Lune, loon ... .458 WIN Loonie ... .458 WIN LongCOL.
Could page 180 be coming up with something even more interesting ?

Rip ...

More than 20 years ago, during the last decade of the last century,
SPEER NUMBER THIRTEEN was showing a SAAMI .458 Win.Mag. load with 500-grainer at 2239 fps from a 24"-barreled Ruger M77.

That tungsten-cored bullet was the trick, short overall length for a 500-grainer.
It allowed shallower seating yet a nose projection that still fit into a 3.340" COL.
AA-2230, 78.0 grains, lightly compressed,
500-grain bullet
2239 fps in a 24" Ruger factory barrel.
I believe it.

That bullet was perfectly designed for the .458 WIN.
Who the heck needs a SAAMI .458 Lott that would only do the same thing at higher pressure?

shootaway: Put some poop in your bag next time.

Rip ...

I shot a ton of those 400gr Speers in my 2 458's back in my teens. With a full load of BL-C, you got a huge flame out of the muzzle as well. Mucho Funo!!

Rip,
As with most true knowledge and Wisdom; it was not hidden these facts. We just did not seek to see them. We now have a 180 pages of opportunities and yet, we still have Lottites, a version of a Luddite with a short throat...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:


Lune, loon ... .458 WIN Loonie ... .458 WIN LongCOL.
Could page 180 be coming up with something even more interesting ?

Rip ...

Seeing you're into algebra and geometry, Ron, could I interest you in my assertion that modern scopes must be much more challenged by recoil than the old reticle-movement ones?

This could be predicated by reference to the mighty 458 Winchester Magnum but could also touch the 458 Lott, which Ray Atkinson contends is much more likely to wreck a scope.

The old scope could assume a reticle ring of 142 grains as in the old Nickel Supra I cut up, pretty heavy but running vertically in a strongly fixed dovetail housing and pressed up against the elevation screw by, say, a 7lb spring.

The new image-movement scope could have a four-inch-long erector tube, hinged at the back by a gimbal, and weighing 1400 grains (roughly the mass of the Nickel's brass erector set plus the reticle) and held against the turret screws by a 14-pound spring (apparently twice the strength of most brands').

However, since some scopes now use aluminium in the erector tube, weighing less than one-third as much as brass, perhaps another equation could be done assuming the erector tube only weighs 700 grains. That might be overdoing the reduction, of course, since even a cheap Tasco scope I dismantled had an erector tube of about two ounces (875 grains). In this case, the erector spring might be the usual 7lb one, since over-heavy springs might be expected to make turning the knobs difficult and wear the erector tube more in the process.

If those comparisons seem a bit apples-to-oranges, perhaps the old reticle-ring assy could be assumed to have double adjustments, with the ring held neatly between two unmoving sleeves in the scope, one containing a spring tensioning the ring against the screws from 7.30. Either way, the reticle can only move up and down in its housing, while the modern erector tube will follow an arc reciprocal to the rifle's rising under recoil.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I shot a ton of those 400gr Speers in my 2 458's back in my teens. With a full load of BL-C, you got a huge flame out of the muzzle as well. Mucho Funo!!

Precocious child you were, Todd.
I did not know the pleasures of the .458 WIN until I was paying back my student loans as an O-3 in the USAF.
And I was too soon tempted away from the .458 WIN by a .460 Wby.
Must have been my formative years with .458 WIN depravation that made me greedy.
If I had only kept those first three .458 WIN rifles instead of trading them in for something supposedly better ... Boy ! Was I ever a sucker !

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by Fury01:
Rip,
As with most true knowledge and Wisdom; it was not hidden these facts. We just did not seek to see them. We now have a 180 pages of opportunities and yet, we still have Lottites, a version of a Luddite with a short throat...

Lottites have short throats because their geeky pencil-necks cannot be stretched very far.

Rip ...

Paul,

I cannot begin to do the calculus you are going to need.
I will just stick to empirical observations of scopes that I know have survived a lot of recoil, like

Leupold 2.5x20mm Ultralight
Leupold 2.5x36mm "Saeed"
Nikon 1-4x20mm Monarchs/Africans
Nikon 3-9x40mm Shotgun

and maybe a few more, awaiting empirical jury decision.
I will dissect one if I ever get stuck with one that cannot be repaired or replaced on warranty.
Hasn't happened yet.

Oh, yes, always have a backup scope back in camp, pre-zeroed in mounts to match the primary scope's mounts,
in case the primary scope goes tits up in the field.
Iron sights until you get back to camp.
Peep and patridge preferred.

I like QD mounts that are never QD-ed unless the scope needs to be replaced by the backup scope in same type of QD mounts.

Rip ...

SHOOTAWAY: Put some dog poop in the paper bag before you fail to light it, fail to ring the doorbell, and fall flat on your face as you try to run away.
Substance please !
Even if it is just dog poop.
You do have a dog in this "fight," eh ?
A bitch named Lottie-Lott-Lott ?
Where's the poop ?

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:


Lune, loon ... .458 WIN Loonie ... .458 WIN LongCOL.
Could page 180 be coming up with something even more interesting ?

Rip ...

Seeing you're into algebra and geometry, Ron, could I interest you in my assertion that modern scopes must be much more challenged by recoil than the old reticle-movement ones?

This could be predicated by reference to the mighty 458 Winchester Magnum but could also touch the 458 Lott, which Ray Atkinson contends is much more likely to wreck a scope.

The old scope could assume a reticle ring of 142 grains as in the old Nickel Supra I cut up, pretty heavy but running vertically in a strongly fixed dovetail housing and pressed up against the elevation screw by, say, a 7lb spring.

The new image-movement scope could have a four-inch long erector tube, hinged at the back by a gimbal, and weighing 1400 grains (roughly the mass of the Nickel's brass erector set plus the reticle) and held against the turret screws by a 14-pound spring (apparently twice the strength of most brands').

However, since some scopes now use aluminium in the erector tube, weighing less than one-third as much as brass, perhaps another equation could be done assuming the erector tube only weighs 700 grains. That might be overdoing the reduction, of course, since even a cheap Tasco scope I dismantled had an erector tube of about two ounces (875 grains). In this case, the erector spring might be the usual 7lb one, since over-heavy springs might be expected to make turning the knobs difficult and wear the erector tube more in the process.

If those comparisons seem a bit apples-to-oranges, perhaps the old reticle-ring assy could be assumed to have double adjustments, with the ring held neatly between two unmoving sleeves in the scope, one containing a spring tensioning the ring against the screws from 7.30. Either way, the reticle can only move up and down in its housing, while the modern erector tube will follow an arc reciprocal to the rifle's rising under recoil.

The fundamental problem with the image moving scopes is imply more lenses in front of the reticle. Lenses behind the reticle (eye piece for example) can move, fall over or whatever but no change in point of impact as the image and reticle move together. Of course that is where the old Pecar reticle mover was different as you only had the objective lens in front of the reticle.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

I think the most interesting observation from this narrative and chart is that the max loads showing at or over 2150fps with 500 grain do not exceed factory ceiling for pressure listed her as 53k CUP.

Garrett cartridges in their 45/70 was still loading the Tugstan Speer when I was in college. Man, I loved that load. It was gone before I graduated.

Yes, AA-2230 was tops over 20 years ago, giving
2239 fps with tungsten-core 500-grainer at no more than 53,000 CUP.
Both it and AA-2460 have been reformulated since 2016 to give better temperature independence.
Of course lots of powder do vary, and other powders have changed too.

AA-2460 can give even higher velocity than AA-2230 at lower pressure, with a couple grains larger charge,
and maybe just a wee bit more mild compression.
Or give true .450 NE performance with no compression and really low pressure.
Plumb tropical with the tungsten core.

We mimic this by seating LongCOL with the longer bullets of same weight as the shortie bullet.

Rip ...

Perhaps Todd Williams and RIP telling us about their first experiences with .458 Win rifles will encourage the rest of us who have been reticent to share our own secrets about our first temptations toward this cartridge and subsequent romance therewith. I will step out, trusting that this group will support me...

As a young teen with magnumitus, I lusted after many guns having ferocious power, but the one rifle that to me represented the ultimate was the .458 Win Mag. Since aesthetics were important, I settled on the Winchester Model 70 early on, and never wavered in my commitment. Even though I bought, traded, and sold many firearms in the following decades, because life taught me the value of practicality and needs over wants, living in South Carolina and having no plans to visit Africa, I never was able to justify buying a .458, though its siren call was never fully muted. Then, I came across the writings of Bob Mitchell. At the time, he was writing a lot about his 9.3x62, and as I was also working on maximum loads for mine, eventually I wrote to him, and we began sharing notes. Of course, it was difficult to ignore all his work with the .458 Win, and I hold him partially responsible for rekindling my desire for one to have and hold for myself. Almost exactly three years ago today, I found myself inside a large local pawn shop/gun store, where there were often very interesting weapons to be seen. On this particular day, I spied a New Haven CRF Super Express on the shelf, and asked the clerk if I could see it. Once I realized it was a .458, and I saw that its previous owner(s) had barely used it, I knew that I was not leaving the store without it. A few months later, THE MISSION began, and I have been reading this thread since the first page. I no longer struggle against the temptation of the .458...I have fully given in, and life is now better for it.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Paul,

I cannot begin to do the calculus you are going to need.
I will just stick to empirical observations of scopes that I know have survived a lot of recoil, like

Leupold 2.5x20mm Ultralight
Leupold 2.5x36mm "Saeed"
Nikon 1-4x20mm Monarchs/Africans
Nikon 3-9x40mm Shotgun

and maybe a few more, awaiting empirical jury decision.
I will dissect one if I ever get stuck with one that cannot be repaired or replaced on warranty.
Hasn't happened yet.

Oh, yes, always have a backup scope back in camp, pre-zeroed in mounts to match the primary scope's mounts,
in case the primary scope goes tits up in the field.
Iron sights until you get back to camp.
Peep and patridge preferred.

I like QD mounts that are never QD-ed unless the scope needs to be replaced by the backup scope in same type of QD mounts.

Rip ...

That's too bad, Ron, I was hoping to get a board full of physics, too. Swarovski claimed recoil pressure (whatever that is, in physics speak) can be 500 to 800 times that of the mass of the erector tube, in justifying their move to helical erector springs, though I think their real reason was to negate the problem of twisted flat springs chattering across the outer tube and occasionally breaking.

On mounts, I much appreciating your introducing me to Burris's Signature rings, the greatest thing since sliced bread IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

Could page 180 be coming up with something even more interesting ?

Rip ...

Seeing you're into algebra and geometry, Ron, could I interest you in my assertion that modern scopes must be much more challenged by recoil than the old reticle-movement ones?

This could be predicated by reference to the mighty 458 Winchester Magnum but could also touch the 458 Lott, which Ray Atkinson contends is much more likely to wreck a scope.

The old scope could assume a reticle ring of 142 grains as in the old Nickel Supra I cut up, pretty heavy but running vertically in a strongly fixed dovetail housing and pressed up against the elevation screw by, say, a 7lb spring.

The new image-movement scope could have a four-inch long erector tube, hinged at the back by a gimbal, and weighing 1400 grains (roughly the mass of the Nickel's brass erector set plus the reticle) and held against the turret screws by a 14-pound spring (apparently twice the strength of most brands').

However, since some scopes now use aluminium in the erector tube, weighing less than one-third as much as brass, perhaps another equation could be done assuming the erector tube only weighs 700 grains. That might be overdoing the reduction, of course, since even a cheap Tasco scope I dismantled had an erector tube of about two ounces (875 grains). In this case, the erector spring might be the usual 7lb one, since over-heavy springs might be expected to make turning the knobs difficult and wear the erector tube more in the process.

If those comparisons seem a bit apples-to-oranges, perhaps the old reticle-ring assy could be assumed to have double adjustments, with the ring held neatly between two unmoving sleeves in the scope, one containing a spring tensioning the ring against the screws from 7.30. Either way, the reticle can only move up and down in its housing, while the modern erector tube will follow an arc reciprocal to the rifle's rising under recoil.

The fundamental problem with the image moving scopes is imply more lenses in front of the reticle. Lenses behind the reticle (eye piece for example) can move, fall over or whatever but no change in point of impact as the image and reticle move together. Of course that is where the old Pecar reticle mover was different as you only had the objective lens in front of the reticle.

That's right, Mike, in regard to most image-movement scopes, which have the reticle in the second focal plane. Those models that put it in the first focal plane, however, have the reticle attached to the front of the erector tube, so zero should never move when the magnification is changed. However, since some modern scopes may still suspend the reticle in a separate ring, that may mean a quarter ounce more mass at the front of the erector tube, adding to leverage under recoil inertia.

You are right about the Pecar Champion, too. It works like an old reticle-movement scope except that the constantly centred reticle is attained by throwing a restrictive field stop around the reticle itself, there in the first focal plane. While this maintains the strength and reliability of reticle-movement, it exemplifies my contempt for image-movement's restricting field of view and adding tunnel vision.

Think about it: you have a big FoV and almost seamless field blending with the old system but then, to make it look as though the crosswires are always centred, a smaller ring is employed to hold/surround them. This obviously reduces the proportion of the old field of view you can see through the scope, and throws a black band around it.

Pecar did it pretty well, though, and the replacement reticles available were specific to each scope power, whereby the loss of FoV could be limited. A mate known in these pages has a small one and he says the field blending is no worse than with an old reticle-movement Kahles of similar power. I've been told that variable Champions were made but I've never seen one and can't imagine how they could work without having massive tunnel vision in the lowest power.

quote:

Originally posted by bcelliott:
As a young teen with magnumitus, I lusted after many guns having ferocious power, but the one rifle that to me represented the ultimate was the .458 Win Mag. Since aesthetics were important, I settled on the Winchester Model 70 early on, and never wavered in my commitment. Even though I bought, traded, and sold many firearms in the following decades, because life taught me the value of practicality and needs over wants, living in South Carolina and having no plans to visit Africa, I never was able to justify buying a .458, though its siren call was never fully muted. Then, I came across the writings of Bob Mitchell. At the time, he was writing a lot about his 9.3x62, and as I was also working on maximum loads for mine, eventually I wrote to him, and we began sharing notes. Of course, it was difficult to ignore all his work with the .458 Win, and I hold him partially responsible for rekindling my desire for one to have and hold for myself. Almost exactly three years ago today, I found myself inside a large local pawn shop/gun store, where there were often very interesting weapons to be seen. On this particular day, I spied a New Haven CRF Super Express on the shelf, and asked the clerk if I could see it. Once I realized it was a .458, and I saw that its previous owner(s) had barely used it, I knew that I was not leaving the store without it. A few months later, THE MISSION began, and I have been reading this thread since the first page. I no longer struggle against the temptation of the .458...I have fully given in, and life is now better for it.

I wept tears of joy after reading that.
It's never too late for a .458 WIN.
Being 29 years old before I got my first .458 WIN,
I swore that my children would never be so deprived, so I started them off with a shotgun at age 3, and a .458 WIN by age 4 years.
My 3-year-old daughter is seen below, getting her first lesson,
familiarization with a Marlin Model 120 pump shotgun, 20" imp.cyl. slug barrel, 12 gauge.
I have a pic of my 4-year-old son's first lesson with the .458 WIN somewhere ...



Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
That's too bad, Ron, I was hoping to get a board full of physics ...
I'll leave that to you Paul, scope R&D is above my pay grade here at ar.com. Yes, quite the pity it is, my pay grade !
On mounts, I much appreciating your introducing me to Burris's Signature rings, the greatest thing since sliced bread IMHO.

Welcome.
My basic scope philosophy: Shoot 'em 'til they break, then grab another, for the .458 WIN.

Rip ...

Thanks Ron, I'm off to Qld for a couple of days, but if you change your mind and work out the correct formula I'll be glad to discuss it later.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
That's too bad, Ron, I was hoping to get a board full of physics ...
I'll leave that to you Paul, scope R&D is above my pay grade here at ar.com. Yes, quite the pity it is, my pay grade !
On mounts, I much appreciating your introducing me to Burris's Signature rings, the greatest thing since sliced bread IMHO.

Welcome.
My basic scope philosophy: Shoot 'em 'til they break, then grab another, for the .458 WIN.

Rip ...

Better philosophy is to just leave them off biguns like the 458!!!

Todd said about scope sights:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Better philosophy is to just leave them off biguns like the 458!!!

The emojis indicate he knows this is controversial. One camp will say it is just some more Tarzan yodeling. The other camp will say it is the only way to go.
OK, whatever floats your boat.
Anyone good with iron sights is probably better with a scope. Even Finn Aagaard and Phil Shoemaker, as they said themselves.
Certainly great to have some iron sights for backup until you can replace a smashed scope with the backup scope.

I have only one bolt-action rifle that is truly iron sights only ... so far ...
and a couple of double rifles with pretty good iron sights only.
So Todd has inspired some more mileage here at THE MISSION.
Examples of iron sights to put on your ultimate .458 WIN.

Rip ...

So, the .450 Dakota 5-shooter weighs 9.5 pounds with ~24.5" barrel and iron sights, no ammo.
Capable of 2450 fps with 500-grainer.
6,666.666... ft-lbs KE X 5 = 33,333.333... ft-lbs.

A .458 WIN-V 3.8" 7-shooter is possible with the same rifle configuration, or a CZ 550 Magnum with pocket plate.
6000 ft-lbs KE per shot is very reasonable with either 450-grainers or 500-grainers.
6000 ft-lbs x 7 = 42,000 ft-lbs KE.
And so much more controllable in recoil,
faster followup shots possible.
Sigh.

Come to think of it, I like the .450 Dakota with 450-grain monometals at only 2450 fps,
same as the .458 WIN-V.
If only I had my druthers, that .450 Dakota would be a .458 WIN-V 3.8".

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

Pretty nice rifle. Provides quite a bit of flexibility for either standard factory loads or handloads. The 450 Dakota and 450 Rigby definitely got my attention a few years ago when I contemplated something more than a 416 Rigby. But I ended up going with a 500 AccRel. It's probably that "two-step" thing when people choose cartridges. 458 wasn't a significant enough step up. It's why some folk like the 270, 338 and 416 while others go 30, 375, and 458. One group gives a slight edge to flatness, the other an edge to diameter. They are both great trios.

I like the design of that stock, particularly the drop (or lack thereof) at the heel. What I don't like is the sighting arrangement. It's the same as on my Red Ryder BB gun, which I got for Christmas 1946 or thereabouts.

Relying entirely on open sights on a rifle is like relying entirely on a hand cranked starter on a modern automobile. Only a Luddite could love such an arrangement.

Open sights are great for picking sparrows off the roof, but for use against dangerous game in a wide variety of ranges and light conditions, they make no sense at all to me.

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:
I like the design of that stock, particularly the drop (or lack thereof) at the heel. What I don't like is the sighting arrangement. It's the same as on my Red Ryder BB gun, which I got for Christmas 1946 or thereabouts.

Relying entirely on open sights on a rifle is like relying entirely on a hand cranked starter on a modern automobile. Only a Luddite could love such an arrangement. Open sights are great for picking sparrows off the roof, but for use against dangerous game in a wide variety of ranges and light conditions, they make no sense at all to me .

I suppose that depends on a couple of things:

1) What type of DG are you speaking of? Lion / Leopard? Yep, a scope is very beneficial. That said, I don't consider a 458 as optimal first shot lion or leopard material. I've shot a couple of both and found smaller calibers better suited. Doesn't mean a 458 can't be a bait / blind cat gun, especially with lighter bullet, faster loads, but I don't consider that use its forte.

For Buffalo / Elephant / Rhino, which in my opinion are the real uses for a true big bore like the 458, see No. 2 below.

2) At what range do you prefer to hunt.

a) I don't see any scenario where a scope is necessary for elephant hunting. I've shot a few. All with doubles (real one's SxS ) and open sights. I shot a tuskless in open country back in 2011 that we just couldn't get closer to than about 50 yards. A long shot for elephant for sure. I took that shot with an open sighted double with no issue. Video somewhere here on AR if interested. Honestly, I would have preferred to pass on that shot but the focus of that hunt was leopard and we needed bait right now.

b) Can't manage to get in close to a buff herd so you take a 100 yard shot into a group so as to not go home empty handed? Yeah, a scope is the ticket. Preferring up close and personal? Irons will do the trick. At least they do for me. I have shot a couple buff with a scoped 375, including one this past summer. Shot a few with open sights as well, including another this past summer. In all cases, I look back on those hunts with greater appreciation for the open sight kills as they took more effort and were just more satisfying. That buff I shot on day 9 this past summer, I passed on at 10:00 am the first morning as he stood in the open, at about 120 yards. Had I shot him that morning, which would have been easy with the scoped 375, I would have missed out on an additional week plus of crawling, ducking, playing the wind, avoiding eyes / ears, getting oh so close to a shot before getting busted, competing with a pride of lions chasing the herd, etc. But again, that's not a 458 ... it's a 375.

I get the gist of RIP's thread and I'm happy to ring the mission bell when I have something to contribute, whether it be of substance or some light hearted snark for comic relief. It appears to me RIP has nailed the issue of looking past "common knowledge" concerning the Lott being superior to the standard WM. I love these types of stories. Kind of like the Global Warming chicken littles who squawk about rising sea levels. Then you do a little digging and find that the only places where that is occurring in any measurable amount is limited to a couple of places that real science says are experiencing a bit of tectonic plate shifting where the land mass appears to be sinking a little. There's almost always more to the story line and the truth often goes against what the masses have been fed as gospel. Not to mention the preachers of doom buying up beachfront properties!

On that note, I also get RIP's intent to expand the 458's usefulness beyond the traditional "stopping rifle" role, and in that case, scoping a 458 seems legit. I scoped one of my doubles (9.3x74R) in order to hunt lion and shoot bait at longer distances. But for me, a 458 IS a stopping rifle, like my 500NE. For the real world uses I've had for big bores, you know, things like brain shooting elephants at 10 to 20 yards in the thick jess, buffalo at less than 50, or just mowing down mature pine trees , irons are the ticket!!!

Again, just me. YMMV.

RIP and I are soul brothers without a doubt. We aren't above jerking a knot in each other's tail now and again however!


After all, we're talking about scoping big bores. A concept no where close to the silliness of shooting a Blaser FFS!

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
Pretty nice rifle. Provides quite a bit of flexibility for either standard factory loads or handloads ... 450 Dakota and 450 Rigby ...

Todd:
Take note, another reason to have scope sights,
even if you are an eagle-eyed, young Tarzan-yodeler.
Use different scopes for different loads with greatly varying trajectories.
Keep iron sights set for a compromised "survival mode": Dead on at 50 meters as with factory target load,
or a 480-grainer at 2150 to 2200 fps for traditional .450 NE efficacy,
using a filler and Varget, etc.
Golly ! One could do the same thing with his SAAMI .458 Win.Mag. !

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:
I like the design of that stock, particularly the drop (or lack thereof) at the heel. What I don't like is the sighting arrangement. It's the same as on my Red Ryder BB gun, which I got for Christmas 1946 or thereabouts.

That is why I liked it so much !
Just like the Red Ryder sights I bagged so many sparrows with !
Plumb Freudian.
I will have to get xausa's insights on some other sets of iron sights to better understand myself.


Relying entirely on open sights on a rifle is like relying entirely on a hand cranked starter on a modern automobile. Only a Luddite could love such an arrangement.

Quite a good analogy.

Open sights are great for picking sparrows off the roof, but for use against dangerous game in a wide variety of ranges and light conditions, they make no sense at all to me.

Finn and Phil agree too.
Come on Todd, how evil can a 1X or even a 2.5X scope power be for any situation.
At spitting distance you are just going to point and shoot whether with irons or scope.
I once hit a steel gong at 100 yards with no sights, using the .45-100-2.6" Sharps WTF, while the rifle was in progress with Gunsmith.
Admittedly first two shots went high, called by observer Gunsmith, but third was right on.
Linotype splatter:


Rip ...

The prototype mount: Double-Seyfried-Schtick 2-Piece Picatinny
DSS-2PP is the parts # for the set at Bubba Gunwerkes.





Bubba will have to get out his hacksaw and bastard file to do a "try" fitting of parts on the .450 Dakota.
Will see if a Leupold 2.5X Ultralight can be used with the Mauser Flag safety.
If not, it will have to be converted to Winchester M70-style safety for scope use.
No urgency since Bobbarrella the CZ is a good shooter of .458 WIN-V 3.8".

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by xausa:

Relying entirely on open sights on a rifle is like relying entirely on a hand cranked starter on a modern automobile. Only a Luddite could love such an arrangement.

Quite a good analogy.

Rip ...

I disagree with the analogy 100%. A better comparrison to that analogy is "Our ancestors hunted elephant with a sharpened stick, so let's use that".

I used to hear that same analogy when discussing sports cars. At one time, I had one with paddle shift and another with stick shift. I prefer the stick shift 100%. Guys who were focused on getting the absolute best track times with their car pointed out how much faster the paddle shift cars are. I don't disagree with that but what I found was that I rarely took the cars to the track and when I did, you had to push the paddle shift car to its absolute limit before it started being fun to drive. There was a host of skills not required that the stick shift demanded. Things like heel/toe downshifting and breaking heading into turns, etc. I used to always point out that starting with a key vs crank start is something I could teach my non-sport driving qualified wife to do in about 30 seconds but teaching her the finer points of heel/toe downshifting is another matter all together. One is a convenience, the other is an acquired skill. I found, and still do, that running through the gears with stick/throttle/clutch in perfect coordination, or the pursuit of, is very satisfying. Something that can't be achieved with pulling a paddle and never releasing the throttle, going up or down.

Scope vs open sights isn't the same level of skill difference but as I've stated many times on this forum, I have specific reasons for preferring open sights to scopes when hunting DG, mainly buffalo. And beyond that, I prefer double rifles (the real ones that are SxS). That reason being that when I do scrape up enough money to go, I don't want the experience to be over too fast. As my earlier example, the bull I shot on day 9 of my last hunt, I passed up at 10:00am on the first morning because he was standing out in the open at 120 yards. I had a scoped 375 with me but left the open sighted Rigby on the truck that day. If you want to know why, read my hunt report. If I had popped him at distance, there were a lot of things we experienced over the following 8.5 days that I would have missed as it would have been time to go up to the river and fish. And I'm not into fishing!!

Spitting distance as RIP states, is the way I like to use a big bore on animals like buffalo and elephant. And at that range, as RIP also states, you can probably do almost as well without any sights at all. That's a bit extreme but yeah, at real spitting distance, I guess that holds water. I really don't desire to shoot an elephant beyond 25 yards or a buffalo beyond 50 to 75 max. I've done both and those experiences don't compare with the close ones, to me anyway.

I've got nothing against scoped rifles. I just don't see the point on a big bore rifle. I prefer the lines of a classic big bore with open sights, both to look at, and cary via the African method. Yep, there is another can of worms to open.

Beyond the aesthetics and function, is the issue of reliability. There are a ton of threads here on AR asking what scope will withstand this or that big bore. Even RIP states he shoots them until they break then replaces them. What if it breaks on safari and you don't know it's broken until the opening salvo on a buffalo? Not many threads here on AR about what iron sights are suitable for big bores. Back when I was flying fighters in the Navy, I was taught early on not to use the landing light for night landings. Why? Because if you become dependent on it, what happens that night you go to turn it on and it doesn't work. The fewer things you depend on, the less things affect you when they break. I used to get chewed out every time I landed at night at an Air Farce field. The tower would always scream "Aircraft on final, turn on your landing light". My one word response was always: "Inop". Used to love jerking knots in their tails as well.

Some of us don’t have the eyesight to get good hits with irons, especially those of us getting older who never had the vision to be pilots in the first place!

I think Finn Aagaard proved that a scope was faster, and more accurate; that being said, if you like shooting irons as a handicap, enjoy! It’s a lot like your sports car analogy. It may not be as fast, or as precise, If you want top performance or don’t learn the techniques, technology can do better, but it’s perhaps less satisfying to you personally.

While I can shoot irons passably, especially with the right glasses, I’m not really comfortable with risking the hunting team’s safety on my increased margin of error, so I use the scope or red dot.

SPOT ON, crbutler



I will probably leave that Mauser as is, for street cred in Amish Country.
By golly their horse shoes and iron-bound buggy wheels sure do tear up the asphalt roads !





I have resolved to get at least a front sight installed on Bobbarrella, and have a peep in my pocket in case of failure of scope(s).

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Some of us don’t have the eyesight to get good hits with irons, especially those of us getting older who never had the vision to be pilots in the first place!

I think Finn Aagaard proved that a scope was faster, and more accurate; that being said, if you like shooting irons as a handicap, enjoy! It’s a lot like your sports car analogy. It may not be as fast, or as precise, If you want top performance or don’t learn the techniques, technology can do better, but it’s perhaps less satisfying to you personally.

While I can shoot irons passably, especially with the right glasses, I’m not really comfortable with risking the hunting team’s safety on my increased margin of error, so I use the scope or red dot.

Doc, I usually read your comments with a lot of deference because I normally find you to be very level headed and logical.

I find the comment about choosing to scope a big bore 458 so as not to put your hunting team in danger to be less than your normal considered commentary, teetering on passive aggressive. I suppose there is room for at least one more Dirty Harry reference:





Thanks for the laugh though!

That Dirty Harry quote meme is a paraphrase of:

"KABOOM ... Man's got to know his limitations."

That is a much more profound statement with implications for the entirety of the human species.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2JnCXvm_Qc

Todd has not been as accurate as he could have been.
Just like his rifle without a scope.

Rip ...