quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
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.

A rifle with a properly set up scope is faster for sure.

They also make it easier and more reliable to make shots in the pucker brush

You know you have a proper set up when one can catch flushing grouse in cross hairs.

Phil,

How does the 2.5 Leupold do in low light? I have one but I haven't installed it on anything yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:


How does the 2.5 Leupold do in low light? I have one but I haven't installed it on anything yet.

Mine works just fine in low light.

Easy to check just take it out this evening and look through it.

I started with the Swarovski 1-6 EE z6 on DG after trying a Leupold 1.5-5 that I couldn’t get to track and a Kahles 1.1-4 that the eye relief was so short it would knock my shooting glasses off (back then, I didn’t need glasses- the joys of youth!). I had a substantially worse grouping with irons (although I only tried express sights) so I put scopes on them and went.

I later changed to a Z6i 1.7-10 on the bolt guns.

I tried using irons on the double, and while it worked out, (I shot a buff and an elephant that way) I just wasn’t comfortable, so I put the 1-6 on it and shot another elephant. That didn’t handle very comfortably and Ivan Carter had shown me a RMR on one of his, so I did that. Now it’s comfortable, yet I shoot it better than irons. Have shot 4 bovines with it (2 cape, water, and a banteng) and am taking it on elephant soon.

I have had irons get damaged, lose leafs, loosen up, etc. but so far the scopes have remained solid.

I do shoot quite a bit of pistol with irons, and try and practice with rifles with them occasionally; and while I’m no expert like Finn, my experience is entirely in agreement with him.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:


How does the 2.5 Leupold do in low light? I have one but I haven't installed it on anything yet.

Mine works just fine in low light.

Easy to check just take it out this evening and look through it.

If the 20mm Objective is 3.333 times the diameter of a 6mm dilated human pupil in dim light,
it gathers 3.333 squared or 11.11 times as much light.

If the exit pupil diameter is the same as objective lens diameter divided by magnification power, that is 20mm/2.5 = 8mm
That is more than the human eye can fully utilize at one peep.

That may neglect some other factors, but it will sure be brighter than the unaided view,
and faster and more accurate than any open or iron sights.

Plus it only weighs 6.5 ounces.
Less inertia to loosen the mounts from recoil.

Plus it has 4.9" of eye relief, which I can easily stretch past 5" and be very happy.

It has a 39.5-feet field of view at 100 yards. Plenty. Anything over 30 feet makes me very happy.

1/4-MOA adjustments, and 147-MOA of elevation and 147-MOA of windage adjustments total.

Parallax fixed at 100 yards.

What is not to like?

Oh, it is a little short, but it will work even on a CZ 550 Magnum, if you get the front ring
too close to surrounding the objective lens glass inside the tube being clamped.
Better to rig an extension base or rings for some long actions.
Stay tuned for the "Seyfried-Schtick" rear extension base on a CZ 550 Magnum .458 WIN.

That small ocular bell diameter makes it possible to mount lower on a bolt action rifle than any other modern scope I know.
And you can still shove it farther forward in the rings than most scopes, to keep it from banging your forehead in recoil.

Altogether most satisfactory for a scope on a big bore.

Every big bore rifle ought to have one of the Leupold 2.5x20mm Ultralight scopes.
I lament that I only have six of them and my rifles have to share them.
I have never busted one of those, and I do not think Atkinson has either.

Rip ...

Well said RIP.

On my CZ550 Mag 416 Rigby I put a 1-4X Leupold and the front ring was on the lens area and that caused tiny bubbles on the lens and minute chips or bubbles along the edges. I have to send it back to Leupold and have it refurbished.

I did a similar thing on another Leupold and had to send it back.

The conclusion is to either have the front ring in front of the lens or behind the lens.



RIP said

quote:

Oh, it is a little short, but it will work even on a CZ 550 Magnum, if you get the front ring too close to surrounding the objective lens glass inside the tube being clamped. Better to rig an extension base or rings for some long actions.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:


Every big bore rifle ought to have one of the Leupold 2.5x20mm Ultralight scopes.

Rip ...

Blasphemy!!




Every big bore rifle ought to have iron sights. Now that's some gospel right there! lol

Maybe for you retired pilots that have perfect vision............

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:


Every big bore rifle ought to have one of the Leupold 2.5x20mm Ultralight scopes.

Rip ...

Blasphemy!!




Every big bore rifle ought to have iron sights. Now that's some gospel right there! lol

With a good scope over them! memtb

quote:

Originally posted by Hogbreath:
Maybe for you retired pilots that have perfect vision............

I notice Todd wears glasses when hunting so unassisted vision obviously not perfect.

I have worn glasses for long range vision for several decades now and have shot buffalo when wearing glasses and using iron sights. I don't need glasses for short range vision so can see iron sights perfectly clearly but over the years I have needed stronger long range vision glasses so now animals just don't look too clear so I either end up with clear animals and blurred iron sights or vice versa if I take my glasses off.
The 2x Leupold EER scope on my 404 solves the problem nicely with everything at 20/20 vision when wearing my glasses and scope focused accordingly, good peripheral awareness maintained and no chance of a smack in the eyebrow.
The Leupold is surprisingly good in dull light conditions too.

For me it’s iron express sights with both
RMR AND low power variable scope in quick release mounts. Covers all bases and leaves each safari with two backup options. Getting up there now and I am sure I will be finishing my hunting days with this setup.

I grew up shooting iron sights on 30-30s, 25-35s etc and packed them in a saddle scabbard on a daily bases, scopes were not existent to me for many of my early years.. I prefer a shallow V or a peep sight for my irons, but I want a 3X Leupold, even a 4X will do on my hunting rifles, not only do I really like irons, but in inclimate weather they can be handy if a scope fails and they do contrary to some opines..Iron sighted rifles should have Talley or Claw QD mounts in most cases...

I wouldn't normally own a rifle without both..and a lot depends on what your hunting..I like irons for Cape buffalo and dark timber elk in Idaho, and for things that bite you in the thick bush..they are also nice to carry and handle like a 20 ga. Boss shotgun. I don't require anyone to use them, just me!

I also believe irons are faster than a low power scope and took Finn to task on more than a few good natured occasions, guess I'll take my good friend Phil Shoemaker to task first chance I get.

However for the big bear and the terrain they are hunted in I will take a low power fixed scope..so Phil, all is not lost on me yet!

No matter what the facts are. no matter on certain thinking has been proven wrong many times.

Some people still believe in fairly tales.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
... Every big bore rifle ought to have one of the Leupold 2.5x20mm Ultralight scopes.
I lament that I only have six of them and my rifles have to share them.
I have never busted one of those, and I do not think Atkinson has either.

Rip ...

Well, I seem to recall that he had but only on the 458 Lott and .505. So, there you go, another one for the Winnie - according to Ray it doesn't break the scopes.

I'm having LH CZ550 set up as a 458WM and one of mods I had done was to fit a pop up aperture sight from a BRNO 602.

I managed to find an unused factory 602 aperture sight and waited until I found a smith I had confidence in to do the job properly. Fitting the sight properly is a tricky job and LH CZ550's aren't that common down here, so it had to be done right. I've just got it back and I love it. The machining is well executed and it looks totally factory.

The rifle will also be fitted with two scopes in Talley mounts, a fixed 2.75X Pecar and a variable 1.5-4X Pecar, each sighted in for different loads.

RIP's MISSION has been a great resource.

One consideration which needs to be mentioned is that any rifle intended for use against dangerous game should be stocked in such a way that the shooter is automatically looking down the sights, whether non-optical or optical, when it is shouldered, so that the front sight or reticle is centered on the intended target. Achieving this goal is a product of the stock maker's skill and regular practice on the part of the shooter.

One piece of advice which used to be given to prospective African hunters was to take their favorite rifle for North American game with them for plains game and rent a heavy rifle on the spot, if one did not already own one. In fact, the heavy rifle is the one a hunter of dangerous game needs to be totally familiar with, so that when the chips are down there is no fumbling with the safety or difficulty in lining up the sights.

quote:

One consideration which needs to be mentioned is that any rifle intended for use against dangerous game should be stocked in such a way that the shooter is automatically looking down the sights, whether non-optical or optical, when it is shouldered, so that the front sight or reticle is centered on the intended target

Being of average build I only found a couple rifles that I couldn't work with.

Just as important is eye relief and scope height.

I have had many people tell me they can't find game fast with their scope.

Then when one looks at their set up you know why.

Here it was normally a 94 win or Marlin lever gun with the scope set high enough to see the open sights.

With the eye relief some where.

Then you ask them when was the last time they held their rifle. Their answers 99% of the time was last season.

Then when you try to tell them how to fix the problem.

Their answers is hell every body knows opens sights are faster any way.

Then they walk away thinking it black magic how one ever shoots running game with scope mounted on your rifle.

Not the proper mounting and scope not the thousands of times putting the rifle to the shoulder.

I don’t shoot as often or as much as I should, but when I do....It’s almost always the same rifle. Using one rifle exclusively, has it’s advantages! memtb

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
...Here it was normally a 94 win or Marlin lever gun with the scope set high enough to see the open sights.

With the eye relief some where...

Big scopes mounted high over modern, 'classic' stocks don't help, either. Weatherby's scope design might look too '60s but it does get your eye up and slides away from the cheekbone.

JFE,

Excellent choice: .458 WIN CZ 550 Magnum, left-handed.
Downright exquisite with that pop-up peep!

Rip ...

It does not matter what others use.

You have to pick what you prefer to use, and get down to practice with it.

Just remember it is the first shot that counts.

And if the proverbial shit hits the fan, it all boils down to one shot too, and you better make it count.

quote:

Originally posted by JFE:
I'm having LH CZ550 set up as a 458WM and one of mods I had done was to fit a pop up aperture sight from a BRNO 602.

I managed to find an unused factory 602 aperture sight and waited until I found a smith I had confidence in to do the job properly. Fitting the sight properly is a tricky job and LH CZ550's aren't that common down here, so it had to be done right. I've just got it back and I love it. The machining is well executed and it looks totally factory.

The rifle will also be fitted with two scopes in Talley mounts, a fixed 2.75X Pecar and a variable 1.5-4X Pecar, each sighted in for different loads.

RIP's MISSION has been a great resource.

Sounds great. Can I take it the Talley mounts have no lateral adjustments? If so, do they line up well enough to centre the 1.5-4x Pecar on 4x?

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Sounds great. Can I take it the Talley mounts have no lateral adjustments? If so, do they line up well enough to centre the 1.5-4x Pecar on 4x?

Talleys have no lateral adjustment, unfortunately. If the 1.5-4x Pecar doesn't work out I'll swap it for something else. I have another couple of builds that will have adjustable mounts.

quote:

Originally posted by JFE:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Sounds great. Can I take it the Talley mounts have no lateral adjustments? If so, do they line up well enough to centre the 1.5-4x Pecar on 4x?

Talleys have no lateral adjustment, unfortunately. If the 1.5-4x Pecar doesn't work out I'll swap it for something else. I have another couple of builds that will have adjustable mounts.

The Pecar Champion would then be the answer on this rifle, of course. As we've discovered, it is in fact reticle-movement but can hide a certain amount of misalignment with its finely calculated FFP field stop.

The Nikon shotgun scope (1-4x) has a treated reticle that is visible even w/BC black cap in the down position. This scope is what I have on my Ruger .375rm guide gun.

Pretty much a Bindon Aiming Principle deal. Don't need the visual clutter if your reticle is there before your eyes; least not if you're in a DG encounter situation.

There's dangerous game encounters and shooting DG situations. The latter tend to be up close and personal. The former at more distance, but a concern if the hunted party gets your wind before it goes down...

Might be a fixed 1x blackpowder Nikon w/this reticle... That would be a fine combo with a Guide Gun, if you're hunting in dense foliage.

Did buy a New England aperture sight to try w/the Ruger. I have yet to drill it out to a ghost sized aperture, but the sight isn't too appealing to me. The Nikon shotgun job is just about the fastest, non-electric or tritium reticle I've seen.

ETA: Also have a Pentax 0-4x shotgun scope w/circle reticle. A Burris product for Pentax. Their very tough short front-tube design. If this were a treated reticle, it would be excellent. The circle reticle is very fast reacting if the light is decent.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
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.

I have destroyed scopes Rip, call Leupold, they have the records...I had a horse roll over and break a 3X in half at the junction of the adjustments, Leupold couldn't fix it and gave me a new one..Ive had cross hairs pop in cold weather, and scope cross hairs turn in a pickup from day after day driving or on a jogging horse, it happens no matter what precautions you take...Anyone who is dumb enough to think scopes don't fail just call any scope maker and get their repair lists if you can...


Iron sights proper used and installed do not fail as much as scopes that's a known fact by the very nature of the iron sight itself, but one has to know how to pick them and set them up...flimsy irons will break easily enough..

But the bottom line is that choice is one's own, and Ive been successful successful with irons just like those that love scopes have, Im good with that, especially for those souls that were raised in the scope era and never used irons, they should use scopes,but no need according to many. But I feel they are missing a piece of history and an appreciation for a wonderful sight and its use..They are so much better than some on the internet seem to think..But hey a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!!

BTW My doubles have all had irons, and its worse than sodomy to scope a double rifle!! and irons are the cowboy way, even John Wayne knew that!!

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I have destroyed scopes Rip, call Leupold, they have the records...I had a horse roll over and break a 3X in half at the junction of the adjustments, Leupold couldn't fix it and gave me a new one..Ive had cross hairs pop in cold weather, and scope cross hairs turn in a pickup ...

Yeah, but those pickups have a lot to answer for. I gave my host in Wyoming a 'slab' of beer for carting me around. He put it in the back of his pickup. After a while I saw beer flowing around - bits of grit on the floor had punctured three cans

Damn Sam, maybe that's what happened to my scopes..If push came to shove, don't get me wrong, Id probably opt for a scope, I have .2x5s 2x7s, 2x8s,3x9s and had 4x12 until last week..But I still have irons on most of my guns, and I still hunt with irons. on my Winchester Lever, Savage Levers, even my mod. 70s and Mausers, Im a hold out for irons, I like packing an iron sighted gun and I like hunting with irons. most of my hunting today is with irons except when Im seriously trophy hunting which is seldom these days, mostly I hunt for meat and that keeps my cardiologist happy as a church mouse..and I still sneak a little to a lot of beef, lamb and goat on my plate.

Over the last decade, I've noticed the older I get the more I rely on and prefer iron sights.

I'm not sure if it's eye related, reminiscing, simplicity, or overall weight, I just know I'm enjoying irons more than scoped.

quote:

Originally posted by Splittinghairs:
Over the last decade, I've noticed the older I get the more I rely on and prefer iron sights.

I'm not sure if it's eye related, reminiscing, simplicity, or overall weight, I just know I'm enjoying irons more than scoped.

No doubt a rifle is simply a nicer thing without a scope.

Until the late 60s iron sights were the common thing in Australia. I grew up with the 303, 303/270 and 303/25 nd M92 in 32/20.

Moving to scope sights, mainly the Pecar scopes, I never really remember making any gain. However, might have been different if only shooting a couple of animals instead of hundreds.

Trajectory is similar. I have shot kangaroos and pigs with the 270 and 458 at the same time and the 458 loaded with 400 grain Speer at right on 2000 f/s. With the 27- you definitely do better for the first few shots or a couple of hours than the 458. However, you soon "gent onto them" with the 458 and "hits to shots" is much the same.

If I was a client on that rare or once-in-a-lifetime trip for buffalo, I might well use a scope - there should be a pro alongside with irons if something jumps-out. But for daily use on my lonesome crossing thick cover and creeklines, there’s no way I’m going to consider a scope. For me irons are safer and quicker for the close and fast encounters.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Damn Sam, maybe that's what happened to my scopes..If push came to shove, don't get me wrong, Id probably opt for a scope, I have .2x5s 2x7s, 2x8s,3x9s and had 4x12 until last week..But I still have irons on most of my guns, and I still hunt with irons. on my Winchester Lever, Savage Levers, even my mod. 70s and Mausers, Im a hold out for irons, I like packing an iron sighted gun and I like hunting with irons. most of my hunting today is with irons except when Im seriously trophy hunting which is seldom these days, mostly I hunt for meat and that keeps my cardiologist happy as a church mouse..and I still sneak a little to a lot of beef, lamb and goat on my plate.

I guess you know what I think about modern scopes by now, Ray (though I continue to learn stuff and must send you an email with my latest update).

Were someone to make a shortish reticle-movement scope (elevation turret only with etched reticle held in a dovetail, like that Nickel I cut up) I might trust it beyond open sights. Even a small image-movement one using a beefed-up version of Burris's Posi-Lock third turret might cut it if mounted in the super-tough mounts RIP talks about. Otherwise, if it's between modern scopes and iron sights, I'd rather a broad post or sourdough and a ghostring-type peep set solidly on top of the receiver.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Damn Sam, maybe that's what happened to my scopes..If push came to shove, don't get me wrong, Id probably opt for a scope, I have .2x5s 2x7s, 2x8s,3x9s and had 4x12 until last week..But I still have irons on most of my guns, and I still hunt with irons. on my Winchester Lever, Savage Levers, even my mod. 70s and Mausers, Im a hold out for irons, I like packing an iron sighted gun and I like hunting with irons. most of my hunting today is with irons except when Im seriously trophy hunting which is seldom these days, mostly I hunt for meat and that keeps my cardiologist happy as a church mouse..and I still sneak a little to a lot of beef, lamb and goat on my plate.

I guess you know what I think about modern scopes by now, Ray (though I continue to learn stuff and must send you an email with my latest update).

Were someone to make a shortish reticle-movement scope (elevation turret only with etched reticle held in a dovetail, like that Nickel I cut up) I might trust it beyond open sights. Even a small image-movement one using a beefed-up version of Burris's Posi-Lock third turret might cut it if mounted in the super-tough mounts RIP talks about. Otherwise, if it's between modern scopes and iron sights, I'd rather a broad post or sourdough and a ghostring-type peep set solidly on top of the receiver.

As I am sure you know, for accuracy testing the aperture sight and the right aiming mark will allow for great grouping, even without a ring front sight.

In my opinion, if a rifle is very accurate and is shot a lot and is often tested on paper then you are on your own with a scope with anything bigger than a 375.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
its worse than sodomy to scope a double rifle!! and irons are the cowboy way, even John Wayne knew that!!

I don't know a damned thing about sodomy but can tell you that a little Leupold 2 1/2 x scope was just as quick and effective on my 450/400 double as the ones on my 458 and 375 bolt rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
its worse than sodomy to scope a double rifle!! and irons are the cowboy way, even John Wayne knew that!!

I don't know a damned thing about sodomy but can tell you that a little Leupold 2 1/2 x scope was just as quick and effective on my 450/400 double as the ones on my 458 and 375 bolt rifles.

This illustrates how opinions (mine included) are influenced by our shooting conditions.

For example, chasing roos, pigs and emus and shooting from the back of a WWII Jeep or those early 1970s Suzukis then iron sights win hands downs. A double rifle would be useless. Lever actions like the 30/30 are hard to reload while bouncing around.

My dangerous game hunting has been limited to a Cape Buffalo and a Leopard. Most of my hunting rifles have scopes which includes my .375 RUM with a 2-7x Leupold that I used for my Buff, and my .300 Weatherby with it's 4.5-14 CDS Leupold that I used to kill my Leopard.

Although I have and use other hunting rifles, I would be happy to use and satisfied with the way I have my .375 RUM and .300 Wby to hunt any animal on this planet.

Age can be a problem with iron sights as you age . I am a member of the Big Game Rifle Club here in Melbourne and as I am over 65 allowed to use a scope without penalty .
As you age the lenses in your eye hardens . To shoot open sights you need to have the ability to change focus rapidly between the rear sight foresight and target . This is problematic with age . Both scopes and ghost ring sights avoid this problem . The other thing is like Mike I started shooting in the sixties but mostly with a scoped bolt rifle . To shoot an open sighted rifle particularly a double would take a lot of practice to reach my skill level with a scoped bolt rifle .
Mark