers are wearing straight bolt handles which has shortened the max-LOP that I can cycle the bolt unimpeded to 14" (same thin summer shirt).
I know 1/2" isn't much - but to a stock crawler 1/2" might be a lot!

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Intersting...see where her head is...not unusual position for smaller people, Almost never see that with average sized men. Prone, sitting, would be almost impossible fo anyone to hold that far back


Not trying to start a fight in a phone booth, just pointing out that the EERs do not work for most shooters with a bolt gun ...IF... they want to utilize the full eye relief potential.

This is something for learning and consideration.

On a 500, I really don't intend to shoot it prone, and if I ever do, I suppose I'll be grateful for the reminder to keep my head back.

On the other, the picture shows more than 5" eyerelief, so the scope will bring her a bit forward. As I mentioned, I've had a habit of pulling back slightly behind where the full scope view is in focus. That is probably a result of doing my hunting in Africa with frequent use of heavier kicking rifles. On a 270, even 3 to 3.4 would be OK. With a 338 I would prefer 3.5 or 3.6 as a minimum. From 40cal up I prefer 4" to 5". Of course, my rifles tend to be 14" to 14.25" LOP.