I just got to go pick up my new ICON .458 this morning and mounted a Nikon Monarch Gold 1.5x6 (30mm tube) scope on it.

The gun looks great. I haven't shot it yet, but I have fed a bunch of rounds through and it feels smooth. Can't wait to take it to the range.





The best group at 100 yards that the factory got out of it was right at .25". The last group was the worst, and it was .81". See the below target. The note from the test shooter said he felt like he flinched on the first shot.
For some reason photobucket is rotating this image.
If I can get it to shoot like this at 50 yards, I will be thoroughly satisfied.

Will report in when I take it to the range. That will likely be Monday...

There's a lot to like about this rifle, aside from the potential accuracy. I didn't know the Icon was available in 458.

I like the way it looks, the classic stock, the layout of the grain through the wrist, and I like the shape of the pistol grip, which should enable the shooter to pull it back on his shoulder well. I think I like the safety set-up and the floor plate release. I like the simplicity and sturdiness of the scope base/ring attachment, and no sights.

KB

KB,

The gun feels great. It is a 2 position safety, but it also has a safety lock, so you can unload from safe.

Those built in bases are great, and they custom made these where you can still see through them if you choose to have express sights installed.

The ICON isn't available in anything bigger than .338 in normal offerings, but this was through the custom shop, and they can make about anything you want.

My only worry is the recoil. The gun weighs like 8.2 pounds bare. Not sure with scope and loaded mag of (1 in th epipe and 3 down). If it is just terrible, I will consider a merc recoil reducer in the stock, but I hope I don't need to go that route as the gun feels great right now and will be nice to carry on long treks for elephant and buff.

Recoil - ahh yes - recoil.

The rifle would surely be fun with moderate and reduced loads. With full blast African loads for buff, etc. well - it's your shoulder. It will be an easy carry though.

IMO, it will be a test of the durability of the scope too. I have known scopes to fail under the recoil of the 458, and lesser hard-kicking cartridges. But I've never had a Leupold fail, which is why my light 458 carries a 1x4 Leupold right now.

If I had Africa plans, I would get two scopes, to have an extra. Put both in quick detach rings, sight them both in, and test the switching. The scope for the close in, and heavy loads, could be a red-dot scope, if you like them. Another idea is to have one scope sighted in for the Buff heavy loads, and have the other ready for use with 300 gr Barnes TSX on other game. That really adds versitility to the rifle, IMO.

I think I like your choice of scope. 1.5x6 should do for close in and out there too. IMO a scope on the 458 has to have qualities such as long eye relief, wide field of view, low power option, clarity, light weight (heavy scope will pound itself to death internally, and prone to move in the rings). I also like a heavy reticle, and even a post or German #3, or whatever it's called. The test will be whether it holds up under the recoil.

Another think - I don't see any cross bolts, etc. for reinforcmant, and I can't tell what has been done for extra recoil lug, or bedding. Before taking it to Africa, I would shoot the African loads of your choice quite a bit through that rifle, just to test it and the scope for durability, and of course your shouder too.

Have fun. FYI, I have no intention of using full power loads in my 458, but I have no Africa plans either.

KB

It has a full aluminum block with 2 lugs, but no cross lugs.

I took this scope off my .416 rugby (single shot) that was a kicker, and it has held up well. I will likely take a spare, and I plan to shoot a good bit in th enext 2.5 months to see how everything handles the recoil.

Only time will tell...

I have broken 4 leupold scopes in the last 12 years on my .450 Dakota. Just got a new one last week and will mount it tomorrow. They are serious about that warranty.

That's interesting about the four broken Leupolds. Hasn't happend to me yet, but I haven't used a variable scope much on the 458. Last 458 I had, I used the iron sights a lot, but most of the time it wore an old Leupold 3x, because it was the scope I had that had the most eye relief. I pounded that thing a lot, and it wouldn't break. Now I'm using a variable, so I'll see how it holds up.

Now that I look at the Icon again, one thing I might wish for is a cheek piece, simply because I like to get my cheek down firmly on the stock, and more so especially the more it kicks. I emphasize eye relief because a 458 is the only rifle ever to bite me in the eyebrow with the scope. That made an impression on me, pun intended, so now I pay attention to stance, grip, cheek weld, held firm on my shoulder, etc, when messing with heavy loads. My rifle doesn't have a cheek piece either, but I would prefer that it did.

I'm just getting back into loading and shooting the 458, and now realize how much I missed it. Later, I'm planning on posting a range report. Initial tests look good.

I'm interested in reading more on your Icon too.

KB

quote:

I emphasize eye relief because a 458 is the only rifle ever to bite me in the eyebrow with the scope. That made an impression on me, pun intended, so now I pay attention to stance, grip, cheek weld, held firm on my shoulder, etc, when messing with heavy loads.

I think there is a basic design flaw with most over 40 DG rifles. The flaw is too mount the scope directly to machined points on the action. This makes it impossible to take full advantage of long eye relief scopes. If you look at the Leupold base for a M70 or M700 you see the rear ring is moved forward. You cannot do this on a Ruger, CZ Ikon or any other of the classy, classic rifle.

On my 505 Gibbs a mounted a full length weaver base over the action. It solved the eye brow / flinch problem but the scope is higher.I did the same on my 458Lott.

I think the IKON missed an opportunity by not designing a full length weaver mount into the action. They opted for style over function. And it does look better, but the result is all this critical cheek weld, flinching, slow shooting (taking care, head back -unnatural) --- why? For style? I understand the 458 is a one time build, on the catalog offerings it does not matter much.

I got my first look at an IKON recently and the design could easily have incorporated a full length weaver base- they don't have to be a slave to tradition styling since this is an ultra modern design.

2c plus change,

I think also that's why a lot of guys go with iron sights, besides the other traditional reasons. That's what I did for a while, and it felt pretty good not having to worry about that damn scope hitting me again. And the rifle balanced and handled quicker too. It's funny how the mind works, but without the scope the rifle actually felt like it recoiled much less, but I know that's not true - it only felt that way.

Eventually I went back to the scope, and it's ok for now. I'm still very mindful of eye relief. On the rifle I'm setting up now, a Ruger, it seems ok, but maybe could be better. Last day or two, I've been messing with it, and discovered that if I set the rear ring too close to the power adj ring, that the darn thing is too difficult to turn, after the scope ring is tightened down and all. So I have to bring it back 3/8 inch or so to relieve whatever presure is causing the power ring hard to turn. For the next few weeks, I'll use reduced loads, and see how it feels.

The problem re eye relief is you can set the scope forward only so far before getting reduced field. Of the scopes I've compared, the Leupold provided the most distance between my eyebrow and the scope, while still maintaining the field of view. I looked at 30mm, but couldn't tell any difference in those two factors. I basically quit looking at other scopes. Maybe others have more experience, and can add info here.

I tried a red dot scope for a while, and see potential there, but it takes some getting used to. Nice things about it are plenty of eye relief, and both eyes open. I think a good low power illuminated traditional type scope will serve both purposes - quick with both eyes open, and with more magnification precise shots at longer range.

Another thing - I'm not so sure that the designers of the Icon were slaves to tradition re the absence of the full weaver type base. They could have been thinking of keeping that loading port open for quick reloading, and of course, the full base isn't necessary in most applications.

KB

Not to



Here is an example of the system - ignore the gun hijacked from had rifle forum. Note this rail allows total versatility. The TC Ikon is a modern action and this is the latest and greatest scope mounting system. A perfect combo. TC already does this in a lower profil and neater package - but they cut away the center part?

Tim,

Does that sling swivel stud bite your fingers when you shoot it from a field position or sticks? I think avoiding that is one reason for using barrel studs.

That's from the custom shop and they don't know to install a barrel band!?

I have only shot it from the bench getting it dialed in. I hope to get out and shoot it from sticks this coming week, and I will see about the sling studs then.

Tim I've got a ZKK-602 in .416RM and a CZ-550 in .458 Lott. Both rifles weigh in around 9.5 lbs empty and neither had barrel bands. Both were a p.i.t.a. due to the front sling swivel studs, ripped your hands if you weren't careful.

I've had the Lott repaired with a barrel band and the .416 is at the 'smith getting fixed right now.

Something to think about; I'm just surprised the TC 'Custom' shop doesn't understand the need...

I am definitely thinking about it!...and I will have one installed if it is a problem without a doubt.

A friend, who is built like an orangutan, has the same problem. He's barrel chested, long arms, no neck, and very hard head. In addition to the barrel band sling stud, he insisted in shortening the length of pull to what I figured was about 12". The darn rifles fit him though, which is most important. I watched how he held the rifle, and he reached way up there on the forend, so I can see how a normal position stud would bite him. Orangutans would actually need barrel band sling studs.

I tried shooting his big bore rifles. With such a short butt stock, naturally I had to be careful not to get too close to the scope, and had some trouble planting my cheek, and darn near every stinkin time my thumb would whack my nose. I hated that.

I've not had the problem of the sling stud biting, but I hold the stock with my hand several inches from the stud. I always figured that most barrel bands were for those who just had to have the look. They also insist on having iron sights, and use a scope anyway.

One thing for sure, if I ever got bit with the front sling stud, just like the thumb in the nose, or the scope planted in my eyebrow, I would see the problem right away, at least with one eye.

Now if I could just figure out how to keep my middle finger on my right hand from getting whacked by the trigger guard, when shooting from the bench. Ahh yes - lead sled.

KB

Tim I did some reading on T/C and the Icon. It does sound like a decent rifle.

It looks like T/C 'custom' shop threaded a .458 barrel on a regular Icon. It'll work pretty darn good I would think.

I might be more comfortable if it had crossbolts and definitely a barrel band.

Coming soon to a hunting show near you, Tim Herald and the T/C Icon, going after DG...



Apparently it comes with a couple of different bolt handles and they can be switched easily. Why?


I'm not sold on the rail machined on top of the receiver. I think it might make mounting lower powered variables (my fav's) sit too high.

The 1.5 x 6 scope I put on it sure fit well and wasn't at all high...I love that mounting system with higher powered scopes. I like no bases, just one less thing to get loose...of course if it made your scope too high...it would be a problem...

Tim,

I don't think recoil will be a big problem. The 4-5-8 has been my big rifle for about 20 years. An 8.2 lb rifle with scope and a loaded magazine should bring your weight upto 9 lb plus. That combined with the 24" barrel should make the rifle quite shootable. You'll have to carry the rifle a lot more than shoot it so its weight will be an advantage.

You might want to consider moving the front swivel stud farther foreward but a barrel bandmight not be necessary. If the scope is touching your eyebrow just increase your LOP a litte by installing a thicker pad. A .25 inch cxan make a world of difference. The new Limbsavers are excellent.

Mark

quote:

I'm not sold on the rail machined on top of the receiver. I think it might make mounting lower powered variables (my fav's) sit too high.

The base is exactly the same height and design concept as used by the Ruger, Sako and CZ. But it used the STANDARD weaver rings. This is one of the best ideas about this rifle. I just wish it extended the full length of the action for more scope position options.

quote:

I might be more comfortable if it had crossbolts

The theory is that with a full aluminum bedding block the stock is pretty well isolated. At least the school of thought on guns like the Sauer.