What's the absolute best scope you could put on a 460 Weatherby Magnum or the like to withstand the massive kick time-after-time and still hold zero? Regards, AIU

2.5X Leupold

2.5X leupold

Or you could try a 2.5x Leupold

Hello,

I'm partial to the 2.5x Leupold as well!

jpj3

I'm assuming that the 2.5 Leuppy is the 'scout' model with 9" eye relief, to be mounted on the rear of the barrel/receiver.

For mounting on a receiver, I would recommend the 1.65-5 power Nikon Slughunter or Inline model. It is rugged for handling recoil and has 5" eyerelief.

As a second consideration, Bushnell offers a 6" eye-relief model in 1.25-8 power, 30mm tube. I don't know about this scope's reputation on handling recoil.

It is hard for anyone to recommend the "best scope" unless they have tried them all. I am sure some of the people on this forum have, but my experience with scopes for big bores is limited to Leupolds. I am very happy with my 2.5 Leupold compact which I have on my 505 Gibbs (this has 5" of eye relief, and it is not the same as the scout model with 9" eye relief). This rifle has 100+ ft-lbs of recoil energy like the 460 Weatherby. On lesser cannons like the 416 Rigby, I go for the 1.5-5 VX3 Leupold. There are better scopes around, but I have had Leupolds for years and given them heaps of abuse, and they have never let me down. I think they are great value for money.

German made NICKEL MAGNUM 1.5-6x30

http://www.nickel-ag.com/en/pr...ts/scopes/15630.aspx

338--
It's nice to know of the Ultralight 2.5 Leupold. Thanks.
If I can't fit a 1.6--5 power Nikon on a bridge it would make a second option. I would prefer getting under 2-power for following up a buffalo, but the Leuppy is only 2.3.

As for the Nickel Magnum, I'm afraid $3000 for glass is a luxury I can't afford.

My 1.5-5x Leupold has stood up to close to 400 full power shots from my 500 Jeffery. Still holds zero in it's Talley QR rings, still works great.

from the Terminal Thread, p. 241:

quote:

It only bit me once. I was down on one
knee when I shot my Zebra under some brush. I was leaning into the gun and
I kind of knew I was gonna get cracked with that scope. But you can't feel a
damn thing when you're shooting at an animal.

A Leuppy 2-7 has a short eye-relief. 1.6--5 Nikon Slughunter has 5 inch eye-relief. I know that we don't need 5 inches when he hold correctly, but sometimes we hold incorrectly and the extra inch or two makes all the difference.

i just put a Nikon Monarch African 1x4 on my 450 G&A. Very happy so far, but only 30 rounds under it so far, so we'll see if it holds up.

2.5x Leupold.

Same scope went through 400 rounds on a 8 1/2lb .458Lott and has now gobbled up 200rounds on a 9lb .458WM.

Three more votes for the Leupold 2.5X. Mine are all at least 15yrs old and all have hundreds of heavy caliber rounds through them. I just bought another one off of the classifieds here last week for $125 delivered. GREAT SCOPES!

I've got an old 3x Leupy that has withstood a lot of shots from a 470 Mbogo, and still keeps on ticking.

Consider this another vote for the 2.5x Leupold.

My 1.5X5 Leupold is holding up well on my 416 Rigby.

When using a heavily weighted Lead-Sled, have you ever noticed any detrimental effect on the scope and/or a peculiar or changing point of impact?

I've never used a lead sled, but have heard of many instances of them killing scopes.

I use a leupold 1.5x5 on my 460 weatherby. No problems yet.

Leupold is offering their 3x thru the custom shop. This scope has a longer tube than the 2.5 and is made for long action big bore rifles. The tube will give you more scope positioning options. I think you can order it with lots of different reticle options.

My 416 Rigby broke 5 Leupold variables. The now discontinued Burris Signature Safari has held up with no problems. I keep an American made Weaver 3x in Tally QDs as back up.

Have not tried the fixed Leupold 2.5x or 3x but suspect they would work well.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
I would prefer getting under 2-power for following up a buffalo, but the Leuppy is only 2.3.
QUOTE]
That is the only drawback. I like the field of view of the 1.5 - 5, when set on 1.5, but I had one on my 505, and with the first shot it hit me so hard, and I was holding the rifle firmly, so I immediatly took it off and looked for an alternative. I ended up with a cut on the forehead, and nose bleeds for a couple of days after that, so I assume it fractured my sinus cavity slightly. Very painful. The 2.5 has been fine, and I have had some reaonably close range experiences with pigs, and it performed fine so I am quite satisfied that it is perfectly adequate.

quote:

Originally posted by 338User:

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
I would prefer getting under 2-power for following up a buffalo, but the Leuppy is only 2.3.

That is the only drawback. I like the field of view of the 1.5 - 5, when set on 1.5, but I had one on my 505, and with the first shot it hit me so hard, and I was holding the rifle firmly, so I immediatly took it off and looked for an alternative. I ended up with a cut on the forehead, and nose bleeds for a couple of days after that, so I assume it fractured my sinus cavity slightly. Very painful. The 2.5 has been fine, and I have had some reaonably close range experiences with pigs, and it performed fine so I am quite satisfied that it is perfectly adequate.

With sympathies, 338, your story clearly spells out that the 1.5 power lowest setting is not the only problem. While 4-inch eye relief has always worked for me for 40 calibre, I think that a 5-inch relief scope is a definite advantage for 50 cal. The 1.5-5 Leupold drops down to 3.7-inch head-banging eye-relief at 5-power (which is actually only 4.5 power for the Leupold). It is 4.4inch eye-relief when on 1.5 power. The 1.65-5.0 Nikon Slughunter appears to be more sturdy than many of the Leupolds (according to Michael's tests on Terminals) AND equally important for a 50 calibre, it has 5-inch eye-relief throughout the power range.

The Leupold 2.5 (=2.3) F-II Ultralight is an excellent scope with an eye-relief of 4.9 inches that is appropriate for 50 cal. If someone wants lower or higher magnification or variability, they should check out the Nikon models with 5-inch eye relief.


Sorry for your eyebrow and nose, in any case.

I should have taken a photo of the injury. It healed up ok anyway, and only left a slight scar. I am definitely going to have a look at that Nikon scope you like so much.

my 460 has open sights, thank god. could not see me using a scope on it. its the dgr model, and it belts quite a bit. would imagine the more moving parts in a scope the higher the likely hood of a failure?? that's why the leupy 2.5x is a good scope on big bangers. It weighs bugger all and has good eye relief too. i still chose not to scope mine, don't fancy a leupold eye brow injury

I suppose I may have busted more scopes than most any human on the planet. Leupold knows me very well. Sorry to tell you, but in one 18 month period I sent 13 Leupolds back for repairs, all busted. At the beginning of the year I sent 4 Leupolds back for repairs. Most of these had much the same in common, above 3X focus was completely gone, below 3X it came back to focus. All movement of POI was gone as well. Many of these I continued to use in a test mode for months without issues. POI would not change, but I could not move it either. I had one of the smaller fixed power 2 or 2.5, I forget, and the cross hairs broke on it. I had a couple of 1X4 VX 2 scopes that the glass actually cracked. Of the scopes I have sent back for repairs they have been the 1.5X5 VX3 and Vari XIII, 1.75X6 VX and Vari X, 1X4 VX2, 2X Fixed. I found the Vari X III to be a better scope than any of the VX 3s for this sort of thing. One day I had a brand new, straight from the box 1.5X5 VX 3. Mounted it on a 50 B&M, on the 3 round fired I watched it explode inside--done finished, over. 3 rounds! New from the box!

I had several conversations with Leupold concerning the problems, and you could not ask for a better company to work with. At the time they wanted to trade out with me all my 1.5X5 scopes for the 1.5X6 VX7s--even trade out too. The VX7 is 30mm tube, heavier, and probably is more robust for sure. However, I am not a fan of 30mm tubes, so first I thanked them then politely refused. After more conversation the guy at Leupold convinced me to at least try one, I agreed and in a few days it arrived. I put it on the worst culprit for busting scopes, the 50 B&M. I tested and shot the scope probably around 200+ rounds, and never had an issue with it. I still did not care for 30mm tubes on my rifles, hell the scope looked bigger than the damned gun. So, I returned it to Leupold, thanking them very much, but it was just not for me.

I saw during all this that the Vari X III were better scopes in my opinion than the newer VX 3s. I figured the 1X4 VX2 was about the same as the older Vari X. So I tried a couple of those. On smaller 458s and such they did great, not a problem. So when I had a few 1.5X5 VX 3s going back to Leupold, I requested that they just trade out with me for the 1X4 VX2s, and to please change to the heavy duplex for me. They did this, and in a couple of weeks I had 3 brand new 1X4 VX 2s, with heavy duplex. I was getting ready for a trip to Zimbabwe so I put one on a 458 B&M and another on the 500 MDM and off we go to Zim. All went well on the trip, except that during the hunt I noticed a black flake of something from inside the scopes was on the glass, inside. Since POI had not changed I continued to shoot. Soon both scopes cleared the flakes--don't know where they went, they were gone so I did not care. Upon return, I continued to use those scopes, and it was not long after that the glass actually cracked on both of them. Back they went as well.

Sometime during all this I decided I had to look at other options. So I went through the entire process of checking for the following requirements, actual size of the scope, field of view at close range, eye relief, these being the main factors before trying something. Because of size, this eliminated 30mm tubes right off for me. I found a small Weaver, I think 3X or so, I got a 1x4 trijicon cross hairs, a 1X4 Nikon African, and I thought I would give the Leupold Shotgun Scopes a try as well.

The little weaver was excellent in size and weight, field of view ok, and eye relief ok, but come up very short on glass with my eyes. So it was out. The trijicon had excellent field of view and eye relief, size was good, glass very good and I still have it, and it has held up extremely well so far. I have had it on several rifles doing work and it has not had any issues. Mechanically it moves very well. It is not quite as small as the the Leupolds, but it is doing a good job, no complaints.

I did not care for the Nikon when it first arrived. I did not like the turrents, I did not like the larger eye piece in the rear, didn't like the German #4 on the Nikon nor the Trijicon, and I might not have liked them because they were not Leupolds that I was so used to.

The more I worked with the Nikon, the more I liked it. I could not believe it, but the glass seemed to be so much clearer to me than even my beloved Leupolds. I really liked the quick rear focus adjustment a lot. My eyes are not so good anymore, and I continuously have to monkey with the Leupold to get them in focus, even during a range session. The Nikon is very clear, very easy and very quick to focus! I become 100% sold on the mechanics--I move POI on the Nikon, it is exactly where it is supposed to go--I was very impressed with this, and it was much better than the VX3s I had worked with. But would it hold up?

I had it on the same 458 B&M that I took to Zimbabwe in 2011. I had fired 300+ rounds through the Nikon at the time I changed and put the Leupold VX2s on it for Zimbabwe. I still did not trust the Nikon. Upon my return and busting two of the VX2s, I started looking harder at the Nikon. I put it on a 50 B&M for a couple of hundred rounds. No issues. Then I needed to do quite a bit of test work with the 500 MDM so that same scope went on it for a couple of hundred rounds, zero issues. I bought 2-3 more of them, and have been working with the Nikons a good bit, and have yet to bust one.

So if the 1X4 African---1 inch version--worked this good, how was some of the others. I tried the one Tanz is talking about the shotgun version, very reasonable price, little longer, bigger than the 1X4 African, but it has been good so far as well, currently it rests on a 416 B&M that has been slated for test purposes. I also got a couple of the 2X8 Monarchs. I used one of those in April in South Africa on my 9.3 B&M with excellent results. Couple of weeks ago I put one on a test rifle, did a crap job of bore sighting before going to the range. Not even sure I bore sighted now that I think about it. Anyway, I was 10 inches high and 5 inches left at 25 yards! Now that is a hell of a lot of clicks at 25 yards. I moved the required number of clicks--160 down and 80 right. The very next shot was DEAD DAMNED CENTER! I got up from the bench at that point, went and pulled every single Leupold scope I owned, big ones, little ones, every single one of them, 32 in all, and sold 30 of them last week right here on AR in the classified! Some of you here on this thread bought some of those. In this process I found I had at least 5 of these I called "Rattlers", stated very clearly that they were broken and would have to go back to Leupold for repairs--all of them sold quickly, as I dropped the price substantially on those. I won't replace every scope with new Nikons, I don't need that many, probably 1/2 that at most as I set up very few rifles on a permanent basis, use nothing but QRW rings and bases on all my rifles, switch scopes back and forth depending on the work needed.

As attested to in THIS THREAD, for most of you out there the Leupolds do a fine job and you may never have a problem with any of them. But the amount of and the type of testing and work done here, they don't hold up so well. So it is a constant issue with me, so something had to change.

Now I may start busting Nikons today, I don't know. But at the price of the Nikons currently, I can have 1.5 of them for the price of one Leupold, or nearly 3 of them for two Leupolds. I have never believed in Cheaper is Better--In fact just the Opposite, You get what You pay for! However in this one case, it does seem to be reversed and is the "Exception" and not the rule. At least for me here.

A couple of years ago, you would not have found a stronger Leupold supporter, or fan. But I can't get them to hold up for the amount of work and shooting done here. As many of you know, they are doing great for you, then there is no issues or problems. They have everything going for them, size, field of view (extremely important on a DGR) and eye relief. Really when size is considered, nothing can compare to the Leupolds 1X4 or 1.5X5. With all other factors included then the Leupolds have some serious competition with the Trijicon, and now the Nikons.

I sincerely hope all that have bought my Leupolds never have an issue with them, and most likely will not in the capacity they will be used. My 50 B&M and 500 MDM seem to be the very worst on the scope of anything I have ever experienced. D'Arcy says that 458 Lott is the worst on scopes, but D'Arcy has no experience with my 50 B&Ms. I have Lot's of Lotts and several 50s, I have had Leupolds go well over 500 rounds with the lott, Not ever on a 50. In fact, recall the one new VX3 that busted in 3 rounds! So unless you are shooting a 50 B&M you are likely to run into less issues. Here, we are shooting on average 150-250 rounds of big bore a week, so it don't take too long to have some problems.

By the way, I still have two Leupolds for sale, and I found a third, 1.5X5 on a 51 Alaskan that I was testing a few weeks ago, that I had forgotten about, so if interested, I will make you a hell of a deal on them?????

Michael

As I've said many times before, YOU DON't NEED 5 inches of EYE RELIEF" on even the heaviest recoiling guns! If your getting hit by the scope your NOT holding the gun Corectly! No amount of upper arm strength will overcome that FLAW. Figure out what your doing wrong and fix it. If your breaking scopes, I'd look at the mounting procedure also. Is the scope slipping in the mounts? Rings not lapped for max grip ( usually the case), Did you check the rings and bases for perfect alignment? Weak attachment mechanism? I suspect poor ring alignment and lack of grip on the mounts has broken more scopes than any inherent flaw. BTW my .600OK has over 1000 rds through it over 10 years with the same 2.5X Leupold. That gun kicks a might more than any 50 ever built period. Thats a rugged scope test in my book. I've broken my share of scopes too and the leupold 2.5X (when mounted properly) has never failed me. -Rob

Hey Rob

Here I use nothing but QRW rings and bases, they are extremely handy when making as many changes back and forth as I need to do here, from one rifle to the next. To date, I have only had one maybe two scopes that would slip and turn in the rings, both of those were sorted out before any breakage occurred. No, I do not check for perfect alignment. A 10 yr old Leupold is not the same as todays Leupold, I promise you that for fact. I had the 2.5 X also, cross hairs came loose on it and was sliding around with Sam on a 458 B&M Super Short--Not a hard kicker at all, in fact, not much to it. I have no doubt, your scope is rugged as can be.

Hey, I don't give a crap one way or the other if you want to know the truth, all I can do is report the facts as they are here. Sorry if someone does not like that for any reason, it's the way it is.
Lot's of things get broken here that may not ever break in someone elses lifetime. It's a torture chamber for everything. Hell I even broke the end off of Doc's 600 OK when it was here! HEH HEH........

Now I doubt seriously that as many as I have returned for repairs that they were all mounted incorrectly and caused the issues I have. One or two very sure, possible. They are all mounted the same. But not all break. This ain't my first rodeo you know! Not to mention other scopes mounted the same way, and they are not breaking yet anyway? They may start today however? Who knows?

Michael

For those that say they have never had a scope problem on a rifle please re-read the above post by Michael.

I use to say that the elephant graveyard for scopes was here in northern Utah. It seems that we now have a southern cemetery as well.

When I am asked what my favorite scope manufacture is I reply that I hate all optical companies equally !

Thanks for the replies - especially Michael. It takes effort to include that much info and I appreciate it. We all benefit from the experience.

Lots of experience with Leupold and Nikon, but what about Swarovski, Zeiss, S&B, etc. - that is, the high dollar group of rifle scopes. Michael did note "you get what you pay for." With these high dollar scopes, do you get your money's worth?

Regards, AIU

Michael- My post wasn't meant to reflect on you, more to the "I just got wacked by my scope and I need more eye relief crowd!". BEING BOUNCED OFF A HUMAN SKULL, THEN DROPPED ON THE CONCRETE OF THE RANGE FLOOR MIGHT ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SCOPE BREAKAGE RATE. Ya Think? Wonder how many broken scopes get returned with blood stains or skin still attached? In all seriousness, My point was that many scopes that break are due to alignment and ring issues. Most people don't really know how to mount scopes properly. They think they do, but they don't! FWIW, I don't use QRW rings except on puny guns because I've broken a few of them right off the bases in the past. Try them on a .50BMG and see how long they last. It won't be long I can assure you of that! I use fixed Badger Rings ( as wide as possible) front and rear, fully lapped to scope diameter and checked for alignment, with the scope mounted as low as possible and torqued to spec. Where you mount the rings on a scope is also important. I try and keep the rings back at least a 1/2 from the front objective lens too. As for high dollar scopes, I've had good luck with S&B and a Swarovski 1.5X7 class variables and in general I do agree that you get what you pay for. I don't waste my time on cheap scopes for anything including .22's. I'd be willing to bet money, that the way in which I mount my scopes has more to do with their longevity than other factors. Nevertheless,I'm sticking with 2.5X Leupolds till something better shows up. Something better also needs to last a few hundred rounds before I will consider it a rugged scope.-Rob

I will echo Rob and others - the 2.5x Leupold is what I use. In my experience, it's the Energizer Bunny of big bore scopes.

quote:

Originally posted by Robgunbuilder:
Most people don't really know how to mount scopes properly. They think they do, but they don't! FWIW, I don't use QRW rings except on puny guns because I've broken a few of them right off the bases in the past.

Hell Rob, compared to you, I shoot sissy guns here! LOL............ So the QRWs work dandy for sissy guns like mine! HEH.... I concur, the QRWs can go so far, but not that far! On my stuff here, good up to 510 Wells and such, I can't say beyond that.

I can tell you this, as hard as some of these guys heads are, there is NO DOUBT in my mind they would break even the best of scopes to pieces! It's hard on a scope going up against something hard as a cement block head! Once again, I concur!

Michael- Sorry, I just could not resist! All in good fun.
Many years ago before I knew better, I tried to use QRW rings on a heavy class.50BMG in a 1000 yrd FCSA meet. I successfully zeroed the gun and then on a record string there was a sharp snap and my Nightforce sailed over my head to hit the tarmac with a sickening thud. Both QRW rings failed catastrophically. The late great Skip Talbot came over and just started laughing then loaned me a set of Badgers so I could complete the match. Never used QRW's except on sissy guns after that!
My favorite is one guy who tried to use aluminum bases on a Gibbs with a huge Nightforce on it. But thats another story! -Rob

Rob, absolutely, good fun for sure. Back when I thought I could use an Aimpoint, the small single mount. I wanted the QRW on it, quick release, go to iron option! This was a 30mm QRW. Mounted on the front of the receiver, single. Shooting a 470 Capstick at the time. Sighting in at 50, shooting along doing pretty good, until after recoil there was NO MORE AIMPOINT????? Gone? Looked all around the bench, on the sides, and finally found it laying 20 ft behind me!

Pretty damned glad it didn't hit me in the head!


From then on, I used the big heavy duty Aimpoint 30mm Rings.

Like I said, I can attest to up to 510 Wells, and 500 MDM recoil levels, I think they are around 100 ft lbs or so, not bad, the QRWs do well to that point. Like you say, beyond that one needs something that has less parts to blow off. Damned handy however, especially switching scopes back and forth weekly, and sometimes even daily. And even at times, a few times in a day!

Later!

Michael

Good info Michael and Rob, thank you. If my 1.5 - 5x Leupold gives up on my 500 Jeffery, I'll have Leupold fix it and put it on my 30/30 and stick with open sights on the 500

Rob,
If you had been using 4 of the current QRW rings on that lightweight 50 BMG, and a not so heavy scope, it might have held.
More like a Leupold 2.5X Ultralight on a 600 Overkill, with only 2 QRW rings required there.

I have broken both Talley and Warne rings on my 100 ft-lb. class rifles.
But never a current make QRW.

The early QRW rings had a rounded cross bolt on the bottom and were famously bad about failing, like a round peg in a square cross slot.
The newer QRWs are a square peg in a square cross slot.
I like to epoxy the QRW (or Warne) bases to the receiver with 8x40 screw conversion also.
Almost as good as a CZ or Ruger integral base then.

I think Doc M's problems with killing Leupold scopes might come from switching between Winchesters with the same scope and rings.
There may be a difference in heights of the receiver rings that puts a bending torque on the scope tubes when he tightens them down.
Maybe he has finally winnowed out the out of spec rifle, so now the Nikons are surviving better.
Coincidence?
This speaks to your point about having a stress free, properly aligned scope installation.

Also, I am with you on the eye relief:
I have learned to push the scope as far forward in the rings as it will go and accept the field of view I get, whatever.
It is a hell of a lot better than a scout scope!
Proper form and don't get too relaxed, and beware the odd shooting position.
I have been lightly brushed only once by a scope. It touched the bridge of my shooting spectacles, did no damage to me.
I got too relaxed shooting offhand with a heavy weight .416 Rigby Gen.2 Ruger RSM and a Leupold 1.5x-5x.
That was a gentle rifle. Just careless.
Never crawled a stock since.

RIP/ Michael- all good points! I have to say I don't switch scopes on guns literally ever. They go on and stay on. I know you guys can shoot to so that eliminates the " skull bounce " effect too. Eliminating any torque or twisting of the scope in the rings really helps longevity. Interestingly many of the broken scopes I've seen we're mounted with the front ring way to close to the front objective. They were all one shot one kill scopes. -Rob

Rob and RIP, concur, even more good points made. RIP, I had forgotten about the old QRWs with the round post/screw that went in the slot of the bases! OK, but not so good, and for sure would not hold up on anything Rob shoots. I weeded those out long ago. Switching scopes back and forth on rifles! Yes, I can see where just off slightly from one to the other might cause stress. I actually had not thought about that, but for sure could be a factor. Without doubt, it is always best to set up a scope permanently on a particular rifle, and it stays there. If you consider anything 416 and up big bore, I normally keep on hand 50-60 rifles considered big bores. Today I might be shooting 458s, tomorrow .474s, or even several different during any one day. It just don't make good economic sense to possibly have 50-60 scopes set up permanently, and on some rifles that might be retired from service and not picked up for years? But, if set up with the QRW bases, then should they be called into service for some sort of test work, such as several of my 458 Lotts, 458 Wins and 416 Remingtons, now retired since 2005, then it does not take long to set them up and get going with the work at hand. It does not make good sense to keep them permanently set up with glass. Not to mention taking up more room and space with glass mounted.

Not too long ago, Oz was curious about what Leupolds I had been busting. So I sent him a list of the types. I did not know, but he had a chap at Leupold he sent that to, with all the info about the 50 B&M and such. This chap sent an email back to Oz stating that the 50 B&M most likely had a very high rated recoil impulse, or fast recoil as I understand it, not necessarily extremely heavy, as it is not. They are rather light, depending on the stock. Yeah Yeah, OK OK. But what I stood up and took notice of is this. Oz mentioned I had been having very good luck with the Nikons. The guy made a bit of a condescending remark that went like this;
"Nikon glues their internals in place, we here at Leupold do not do that, as our customers like to have their scopes "Customized", and you cannot "Customize" if internals are glued in place" My direct response and very first thought that ran through my mind was this "PUT MORE F**K**G GLUE IN IT" End of Story! I don't give a damn if they are glued, held tight with bubble gum, tied together with rubber bands, I don't care as long as they don't break!

I don't like 30mm tubes, they are just too big, bulky, heavy, and look odd on my little sissy guns. What little bit I have used them I would say they very well may be more robust and hold up better in the long run, but I can't say for sure. I have had a few of the euro scopes in here belonging to different folks, and I have to say I don't care for them much if you want to know the truth. Either I am too stupid to figure out how to get them to move POI correctly, or they don't move correctly, not sure which! I do know I have seen scopes from Sw and the Z that actually had to move them backwards to get them to go forwards. I know damn well that was not right! When some of the guys came in for me to sight them in for deer season, I used to hate to see one of those on the rifle, as I knew it was going to be a shoot and move and see where it goes deal! Other than that I can't say anything, that's all the experience I have with them. I don't have any here, don't want any either. I did have one of the Sw ones once, 1X4 I think, did not like it, traded it for 3 Leupolds. That was a few years ago.

The BEST? Don't know, I would say most of you guys would set one up mostly permanently on a particular big bore. Big bore rifles in my mind are for the most part DG Rifles. The most important part of the equation, for me, is Field of View at close range on low power settings! I have a full mount lion 10 steps in from of my Lab room door. If I can stand at that door, and see that lion from tip to tip, every bit of it, on low power setting, then I am happy with that Field Of View, that is my Field of View test. If I can't see all of that lion, I ain't happy. Other factors such as proper POI movement is important, but if permanently setting a scope up on one rifle, it should stay that way once it is set. I move mine a lot, changing rifles, so that aspect might be more important to me, than one that is set up permanently on a rifle. Eye relief is a factor, most of the scopes set up for big bores have that anyway, and as Rob and RIP state, you also have control of that aspect by knowing how to shoot proper. Recently a novice had one of my 50 Super Shorts---Not a big kicker, not a heavy recoil rifle, Granny can shoot a 50 Super Short without issues--3 novices busted their heads with a 1X4 Leupold, which has PLENTY of eye relief, my novices were not holding the rifle, they thought they were shooting a 22! Size is a factor, you don't want a big bulky POS on your Dangerous Game Rifle, it needs to be small, fast and easy to handle and of power from 1-5, and you walk around with it set on 2-2.5 at most. And most of the time thats all the power you need on it. Well, that's my thoughts and opinions on it anyway, for what its worth, you did not pay anything for it, so that might just be what its worth too!

Michael

Recently, my friend built a nice rem 700 tactical rifle and could not get it to zero. Drove him crazy!He checked everything and then brought it over to the shop in desperation. I checked his $300 picatinny rail and found it wasn't even flat and slightly offset to the axis of the bore. Looked good, just would not work. It pays to check everything. I could go on and on about stuff I've found that causes misalignment of the bases, but that's another story.
I'm with Michael on 30 mm tubes too. If I had my druthers it would be a Leupold 2.5x with a dot in circle reticle like a Eotech and illuminated( as long as that didn't effect the ruggedness. That would be lightning fast and I prefer that style over crosshairs.-Rob