The DSS scope base and low Burris Xtreme Tactical 30mm rings work!
This moves the Sightron about 3/4" forward on the rifle, versus where it was with the CZ rings.
That might keep it out of my forehead.





I like this so much, I will probably J-B Weld it to the rifle, like permanent.
That would make it an "Integral DSS."
Bubba Gunwerkes inventory identifier: IDSS-CZ550MAG

Rip ...

A bit more forward mounting helps aesthetically also. Heard good things about Sightron but have never seen one at any of the retailers around here. Pretty fancy windage adjustment.

Really like CZ rifles as with most any other european-made rifle. Fine quality. Mine's a 550 Exclusive in .308 Win. Using the ring mounts supplied with the rifle the VX-2 3-9x50mm is positioned just right for my liking.

RIP, sorry if you've done it and I've forgotten, but have you thought of using a continuous Picatinny rail and just milling out most of what's not needed on the r/h side?

My concern is that in dangerous-game rifles we need a big, unobstructed, loading port for when the SHTF. Were it not for this need I would see the old Shultz & Larsen-type action as ideal because it should at least shorten the bolt throw, reducing the chance of shortstroke.

In regard to those G-force tests, they sound good but it is a long time since I stopped accepting everything the corporate world wants us to believe.

For at least 40 years, cigarette companies told us their products were safe (some even claimed they would improve your health).

We've seen spirits claiming to be 100% Scotch whisky that were probably 50% Australian water (sent in barrels, cut and bottled when they arrived).

Car makers have made cars that required dangerous leaded gas to stop them pinging, falsified their emissions-test results, sold us exploding airbags, convertibles and pillarless hardtops that might look great but are hardly safe in rollovers - and certain sedans "unsafe at any speed".

Pharmaceutical companies have peddled harmful products ranging from Thalidomide to talcum powder (dangerous enough in itself) that also contained asbestos.

Why should scope companies be any better? Knowing the chance of anyone suing them for a dangerous failure is minimal, it may be they are even cheekier than the classes of manufacturers mentioned above. Despite all the makers' assurances of shockproofness, forum members bring us stories of expensive scopes that let them down. Some of the makers' claims of resistance to immense calibres result from use on rifles (and/or machineguns?) so heavy the recoil transmitted to shooter and scope may be less than from a sporter-weight .30-06 (an esteemed AR member says his 50BMG hardly moves when he fires it).

That scope makers play games with us can be seen in their advertising new, superior springs without ever bothering to explain why they were needed. Sometimes they adopt technology from other companies to make their scopes more secure but don't want to talk about that, either. My favorite example of this is in a 2017 catalogue, showing an enormous scope stretching 40cm across two pages, with five testimonials and text pointing to every feature bar a small knob protruding from the turret housing at about 7.30. This appears to be the same line of scope a customer used on his 20mm Vulcan in firing 4000 rounds but no mention is made of what part that knob may have had in the scope's ability to hold zero. For all I know it may be for pumping in inert gas - but it looks suspiciously like Burris's Posi-Lock.

So, how do these matters relate to claims that some brands of scope are tested and found to survive G-forces far in excess of known rifle recoil?
Well, even if the claims are true, I'd rather trust a scope where the strength is manifest in its design, not simply claimed.

On the theme of 'cutting up' scopes, seeing the guts of a scope with a constantly centred reticle is relatively easy because, generally, most of it was just inserted where the ocular screws off. If you know how to undo it, the entire erector set, power scroll and reticle assembly should come out in a long narrow tube, 'hinged' at the back and held at the front against the turret screws by some spring means. These tubes always weigh a fair bit, even the cheap ones housed in light alloy. The good ones generally have more brass alloy in them despite it making them more susceptible to recoil inertia.

The old reticle-movement scopes were much more solid. The erector set is more likely to be brass because, as a greasy metal, a variable's power scroll of brass will move longer and smoother without galling. It will fit tightly into the outer tube but you might be able to get it out. Unless you have a Pecar (or Nickel?) with a user-replaceable reticle, getting that bit out might be a challenge. The reticle may be like the one in that Nickel I cut up, held in a dovetail attached to a long sleeve firmly set in the main tube, immovable under any recoil inertia.

While all of this stuff has a fair mass, the reticle assembly itself, the only part that can move in those old scopes, weighs only about one-tenth what rocks around in a modern scope and was tethered in such away that it should have not moved at all under recoil.

quote:

That cinched it for me and the .458 WIN.
John Hunter books in a grade school library probably sparked my first interest in "big bore" rifles.
The .458 WIN M70 was the best alternative to a .500 NE double rifle back then.
Still is.

Rip ...

Maybe back then.

Today, the 500 Acc Rel (Nyati throat) remains the runaway best alternative to the 500 NE.
Boom.

quote:

So, how do these matters relate to claims that some brands of scope are tested and found to survive G-forces far in excess of known rifle recoil?
Well, even if the claims are true, I'd rather trust a scope where the strength is manifest in its design, not simply claimed.

There is something different about Nikon that is right, not perfect, but on the right path.

Yes, Nikon and Sightron seem to have good reputations and there is almost no choice in the kind of reticle movement these days, in terms of scopes with the optimum length to work on big-game rifle actions.

There are small Valdada and Elcan tactical scopes without image-movement but their ultra-short lengths mean frontal blows might knock zero twice as far out as a short scope with mounts four inches apart.

I am rueful of the move to scopes with larger-and-larger variable ratios, though, fearing that these may make the erector tube even more vulnerable to recoil than the old 3x ones are.

quote:

Originally posted by 4sixteen:
A bit more forward mounting helps aesthetically also. Heard good things about Sightron but have never seen one at any of the retailers around here. Pretty fancy windage adjustment.

4sixteen,

Thank you for the latest installment of eye candy for THE MISSION.

No need for confusion about the "funny turret." Pay attention now,
the windage adjustment is on the right side of the scope:



The elevation adjustment is on the top of the scope,
and that funny looking third turret is is on the left side of the scope
for the illuminated reticle:



Rip ...

sambarman338,

Thank you for the grand philipic against corrupt practices.
It was good reading and a good ringing of THE MISSION bell.
All that I can add to that is responded to below.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
RIP, sorry if you've done it and I've forgotten, but have you thought of using a continuous Picatinny rail and just milling out most of what's not needed on the r/h side?
Yes, we covered that. I tried one (pictured here previously), but I truly prefer the Double-Seyfried-Schtick,
the 2-piece Picatiiny with the thumb-charging cut in the middle.
My concern is that in dangerous-game rifles we need a big, unobstructed, loading port for when the SHTF. Were it not for this need I would see the old Shultz & Larsen-type action as ideal because it should at least shorten the bolt throw, reducing the chance of shortstroke.
The thumb gap makes it handle very well in loading, and there is no problem with ejection.
In regard to those G-force tests, they sound good but it is a long time since I stopped accepting everything the corporate world wants us to believe.

I am not about to start worrying about G-Force ratings on scopes.
I have gotten by all my life without worrying about +/- G on a scope.
Sounds like marketing hype to me.
A scope is built tough or it is not.
I like affordable scopes that are not too dear to be broken and fixed or replaced on a regular basis.
Save those receipts and warranty cards!

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

That cinched it for me and the .458 WIN.
John Hunter books in a grade school library probably sparked my first interest in "big bore" rifles.
The .458 WIN M70 was the best alternative to a .500 NE double rifle back then.
Still is.

Rip ...

Maybe back then.

Today, the 500 Acc Rel (Nyati throat) remains the runaway best alternative to the 500 NE.
Boom.

Nah, the .458 WIN is still tops for a practical DGR.
It is all that could possibly be needed, except for the hairy-chest-thumping that some folks require.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by 4sixteen:
Marketed as a premium quality premium-priced consumer product and has a limited lifetime warranty like any other manufacturer offers. How many full on .458 WM shots it can withstand before something lets go is anyone's guess. Only 1 way to find out is to use it. Probably sooner under the heavier recoil and with a muzzle brake. A bit heavy at 20.1 oz - all that inertia wants to stay put under recoil so all components need to be wired tight along with the mounting system.

Malfunctions are probably more likely to occur at temperature extremes. Any scope works fine right up until the shot that finally breaks it.

https://sightronusa.com/product/stac17x24irmh/

4sixteen,

The model you are showing is the TACTICOOL version with illuminated MIL-HASH reticle and prouder turrets.

Mine is the HUNTING version, discontinued sometime since 2014, with less obtrusive turrets and illuminated GERMAN 4A reticle.

And mine weighs less than 20.1 ounces: Mine weighs 20.0 ounces!

Yes, it is a hog.
But it is optically brilliant and faster than spit on 1X.
A: The illuminated dot at the center of the 4A reticle subtends 2.92" at 100 yards on 1X.
Since it is in the second focal plane, crank it up to 7X and the dot subtends 0.42" at 100 yards.
B: The thin-line portion of the 4A reticle subtends 1.05" at 100 yards (1 MOA), thus at 7X it is only 0.15".
C: The thick portion (post) of the 4A reticle subtends 3.97" at 100 yards, thus at 7X it is 0.57" wide on the target at 100 yards.
D: The gap between the two square ends (horizontal posts) of the thick portion, across the center of the reticle, is 53.47" on 1X, 7.64" on 7X.
E: From the center of the reticle to the start of the vertical post below is half of D, i.e., 26.74" on 1X, 3.82" on 7X.
This may not be the best of rangefinder scopes, but I might be able to work with it to some effect.

Rip ...

Here is the old Sightron 2.5x32mm (series I) which is also a discontinued model,
mounted on the DSS-Picatinny with Burris Xtreme Tactical rings:



It has the same mounting length as the Nikon SlugHunter,
but with slimmer bells and no whistles (fixed power) it is easy to make work in LOW RINGS.



I could move it even farther forward,
but with eye relief of 4.1" that would tunnel-down the FOV more than I want.
FOV at 100 yards = 37.5 feet
Weight = 9.9 ounces.
I also have the specs for subtensions of the "Plex" (standard duplex) reticle.
Since the power is fixed, I am less likely to get confused when using it as a rangefinder.
I have 3 of these.
Shoot'em 'til the break, then slap on the backup,
or at spittin' range, just spit.



Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
sambarman338,

Thank you for the grand philipic against corrupt practices.
It was good reading and a good ringing of THE MISSION bell.
All that I can add to that is responded to below.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
RIP, sorry if you've done it and I've forgotten, but have you thought of using a continuous Picatinny rail and just milling out most of what's not needed on the r/h side?
Yes, we covered that. I tried one (pictured here previously), but I truly prefer the Double-Seyfried-Schtick,
the 2-piece Picatiiny with the thumb-charging cut in the middle.
My concern is that in dangerous-game rifles we need a big, unobstructed, loading port for when the SHTF. Were it not for this need I would see the old Shultz & Larsen-type action as ideal because it should at least shorten the bolt throw, reducing the chance of shortstroke.
The thumb gap makes it handle very well in loading, and there is no problem with ejection.
In regard to those G-force tests, they sound good but it is a long time since I stopped accepting everything the corporate world wants us to believe.

I am not about to start worrying about G-Force ratings on scopes.
I have gotten by all my life without worrying about +/- G on a scope.
Sounds like marketing hype to me.
A scope is built tough or it is not.
I like affordable scopes that are not too dear to be broken and fixed or replaced on a regular basis.
Save those receipts and warranty cards!

Rip ...

Thanks RIP,
thinking of the need to keep the loading port clear, I remember that most of my old Nickel Supra scopes also have the windage turrets on the left side, when they have one.

In case you didn't see it, shootaway finally rendered yeoman service by posting this in the double-rifle forum:

http://dspace.nplg.gov.ge/bits...land_Holand_1958.pdf

Once you've feasted your eyes on the rifles, scroll down to the scopes. Their added cost was a mere bagatelle but they were the brands Hollands always used and it seems some Nickels even had H&H's name and address stamped on them. According to Terry Wieland the H&H mounts are the Roll-Royce of detachables and probably cost more than the scopes did.

sambarman338,

Good on shootaway! I printed the pdf and filed it in an Oxford binder with sheet protectors.
I love paper better than mere electrons which are so much more subject to failure.
Love the old Nickel power change ring on the variables, slim, no interference with forward mounting.
If the H&H scope mount is the Rolls Royce, then the Double-Seyfried-Schtick&Burris (DSS&B) is the Chevrolet Corvette and Ford F-150 do-all combined.

Rip ...

I dragged a fine-grit knife-sharpening stone across the DSS to knock off the burrs:

The DSS is ready for J-B Welding to the action:



I am not going to file off any more of it to allow use of low rings with the Nikon SlugHunter/ P3 Shotgun scope.
Even if I did that, I still could not mount the scope as far forward as I can with medium-height Burris Xtreme Tactical rings.

I have tried it and the scope is well aligned on the DSS according to bore-sighting tell, with reticle centered in its adjustment range.

Rip ...

Nikon P3 Shotgun scope forward mounting in DSS&B:

Nikon P3 Shotgun scope rearward mounting in DSS&B:

There is about 1-9/16", over 1.5", of discretion in the mounting, rearward to forward, with the DSS&B mounting system.
5 cross-slots on each of the two Picatiinny bases, all working in conjunction, 1 through 5, rearward to forward.
The medium-height rings raise the sight height by 0.25" versus the low-height rings.
That would be 2.00" versus 1.75", approximately,
for distance from centerline of bore to centerline of scope.
Not bad, considering it is about the same as for the H&H Rolls Royce mount with a 2.00" sight height.
Great for benchrest shooting, and we have confidence in the Nikon's recoil tolerance,
for at least 400 rounds.
Maybe more if I get that tool to tighten the ring holding the rubber O-ring in front of the objective lens.

All the way rearward, position #1 of the DSS&B, Ford-Corvette of scope mounts:



I like it best mounted at position #3, midway between the extremes.
Perfect for me with the 5.0" constant eye-relief of this variable scope.

Rip ...

H&H low mounting pictured below, with modified safety on an M98.
I think there is a typo here.
The scope in the lower picture may be a 4X-fixed,
but the big one at top looks line the 2.5-6X variable by Nickel?

sambarman338, what say you?



Very disappointed that H&H were not pushing the .458 Winchester Magnum in 1958.
They probably still don't, eh?
Just more evidence of the Munitions Industrial-Commercial Complex (MICC) conspiracy against the .458 WIN.
.458 WIN DENIERS! Wieners & Whiners! W&W and H&H!
Oh well, the truth is out now.

Rip ...

Thanks RIP, I would have posted that page myself but, as you know, my imgur efforts are not as seamless as yours.

Though some of Nickel's variable power rings were compact, that top picture does seem to be the 4x36. Mine has a collar focus with fine threads but not the kind you see on American scopes; one turn uncovers three or four threads, meaning the focus moves fast, as with eye-piece types.

Actually, I prefer the Zeiss/Hensoldt power adjustment of turning the whole ocular housing (despite Chuck Hawks's complaint that it displaces hinged scope caps). The Nickel I pulled to pieces seemed to only have graphite grease protecting the power-scroll slot and the ring has seized up on another scope I've got. I can't be sure, but it seems to me that ocular adjustment might be more waterproof, in not needing that slot, and give more leverage.

Yes, there is the odd literal in that catalogue (to wit the spelling of Diatal as Dialtal), so British gunmaking may have been sublime but their printing, not so much.

Their drawing of reticles misses, too, as in my experience Nickel and Zeiss preferred blunt pickets, leaving the sharp (twilight-challenged) ones to lesser makers like Helmut & Helmut

H&H was well into proprietory cartridges (a restrictive concept I don't really understand) but I believe they have built db rifles in 458WM, a dubious use of it IMHO.

OK, my mistake, thanks.
But the old B. Nickel variable did have a skinny little power-change ring, great for low mounting.
That low-mounting-capable scope was wasted in the H&H "low" mount.

Here is a recent Nickel, only a wee bit over 3000 Euros, sold only direct to buyer/sportsman, no middlemen:

Nickel Magnum 1.5-6x30 EDS





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

That scope would sure go well in a DSS&B.
I could mount it farther forward and lower in the DSS&B mounts.

Amazing that it only weighs 14.9 oz.
How the heck do they do that?
The scope is 13.0" long and has a 30-mm tube, with 30mm objective lens in a 36mm-diameter objective bell.
Physically bigger than the Sightron 1-7X24mm, but 5.1 ounces lighter.

Drawing of scope here is a generic one for specifying the dimensions of all the scopes:


Model Nickel Magnum 1,5-6x30 ED
weight 422 g (14.9 oz.)
ocular tube diameter 36 mm (1.4 in.)
middle tube diameter 30 mm (1.181 in.)
objective tube diameter 36 mm (1.4 in.)
length A 331 mm (13 in.)
B 86 mm (3.4 in.)
C 98 mm (3.9 in.)
D 55 mm (2.2 in.)
E 60 mm (2.4 in.)
F 35 mm (1.4 in.)
G 12 mm (0.5 in.)
magnification 1.5 - 6
effective lense diameter 30 mm (1.2 in.)
exit pupil 20 - 5 mm (0.8 - 0.2 in.)
twilight efficacy 6.71 - 13.4
field of view 15 - 5.5 m at 100m (45 - 16.5 ft. at 100 yd.)
eye relief 125 mm (4.9 in.)
adjustment range 180 cm/100m (64.8 in. at 100 yd.)
adjustment per click 1 cm/100m (0.36 in. at 100 yd.)

Your choice of reticle, including illuminated:



Bobbarrella could sure use one of those.

Rip ...

4sixteen,

That is an excellent use of a dot reticle.
Range-finding with a single dot.
Simple as it gets.

Do you have any trouble getting it to shoot into a gnat's nut at 100 yards?
When zeroing, do you adjust to shoot to the top of the dot for dead-on at 100 yards,
or do you like for it to shoot into the center of dot at 100-yards?
Your trajectory table suggests putting the dot on the center of a 6" bull at 100 yards,
and adjusting scope to have the bullet land on the top edge of the bull at 100 yards.
Thus, +3.09" at 100 yards and dead-on to center of reticle dot at 215 yards?


Rip ...

4sixteen,
Thanks. Got it. New trick for me.

Ring-a-ding-dong goes THE MISSION bell.
Thanks to all the players.
Best thread on the internet.

Rip ...

I am a master welder, specializing in J-B Welding.
I missed out on the Alaska Pipeline work. No use for my talents there.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
OK, my mistake, thanks.
But the old B. Nickel variable did have a skinny little power-change ring, great for low mounting.
That low-mounting-capable scope was wasted in the H&H "low" mount.

Here is a recent Nickel, only a wee bit over 3000 Euros, sold only direct to buyer/sportsman, no middlemen:

Nickel Magnum 1.5-6x30 EDS





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

That scope would sure go well in a DSS&B.
I could mount it farther forward and lower in the DSS&B mounts.

Amazing that it only weighs 14.9 oz.
How the heck do they do that?
The scope is 13.0" long and has a 30-mm tube, with 30mm objective lens in a 36mm-diameter objective bell.
Physically bigger than the Sightron 1-7X24mm, but 5.1 ounces lighter.

Drawing of scope here is a generic one for specifying the dimensions of all the scopes:


Model Nickel Magnum 1,5-6x30 ED
weight 422 g (14.9 oz.)
ocular tube diameter 36 mm (1.4 in.)
middle tube diameter 30 mm (1.181 in.)
objective tube diameter 36 mm (1.4 in.)
length A 331 mm (13 in.)
B 86 mm (3.4 in.)
C 98 mm (3.9 in.)
D 55 mm (2.2 in.)
E 60 mm (2.4 in.)
F 35 mm (1.4 in.)
G 12 mm (0.5 in.)
magnification 1.5 - 6
effective lense diameter 30 mm (1.2 in.)
exit pupil 20 - 5 mm (0.8 - 0.2 in.)
twilight efficacy 6.71 - 13.4
field of view 15 - 5.5 m at 100m (45 - 16.5 ft. at 100 yd.)
eye relief 125 mm (4.9 in.)
adjustment range 180 cm/100m (64.8 in. at 100 yd.)
adjustment per click 1 cm/100m (0.36 in. at 100 yd.)

Your choice of reticle, including illuminated:



Bobbarrella could sure use one of those.

Rip ...

I guess you know my opinion of Nickel AG's marketing and PR, RIP. It does take a bit of front to ask that sort of money without even letting the punter look through it first, though.

Imagine if it had field blending like 4sixteen's scope with lens caps on? Only joking - the Nickel's smallish ocular, long eye relief and reasonable FoV almost guarantee it has little room for tunnel vision.

The only explanations I can think for the light weight are that the 4x power multiple might be less bulky than the erector tube needed in Sightron's scope with 7x.

The Nickel's enormous exit pupil at 1.5x is a little surprising. Though it is arithmetically logical considering the 30mm objective, the German makers used to stop down the exit pupil at the lower end, somehow, possibly for eye-safety or parallax reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
The only explanations I can think for the light weight are that the 4x power multiple might be less bulky than the erector tube needed in Sightron's scope with 7x.

I have heard claims of higher quality glass requiring less glass in the lenses.
Higher refractive index glass could allow thinner lenses or lesser number of lenses?
Apparently there are few sources for best lens glass like from Japan and Germany.
Gossip is that Sightron and Leupold glass source is Japan, and so would be Nikon's, I guess.

Polycarbonate lenses like I prefer in my spectacles would be like "safety glass/plastic" for use in a scope.
I wonder if that would be feasible?

How about that 8X magnifier in the NightForce 1-8x24mm? That is a real cutie.
But it weighs 21.0 ounces, 1-ounce heavier, though at 10.06 inches long is shorter than the Sightron 1-7x24mm (20.0 ounces and 12.5 inches).

NightForce is the maker that claims to test scopes to 1250 G, positive and negative:

"One look through a Nightforce riflescope will tell you everything you need to know. Nightforce riflescopes are of the utmost quality and undergo rigorous testing methods. Prior to production, riflescopes are tested in a pressure tank simulating 100 feet of water for 24 hours. Thermal stability is tested by freezing scopes to -80°F followed by heating them to 160°F within a one hour period. Impact testing for positive and negative forces is conducted at 1,250 Gs. Additionally, every riflescope is inspected at a minimum of 70 check points before shipped."

Leupold shrugged that off and said that the maker who claimed that might well be testing with 1250-G impacts,
but that it was in straight-line, single-axis-only.
Apparently for real-life recoil, a severe test is more on the order of 300 G and involves all three axes simultaneously,
suggesting that a 300-G, triple-axis test could "mangle" a scope that could survive a 1250-G, single-axis test.

NightForce 1250-G impact testing: Is this the best they can do on Youtube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErjW_XNpkV4


Rip ...

www.nightforceoptics.com

The ATACR™ 1-8x24 riflescope is designed and built to be the ultimate low-power variable riflescope. It includes pristine ED glass, bright daylight illumination, an intelligent reticle, very low-profile adjustments and bomb-proof reliability, with a field of view at 1x equivalent to open sights…but vastly more precise.

It measures just over 10 inches in length and weighs 21 ounces, with a streamlined profile. The daylight visible, center red dot allows for rapid engagements like a red-dot sight.

NFO NX8 1-8x24 F1

Unlike a red-dot, however, the 1-8x provides up to 8x zoom to help locate, identify and engage targets at the maximum effective range of most rifles. The intelligent FC-DM first focal plane reticle provides precise hold and hold-off points. The low-profile turrets are capped to prevent accidental adjustment and offer true .1 Mil-Radian adjustment. To aid in fast magnification adjustments, an integrated Power Throw Lever (PTL) is included.



SPECIFICATIONS

ATACR 1-8X24 F1

Focal Plane: First

Objective outer diameter: 24mm

Exit pupil diameter:
1x: 11.26mm
8x: 3.19mm

Field of view @100 yards/100 meters
1x: 96.1ft
8x: 13.1ft
1x: 32.0m
8x: 4.4 m

Eye relief: 95 mm/3.74 in OOPS! What is the -G experienced by this scope striking my forehead? Perfect for a black rifle/AR.

Internal adjustment range
e: 30 Mil
w: 30 Mil

Click value: 0.1 Mil-rad

Parallax adjustment: Fixed 125 yd

Tube diameter: 34mm/1.34in NO WONDER it weighs as much as it does, and just 10 inches long. A strong, stiff tube.

Eyepiece outer diameter: 46 mm

Overall length (inches/mm): 10.06 in/255.5 mm

Weight (ounces/grams): 21 oz/595 g

Mounting length (inches/mm): 5.67 in/144 mm

PTL (Power Throw Lever): Standard Should be removed if used on a bolt action, so as not to be confused with bolt handle!

Reticles available:
FC-DM
Daylight visible, adjustable illumination

Elevation Feature: Capped, low-profile
****************************************************************************************************

Strong and stiff, less flex, and the short length (10.06") will reduce the mutiaxial G-forces acting on the objective lens.
I could remove the "Power Throw Lever," that will lighten it,
and I could accept the tunnel vision caused by the inadequate eye-relief.
But, I have to decide on a 34mm set of rings to fit Chubby onto my Double-Seyfried-Schtick mount.
I like the 6 huge screws in each Burris XTac ringtop, better than the NightForce rings.

Rip ...

Nightforce G-force impact testing?

Sam Millard is G-Man.

Rip ...

A look back to the bottom of page 1 of this thread:

quote:

Originally posted by Quickstrike:
^meh... I still like the option of putting 500 gr. mono's in the Lott.

There is no real reason to chamber the shorter cartridge in a magnum action like the CZ anyway.

Mighty smug to be so totally wrong.
I rue the day I ever re-chambered a CZ 550 Magnum from .458 WIN to .458 Lott (aka ".458 Loser").
With the 500-grain TSX (monometal copper) the .458 WIN is the easy winner.

Rip ...

Damned interesting Nf stuff, RIP!

Like you, I wonder how they equate a few bangs on a hard surface with any particular G-force number. And, as Atkinson has suggested, maybe the durability can't be proved in so few blows; that it may be the incremental shock of hundreds of shots from an elephant gun that might be needed to truly test the system.

Still a Luddite, I dispute the assertion that any amount of fine engineering or metalurgy in an image-movement design (bar Pecar's or some robust version of Burris's Posi-Lock) can remove the inherent vulnerability of a massive, long-and-hingeing erector tube, compared with the short, dovetail-secured reticle shown in that Nickel photo you posted for me.

Nightforces's only 'mechanical' superiority in my mind is their use of an etched reticle, and even this lacks a design appropriate to dangerous-game hunting.

Maybe we should ask Ray B to test their scopes on a .458 in a Lead Sled.

A mate of mine, post on AR as Blair 338RUM, has had great success with Nightforce but that is mainly with very precise and repeatable adjustment.

Never had much recoil. He had one on a 338 RUM and 300 RUM he took on a couple of his African hunts but the rifles were fairly heavy and not many shots fired in Africa. He has several of them but was not prepared to give one a run on light barrel Jap 378

My view on scopes/recoil is the same today as it was way back when. If the rifle is very accurate, fires lots of shots and is often tested on paper then anything above 375 H&H and you are on your own.

quote:

Originally posted by 4sixteen:
The Leupold 4x Compact on my .458 Lott weighs a mere 7.5 oz and has proven to be robust. And effective - I downed an Elk at 500+ yards using this scope.

https://www.leupold.com/scopes.../fx-i-rimfire-4x28mm

I've got one of those on an M77 22 RF.
Leupold does say it is built to the same standards as for centerfire.

Yes the Nightforce ATACR line does seem to be pretty heavy and short on eye relief. Trying to keep up with Schmidt & Bender?
Heavy is bad on a .458 WIN.
I have one of the cheaper Nightforce scopes, the smallest of the SHV line (ShooterHunterVarminter) that used to be found at the local emporium.
I bought it just because they hail from Idaho.
Love that Idaho.
Hope the fleeing Californians move on to Colorado instead of Idaho, for Idaho's sake!
Mine is the 3-10x42mm with MOAR reticle: 20.8 ounces, eye relief 3.46".
Better on a 6.5 Creedmoor or an AR.
Better yet on a 6.5 Creedmoor AR.
That is Nightforce material.

Rip ...

4sixteen,

Thanks for supporting THE MISSION.

Great article on Chris Kyle.
I read the book, listened to the unabridged audiobook, saw the movie, and now want to pattern a .458 WIN after Chris Kyle's .300 WIN,
except with CZ 550 Magnum action instead of Rem M700.



Make the rifle heavy enough and the Nightforce might survive.
Just kidding.

Rip ...

The accuracy and image of all this stuff makes me fear for democracy - but a version in 458 would be fine.