I am wondering what most of you prefer on your rifle when hunting dangerous game?
I personally have been happy with dokter sights on my DR's when hunting big game,I use QD mounts in case of malfunction,& use the sights as back up.

I use low powered variable illuminated scopes on my DG bolt guns and red dots on my doubles. I prefer Leupold scopes and my red dots have been primarily Burris - great service - but recently bought a Vortex (#1 warranty) and a Leupold for new DRs.

My eyesight began to degrade in the late 1980's and the illuminated scope reticles and then the red-dots made my hunting life much easier.

Haven't hunted yet with my doubles. On my go-to bolt action .416 I have a Swarovski Z6i, which is a true one power on the low end, variable to six power with an illuminated retical. Gives me a six power scope when I need it, but crank it down to one and turn on the lights and you've got a red-dot.

Back in the day when my eyes were young I did quite well with aperture sights but for the last ten years I much prefer the single plane focus of a scope. The 404 wears a 1-4x, the 458 a 1.5x.

My Demas VC 470NE has a 10mm PARALLEL rib. I am wondering if a suitable peep sight or red dot can be just mounted on the rib without any drilling and tapping or cutting a dove tail on the rib.

I have been searching the web for days & found a Skinner 22RF peep sight that is meant for 11mm rib / base but it is tapered & not parallel.

I have always been a Finn Aagard fan as what he wrote just seemed to be common sense. He liked a low power scope and found it superior to irons even at smell their breath distances. I haven't shot lots of DG but I've taken a cross section of about everything that is huntable and bites back. I've never felt open sites would have been better than my scope for the any of hunts I've been on. Maybe for a guide or PH an open sited rifle may work best as they may have shots that come at literally point and shoot instinctively ranges but for a client I don't even see any need for open sites. I'm having a rifle built for a brown bear hunt next year and it's going to be slick barrel.

Mark

With two out of three of my Double Rifles, on each of them I have the option of iron sights, a scope or a Trijicon RMR. The other DR is iron sights only. As to my other Big Bores, they carry either Leupold or Swarovski scopes.

A 1.5 to 5 is just about right.

My iron sighted .375H&H wears a Swarovski Z6i 1-6x with illuminated circle dot reticle. Haven't shot any DG with it yet, but feel it is a perfect set up for me on the true 1x setting and ability to go to 6x if needed and time allows.

I have only shot two cape buffalo (in Chewore) and had a 375H&H with a Leupold 2.5-8x set on the lowest power. I had left my .458 WM in the truck as we didn't start out hunting buffalo, but came across their tracks.

My 2nd cape buffalo was shot with a 416 Rigby using a Leupold 1-4x scope.

Both buffalo were shot under 30 yards and on the lowest scope setting. All my DG rifles had iron sights, but the scope on the lowest setting seemed a better option.

Since scope technology has gone with the fragile concept of constantly centred reticles, I can't believe in modern scopes as the most reliable option. There are fine old Zeiss/Hensoldts, Nickels, Bausch & Lombs and Unertls around but time and lesser sealants may count against some.

Express sights are claimed to be the quickest but the full-V type with no flats on each side is a recipe for high misses when you're in a hurry.

So, though they may look strange on db rifles, I think a large 'ghost-ring' aperture is the best answer - but only if is set solidly on the top of the rifle, not on a cross arm that may be bent down in a fall or get caught on vines.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

There are fine old Zeiss/Hensoldts, Nickels, Bausch & Lombs and Unertls around but time and lesser sealants may count against some.

About 1971 I got a pair of 460 Wbys (spoke to Roy on the phone) and one was for a mate. They had those Wby scopes with both Windage/elevation on top.

My mate decided to put his way as he thought it might be an investment. In about 1992 I bought it off him and the scope was fucked and I mean fucked.

The scope you're talking about is probably the Weatherby Imperial made by Hertel & Reuss. Putting both windage and elevation under the same turret was a dumb idea in my opinion because after a while they tend to seize together - move one and the other goes too.

The ones I mentioned don't have that weakness but I have seen some old Swarovskis and S&Bs seize up, probably from being so constant they never needed to be moved once zeroed.

Im looking at low power variables with an illuminated dot or reticle now, trying to decide which way to go for a 416 I am currently building.. I've got Warne QD maxima 30mm rings on hand, and Warne maxima bases already installed..

I went on a little different of a path than most people do I believe on the iron sights for a DG gun.. I know most prefer big, steel, express sites from the likes of NECG, recknagel, etc..

Im giving the Williams adjustable ghost ring rear and standard front ramp with the firesight option (fiber optic material in both) a try.. Im hoping they can handle the recoil of the big bore... if they can, they should be fast and easy to pick up in low light if/when Im shooting without the optic..

My 77 year old eyes and irons aren't as precise as they used to be. I shoot much better with a scope. When hunting I use a scope.

Dave

My .505 SRE wears a Lyman 48 receiver sight and a Williams ramp with a sourdough front sight. It has accounted for one rhino, three elephants and five Cape buffalo. My Krieghoff DR .458 WM wears a 2 1/2X Lyman All American Perma Center scope, and has one elephant and two Cape buffalo to its credit, plus with its interchangeable barrels in .375 H&H, a lion, leopard, eland and greater kudu. Those barrels wear a 3X Lyman scope.

I like detachable mounts with low power scopes on DG boltaction rifles.

For a double (if I had one), I would go with plain iron sights just for ascetic reasona, knowing that I am limited to shots less than 100 yds.

BH63

All of my hunting rifles wear scopes so why would I want to do something different on a DG rifle? Also my eyes aren't what they used to be. And when I have traveled half way around the world for a hunt, I don't want to be passing on shots in dark shadows or at dusk because I can't see the sights.
Low powered variable with illuminated reticle for me.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
The scope you're talking about is probably the Weatherby Imperial made by Hertel & Reuss. Putting both windage and elevation under the same turret was a dumb idea in my opinion because after a while they tend to seize together - move one and the other goes too.

The ones I mentioned don't have that weakness but I have seen some old Swarovskis and S&Bs seize up, probably from being so constant they never needed to be moved once zeroed.

The scope adjusted OK but groups were like 6 inches and more. My guess was the lens mounting system/seals? were stuffed after all those years.

As a side note I bedded the rifle, free floated in front of the recoil lug on the knox form and it was the most accurate 460 I have seen. I would shot .5 3 shot groups with 500 grain Hornady and 500 grain Hornadys and 115 grains of IMR 4350. Right on 2500 f/s and real good load in 460s. A mate who is on R, most on the Political forum, Blair 338 RUM saw the rifle shoot both on the bench and dismembering roos and pigs

It's not the first time I have seen a real shooter where the barrel has sat unused for 10 years and more. 20 years in this case.

Just to add, when I say adjustments works I am talking about big ones as with 6 inch plus groups, well you know.

Something was loose in the scope.

The scope (same scope) on the 460 I used straight away was excellent.

That second 460 was later sold to Australian gun writer John Woods (maybe 1995 or 1996, can't remember exact time) and he later moved to America, think he married an American woman and he still has that 460.

I prefer iron sights on my DGR and I prefer DRs for those rifles. That said, I do have a detachable low power Trijicon on my 9.374R double. So far I haven't had to make the move to a red dot for the big boomers.

scope, with irons for backup -- with my experienced eyes, scopes are better for me

All the big bores in our family wear scopes, mostly low power Leupolds like 2-7's, 2.5-8's on 9.3x62, .375 H&H's and 400 Whelen as well my brothers 458 Win Mag.
I use scopes on everything and am very quick and proficient with them so I wouldn't change for my DG rifles.
All of our DG rifles have irons and they are sighted in just in case a scope goes south.

If you desire to follow in the storied footsteps of 'Ponodoro' Taylor, Seluous, and Hemingway, you'll man-up and shoot your beasts with iron sights only.

And unless you're a real wuss, you'll forgo using that modern shooting 'crutch' on your rifle known as a muzzle brake. Your PH might even thank you for that courtesy several times.

Otherwise, long after you've gone to bed, your PH and his assistants will be gathered around the campfire whispering and snickering about you being the resident 'Francis Macomber.'

And trust me, that ain't a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
The scope you're talking about is probably the Weatherby Imperial made by Hertel & Reuss. Putting both windage and elevation under the same turret was a dumb idea in my opinion because after a while they tend to seize together - move one and the other goes too.

The ones I mentioned don't have that weakness but I have seen some old Swarovskis and S&Bs seize up, probably from being so constant they never needed to be moved once zeroed.

The scope adjusted OK but groups were like 6 inches and more. My guess was the lens mounting system/seals? were stuffed after all those years.

I would say that the complexity of that turret system would have to be something to do with that failure. How would it be made to work? Why would anyone bother with such a smart-arsed design?

In case you've missed it, take a look at my pics in the middle of chapter 81 of the 458 Winchester Magnum thread. There, you'll see a reticle movement that could really take it. As I have explained in my book updates, having double adjustments of any kind brings compromises in spring function, at the very least. Having to integrate the complexities into double adjustments under one turret, is just asking for trouble.

In regard to the lenses, having focus adjusted from above like that adds even more unnecessary stuff to go wrong IMHO. Was reticle focus ever seen to go out?

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. Hydell: long after you've gone to bed, your PH and his assistants will be gathered around the campfire whispering and snickering about you being the resident 'Francis Macomber.'

And trust me, that ain't a good thing.

I don't recall Robert Wilson having any complaints about the arrangement.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

Was reticle focus ever seen to go out?

No the gun jus would not shoot.

From memory I spoke to Fred Horton who worked at Herons and scope repairs and he said the lens mounts were probably fucked after all those years sitting there.

As I said above, the 460 used straight away was great. I bedded it and floated in front of second lug on knox form and it show great. From memory the scopes were 2.5X and had a picket reticle lie the old Pecars.

I did not muck around much with the thing. In fact a bloke who had a bit of thing for collecting different scopes wanted to buy because he did not have one those twin turret Wby scopes. I said you can have it as fucked although that did not worry him.

I always liked the reticle moving Pecars.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. Hydell: long after you've gone to bed, your PH and his assistants will be gathered around the campfire whispering and snickering about you being the resident 'Francis Macomber.'

And trust me, that ain't a good thing.

I don't recall Robert Wilson having any complaints about the arrangement.

Yep, ...

I have just scoped a pair of muzzleloaders for dangerous game.
Hunting whitetail deer is dangerous game around here.
Some yayhoo might shoot me out of my tree or ground blind.
That is a dangerous game.
I must be ever vigilant and ready to return fire quickly.
For my needs a 1X scope is good, keeping both eyes wide open.
I found a clearance sale on some discontinued Nikon Buckmasters 1x20mm scopes at the Knob Creek, KY store.
That was back when "Guntucky" was on the silly TV, CMT IIRC, whacky as hell.
I got those Nikon 1X scopes cheap as hell too.

Reloading a muzzleloader quickly is still a problem.
Best just throw it down after that first shot and whip out your pocket peashooter, as you are evading.

Rip ...

RIP- Sounds like gaining fire superiority for the charge with a muzzleloader might present some challenges.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

Was reticle focus ever seen to go out?

No the gun jus would not shoot.

From memory I spoke to Fred Horton who worked at Herons and scope repairs and he said the lens mounts were probably fucked after all those years sitting there.

As I said above, the 460 used straight away was great. I bedded it and floated in front of second lug on knox form and it show great. From memory the scopes were 2.5X and had a picket reticle lie the old Pecars.

I did not muck around much with the thing. In fact a bloke who had a bit of thing for collecting different scopes wanted to buy because he did not have one those twin turret Wby scopes. I said you can have it as fucked although that did not worry him.

I always liked the reticle moving Pecars.

That's all a bit sad, Mike, though the 460 Weatherby would test anything. My concern is even greater because Hertel & Reuss acquired B.Nickel's Marburg Supra brand around 1970 and it's not always easy to tell who made the scopes.

Bausch & Lomb were insistent that cushioning could compress and tip lenses over time. They asserted that lenses should be set firmly between unmoving metal mounts, free of rough or high points that might cause the glass to shatter. Unertl warned that anything short of firm, rigid mounting could lead to lenses moving, resulting in parallax.

Like you, I am a fan of the old Pecar scopes. Colin Shadbolt, who wrote for Australian Outdoors for decades, said his Pecars were the most constant scopes he had ever used. Mark Herron told me they used to assemble Pecars in Australia for some time - that didn't seem to affect the reliability, as the brand is still highly regarded here.

It seems to me now that even the constantly centred Pecar Champions were reticle-moving. They just suspended the reticle in a smaller-than-previous ring, which acted as a field stop making the aiming mark always look centred. They had to pick the diameter of that field stop very carefully to avoid excess tunnel vision, of course, and I don't think that idea worked with variables.

That's very interesting what you say about the Champions.

Rou was great to deal with although he said (which I already knew) that the rifles would have to through his agent, which from memory at the time was Michaelis Bayley. He seemd to be very keen to talk and deal with an overseas shooter. The wood on both rifles was absolute exhibition grade stuff.

A few months later I met a shooter who wanted to get a 224 and 7mm and after looking at the 460 he figured Roy must of picked it. So he did the same and phoned Roy to for the 224 and 7mm.

As things tuned out the 224 went astray. So another 224 was sent AND as an apology Roy included for nothing one of those rimfire Mark XXII.

Weatherby has always been the prize agency as they simply won't deal with anyone else. Keith Herron tried to the agency.

NIOA were also good. I got some custom shop rifles done and did the lot of the phone with the custom shop and which NIOA was happy with and preferred it that way.

My latest simple peep sight.

L angle Aluminium (curtain railing flange - cut and filed down!) with a hole. Stuck on with double sided tape!

Naki,

I bet you'll be happy with that.

Mark

LOL!

This is my model 2. Yes I am happy to have made that myself after about 40 hours of mucking around with all kinds of stuff. See model 1 earlier in my 470NE thread.

I am just not confident of getting anyone here in NZ to drill and tap the rib of a $10k rifle.

One specialist engineer friend does not want to do it!

I might make one more ... let me see ....

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Naki,

I bet you'll be happy with that.

Mark

Hey Naki, just follow the lead of the great African gunsmiths servicing the AKs of a myriad of game departments - just hold it together with a jubilee clip/ hose clamp!!

As for the OT, I must say the idea of using an Aimpoint for DG is growing on me. The new Acro P1 looks about the right size to fit on the rib of a double, and the battery can be changed in situ unlike the Doctor III https://www.aimpoint.com/product/aimpoint-acro-p-1/

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
LOL!

This is my model 2. Yes I am happy to have made that myself after about 40 hours of mucking around with all kinds of stuff. See model 1 earlier in my 470NE thread.

I am just not confident of getting anyone here in NZ to drill and tap the rib of a $10k rifle.

One specialist engineer friend does not want to do it!

I might make one more ... let me see ....

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Naki,

I bet you'll be happy with that.

Mark

Don't know what you want to drill and tap for but nothing technical about drilling and tapping a rib. A gun in the $10k price range or a $100k price for that matter doesn't alter how a rib is drilled and tapped. Plenty of good gunsmiths and machinists in NZ who can do that standard job with their eyes closed. No different to mounting scope bases on any rifle in fact easier as the rib will be a hell of a lot softer than most actions and you have a long straight section to keep things lined up nicely. Try drilling and tapping the Ruger Mini 14, that sorts the men from the boys, or the good drills and taps from the Warehouse junk

I love a peep rear. Shot thousands of rounds through them on a National Match Course. But for game, I prefer a true 1-6 illuminated on a bolt gun and I think I'd prefer a Doctor on a double, but haven't tried one yet.

For medium bores (up to 375 caliber) I like/use a Leupold 2.5-8x36 only.

For big bores, I like open sights, either express or peep sights. I use them both.

Not saying this is the only or best choice, but rather just my own personal preference.

While I have not hunted dangerous game (other than bear), I often hunt in dense cover and in twilight conditions....the needs for sighting are the same, dangerous or non-dangerous. My choice....a quality, low power, variable scope, with good light transmission characteristics! I can see the crosshairs on my scope in far less light, than I can see iron sights or peep! memtb

Like Finn Aagaard, I throughly tested both speed and accuracy of a low power scope vrs iron sights and scopes were not only more accurate but also quicker !
My 458 has worn a 2 1/2 Leupold for the past 35 years and have never regretted it.