The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores 458 winchester magnumGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| one of us |
That Nikon SlugHunter seems to be impervious to .458 WIN recoil. Never a hiccup. For less than $200 they are phenomenal. 75-yard set parallax for "SlugHunter" versus 100-yard set parallax for same scope renamed as "InLine," makes no significant difference. Except the name: SlugHunter beats InLine. Like hand in glove: Control the parallax with precision at long range by keeping your eyeball where it should be, and keep the scope out of your eyeball with a full 5 inches of eye relief. The big bells border on fat-ass for a 1"-tubed scope, but since it is 15 ounces, under a pound, I accept it as it is, short mounting length and all. The Leupold 2.5X Ultralight (6.5 ounces) is only 1/2 pound lighter. Come to think of it, that scope also needs an extension base to take the pressure off the objective lens housing when on a CZ 550 Magnum. Hence, the Seyfried-Style Extension Base for the CZ 550 Magnum (from Bubba Gunwerkes) has multiple applications. #SSEB-CZ550M. The same set also works for the CZ 550 Medium. That would just give an even closer spacing to the rings on the shorter action. Same increase in eye relief.  Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
CTF, I see. You are not merely bragging on your own rifle, just stating the facts. Yes, but it would look better with Burris Xtreme Tactical rings with Picatinny tops and a lightweight laser zeroed for 25 yards convergence, for combat in the shade of the spruce. I gotta try that myself. Just point and shoot from the hip. Ready ... Fire ... Aim! Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
Proof that Ross Seyfried was just playing us with his ".458 Winchester Defiance" schtick:  He knew full well what the .458 WIN was capable of as demonstrated in his photograph and words from the GUNS & AMMO/JULY 1990 article, "MONSTER SIXGUNS" which was actually about monster fiveguns, .45 LC, .454 Casull, .475 Linebaugh, and .500 Linebaugh, by Freedom Arms, John Linebaugh, and Hamilton Bowen. Ross about his Freedom Arms revolver: "My own Freedom revolver was made on special order with .45 Colt chambers and it is absolutely one of the finest revolvers I own. I just think that because they chose to make the gun with its relatively short cylinder length it is better fed with .45 Colt brass." I have sectioned Winchester-brand brass for both the .45 LC and .454 Casull. The head construction is identical. Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
More to defy the .458 Winchester Defiance schtick, from same article as above: "John Linebaugh talked me out of the .454-length chamber several years ago, saying that with my big bullets there was nothing to gain. Recently an Alaskan-guide friend of mine ordered a new Field Grade Freedom revolver complete with all whistles and bells ... including dual cylinders. One was the standard .454 Casull, and its brother was chambered for .45 Colt. With this gun I was able to run velocity and accuracy tests with both cartridges through the same 7-1/2-inch barrel. In the final outcome the only differences were conversational. With bullets ranging from 300 to 360 grains the .45 Colt velocities were within 10 to 40 feet per second (fps) of the same bullets fired out of the .454 cylinder, the .45 Colt loads using 2 grains less of 296 powder. In most loads there was enough case capacity and apparent pressure "room" to increase the .45 Colt loads, but with 325-grain bullets at 1,500 fps and 360s cooking at over 1,400 fps I had plenty of velocity. Accuracy was effectively equal, averaging under 3 inches at 50 yards. If the .454 lost an accuracy test with a given bullet, it was because of the obscene way I had to crimp it in the long case." One may find a bunch of pdf files of Ross Seyfried articles, including the one quoted here: http://scoutrifle.org/index.php?topic=5120.0 There is also an article entitled "The .458 BELTED BEHEMOTH" in GUNS & AMMO/JUNE 1997, in which Ross lets his guard down and drops his long running ".458 Winchester Defiance" gag. This is a treasure. In honor of the "Ross Seyfried .458 Winchester Defiance Schtick" which has now become my schtick, Bubba Gunwerkes is changing the official description nomenclature of part # SSEB-CZ550M. No change in the inventory code:  Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
Ross Seyfried is a National Treasure, just like the .458 WIN. Takes a champ to know a champ. The truth is revealed, unmitigated admiration for the .458 WIN by Ross Seyfried. Ross Seyfried and the .458 WIN go together like peas and carrots.  | |||
|
| one of us |
 | |||
|
| one of us |
 | |||
|
| one of us |
 There is a lot of good info applicable to the .458 WIN there. Even if the .458 WIN rifle is over a thousand fps faster at the muzzle than the .458 "Belted Behemoth" handgun terminal ballistics at long range for the rifle can be estimated from short range handgun results, with 300 to 400-grain bullets. That is an excellent bullet weight range for longer pot shots with the rifle. Rip ... | |||
|
One of Us |
Why, for the love of God, are ya'll putting scopes on those beautiful 458 WMs? Might as well build one on a Blaser!  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ha! Page 72 for your Mission RIPster!! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'm not aware that the love of God has anything to do with it, but a low power scope is a great aid to accurately shooting any rifle when your eyes have passed the 50 year old mark. | |||
|
| one of us |
Todd, What Ray said. What? No complaints about logical fallacy in saying that the 21 year-old clipping from G&A is proof of Ross Seyfried's respect and admiration for the .458 WIN? Did I say I really like the .458 WIN anywhere in the last 72 pages of this thread? Well, I do like the .458 WIN. I like it about as much as this 31 year-old cartoon clipping that I have saved with my Ross Seyfried collection:  Rip ... | |||
|
| One of Us |
LOL, well I'm 6 and a half years past your 50 year old mark and wear bifocals. I still prefer to shoot big bore rifles with open sights. It's the right thing to do after all.  If you stick a scope on it, you might as well settle on shooting a 375!   | |||
|
One of Us |
There's something in that, Ray. On the other hand, since all hunting-type scopes now seem to have articulated erector tubes, I wouldn't trust them for too long. Some scopes from Nikon, Nightforce, Swarovski and small fixed powers from Leupold seem to withstand a fair bit but the basic physics of suspending 'hinged', three-ounce assemblies on springs still applies. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Let me know what you're using in another 10 years. | |||
|
| One of Us |
So you didn't mean when you eyes have passed the 50 year old mark after all?  What you really meant to say was when you eyes have passed the 66 year old mark? Got it!  | |||
|
| One of Us |
The eyes of different people degrade at different rates. The year number is just a guideline. If someone stumbles around in the dark they don't know that there is a better way unless someone happens to turn the light on. So if someone persists that their open sights are the best way of doing things, but never tries anything different because the rifle is no longer sleek, then they will continue seeking to make shots that are difficult when those same shots could be easy given the correct optics. If you want to continue with open sights, by all means do so and with my blessing. | |||
|
| one of us |
What Ray said, again. I am amazed that hairy-chested fighter pilot Todd, who is 10 years younger than the Great American Ross Seyfried, admits to wearing bifocals. I can only say to Todd, wait until you prefer trifocals. @ CTF: After 400 rounds of .458 WIN with my first SlugHunter, I quit counting. I will let you know if I am able to bust any of those Nikons. I get the feeling that sambarman338 is a glass-half-full kind of guy when it comes to scopes. Just buy 10 SlugHunters for the price of one of the Eurobeast scopes and you eill save money. Rip ... | |||
|
| One of Us |
Even Dirty Harry shot his 458 WM counter sniper rifle with open sights!! I do remember he didn't hit jack squat however! He probably would have been better equipped with a scoped 375 after all!  | |||
|
One of Us |
Disagree. I've done some good shooting with express sights and ghost ring peep sights. But my eyes were younger then. But even back then a low powered scope was faster. That's been proven over and over by just about everyone. Phil Shoemaker : "I went to a .30-06 on a fine old Mauser action. That worked successfully for a few years until a wounded, vindictive brown bear taught me that precise bullet placement is not always possible in thick alders, at spitting distances and when time is measured in split seconds. Lucky to come out of that lesson alive, I decided to look for a more suitable rifle." | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'm not saying the InLine or Slug Hunter are the end all cure all. But you do have a great point. I sure do like a variable that goes down to zero magnification. And maxes out at some useful mag. But a 3-9 power will get most of the work done. Phil Shoemaker : "I went to a .30-06 on a fine old Mauser action. That worked successfully for a few years until a wounded, vindictive brown bear taught me that precise bullet placement is not always possible in thick alders, at spitting distances and when time is measured in split seconds. Lucky to come out of that lesson alive, I decided to look for a more suitable rifle." | |||
|
| One of Us |
This is pretty dang svelte to me. Unobtrusive as all get out. I ain't so much for the (low ) mounting. But that's just me. RIP. That is a beautiful setup. Phil Shoemaker : "I went to a .30-06 on a fine old Mauser action. That worked successfully for a few years until a wounded, vindictive brown bear taught me that precise bullet placement is not always possible in thick alders, at spitting distances and when time is measured in split seconds. Lucky to come out of that lesson alive, I decided to look for a more suitable rifle." | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'm not saying iron sights aren't worthy of use. Back in the day I could reliably hit the bullseye of the D target at 500 yards with a standard issue M14, but 50 years later I would consider such an effort to be unrealistic expectations. But then I also wouldn't want to try and get into the kneeling position to fire a string of 10, let alone, try and get out of the position, once pushed into it. | |||
|
| one of us |
CTF, That was the Warne LOW QD Lever rings for CZ 550 Magnum, so low that the bolt knob would only just clear an ocular bell as small as on the Leupold 2.5x20mm. Warne quit making those rings, I guess because so many got returned to them when somebody tried to use a Leupold 1.5-5x20mm scope and found they could not work the bolt. They were perfect for that rifle and scope pictured. I gave that scope and rings to an appy PH in Tanzania, named Augustine, a young man, native of Tanzania, whom Joe Biden would have thought Presidential material. A rather sophisticated, knowledgeable, well-spoken young man he was, carrying a CZ 550 Magnum .458 WIN, The King of Carts. His rifle was used with express sights only, but he admired the little Leupold and Warne Low Lever rings on my CZ 550 Magnum, and complimented me on it one time too many. The scope and rings came off my rifle and went onto his, and I set a cardboard box at 25 yards and zeroed the scope from a sitting position on the ground. Close enough for save-your-bacon work. Augustine then tried it from a sit too. After one shot he beamed a big grin, like as if to say "So much faster and more precise than the CZ express sights." He agreed to refine the zero later when he had more ammo, and more time, for Saeed was getting a bit impatient about us wasting time, fooling around like that. That is how the Queen of Low eloped with the King of Carts in Tanzania, 2010. Hopefully they lived happily ever after there. Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
My Army stint was brief from age 17 y.o. to 18 y.o. as a cadet. I only got demerits one time, for having an "oily rifle" at a dressup inspection. It was an M14 used only for formations, parades and inspections, and for marching off demerits in the quadrangle. I did make "Expert" with the M16 though. A simple peep works better on average for 17 y.o. eyes than 70 y.o. eyes. But there are some 90 y.o. eyes that can do amazingly well, after cataract surgery, and if that 90 y.o. marksman has not developed too bad a tremor, or neuropathy of the trigger finger, and if he can remember where he is supposed to be aiming. "Expert": That may have clinched my riflemania, during my formative years. Did I also mention that I drank my first beer at a topless bar in Times Square, NYC before I turned 18? I and 4000 others were bussed By Greyhound from Philadelphia to NYC by the US Army after the Army-Navy game, for the traditional post-game, celebratory debauchery.  Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
From 2008, a recipe for a "Flyweight CZ 458 WM" based on a CZ 550 Medium action:
Will probably could have taken a half pound off that weight with one of the lighter-than-McMillan stocks. But less than 7.5 pounds with NECG-CZ peep and NECG front sight, and Talley barrel band, is probably smarter than less than 7 pounds. I wanted to do a .458/.375 Ruger back then, chickened out until goaded into it by a ringed chamber. I have 50 pieces of .416 Ruger annealed for the neckup, loading with 400-grain Speers, and fire-forming. Then if satisfied with results, send some brass to Hornady for custom dies if they are still doing that ... However, a "Flyweight 458 WIN" is still seen as the ultimate DGR, by me now, as it was to Wise Will 10 years ago. Rip ... | |||
|
| One of Us |
No, RIP, when it comes to modern scopes, I'm actually a glass-half-empty kind of guy. I hear from another AR big-bore poster, however, that Nikons are indeed extremely tough - I just can't work out why, assuming they use the moving erector-tube system. On visible design, the best 'modern' scope I've seen was the old Pecar Champion, which had a fixed erector set but a field stop around the FFP reticle to make it always look centred. To eliminate tunnel vision, that field stop had to be a certain size for each power, of course, meaning it would not have been much chop for variables. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'd appreciate a little more information and specifics. I'm confused with the classification "modern" scopes. I was only aware of three major categories regarding scopes. the categories were based on where the reticle was located and if it moved. So there were three groups: Externally adjustable, and two internally adjustable, reticle in the optical plane and those in the ocular plane. As far as spring mounted, there were variations such as the Burris where, once adjusted, the placement of the reticle was immobilized with set-screws, but this was more of a variation that a different type. Of the external types there are the Balfor, Balvar from B&L as well as the Unertl, Lyman and those variations. The internal types were generally determined in variable scopes by the action of the reticle when the power was changed. In addition to getting bigger with increases in power the optical plane reticles were less affected with regard to parallax. I am unclear as to the construction systems of modern scopes. I have a Zeiss Zeilvier that is over 80 years old, some B&Ls that are 60 yo, some Leupolds ranging from just a few years to about 50, as well as some Unertls, newer Zeiss and a few other brands. the only one that I've disassembled was a Weaver K 2.5. I replaced the reticle with a hair from one of my infant sons. that scope doesn't get used as I suspect the workings are not reliable to hold zero, but it's an interesting conversation piece (since the hair donor is now 34 years old). With all of the talk about how superior scopes of the last few years are compared to scopes of previous manufacture, I fail to see a great difference between the older scopes and the newer. The main differences that I have seen were more a result of increased tube diameter with the change from 1" tubes to 30 & 34mm tubes. But I'll admit that I am not very informed on the subject and would appreciate it greatly if someone would post the details regarding the sturdiness of various constructions as well as the increased optical qualities. | |||
|
| one of us |
sambarman338, Right! Glass-half-full kind of guy on modern scopes you are, that is whst I meant. Your techniciana is beyond my grasp. Do you actually dissect the scopes like Ray B? I am just a try-to-break-the-scope kind of guy. 34 Leupold 16 Nikon 14 Sightron scopes have suffered my attempts. I would happily use any of those three makes. The only two I had to send back for warranty repair were Leupold varminter/benchrest-type variables, 6.5-20x42mmAO type. One lost its windage adjustment, one had a power-change ring that got boogered too stiff to move. I really think the 2000 to 4000 dollar price bracket for a scope is going the way of the dodo bird, when a scope of one tenth the cost will do. But thanks for the replies, keep it up please. Have you written any books on scopes? Rip ... | |||
|
| One of Us |
Have you looked at the price of the Leupold Mark 8 scopes RIP? 8 grand for the top of the line models. Ya know how some guy piss away thousands of buck for a fancy piece of wood to make a stock out of. Lot of the Precision rifle shooters consider a safe full of Beast's, March, S+B ect ect scopes to be mandatory. I'm of the opinion that the $2K - 4K scopes are still on the increase ! Now the intelligent scopes are coming into being, even more money will get spent on them Phil Shoemaker : "I went to a .30-06 on a fine old Mauser action. That worked successfully for a few years until a wounded, vindictive brown bear taught me that precise bullet placement is not always possible in thick alders, at spitting distances and when time is measured in split seconds. Lucky to come out of that lesson alive, I decided to look for a more suitable rifle." | |||
|
| One of Us |
I saw an ad for one that you programmed in the trajectory of your cartridge, then when you saw an animal you put the reticle on it and pushed some button or switch, a laser measured the distance and the reticle moved to the spot where the bullet would hit. So the shooter would see the animal, put reticle on it, reticle would adjust, shooter would press the trigger and pow, the animal catches one in the chest. I don't know that I would call that hunting. | |||
|
| one of us |
Shooting and hunting are two different things. When you are ready to pull the trigger it is shooting the hunting came before that time. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Thank you gentlemen for the civilised questions and arguments you put forward - the opposition forums tend to be populated with angry people, some just trolls, others who seem to know stuff but may be astroturfers. So you don't think I'm one of the latter, I will restate that I have written a book, which explains my outlook on these things. It was not written by an expert, just someone who dared to question the trajectory of the art - and having learnt more about the matter since, puts updates in copies as they're sold. By 'modern', Ray B, I meant the changes we've seen since 1957, mostly scopes with constantly centred reticles. As you suggest, before then scopes either had no internal adjustments or erector sets fixed in the outer tube, with zeroing adjustments made simply by moving a reticle held in something little bigger or heavier than a wedding ring. These reticles were usually (but not always) in the first focal plane, beneath the turrets near the middle of the scope. The movable reticles were usually held against the turret screw(s) by a spring, but with no hinge aspect, once set the spring was under little downward pressure under recoil. For 40 years my best rifles used that sort of scope. There weren't many but those I had led hard lives and never let me down. It wasn't until about 10 years ago I even realised near-all the Continental makers had gone over to constantly centred reticles. In my youth I'd thought image-movement scopes all worked like the Pecar Champion I mentioned, and assumed the deficiencies would be reduced FoV and enhanced tunnel vision. Then I discovered that in the mainstream design of scopes with constantly centred reticles, the entire erector set and reticle was suspended by a spring. I wondered why the entire shooting fraternity would trade strength for such vulnerability. Why would shooters and hunters who devote hours to bedding barrels and reloading cartridges begrudge spending a few dollars or minutes on mounting their scopes straight? As RIP points out, some modern scopes are remarkably strong. This strength is probably attained by fine tolerances and materials, and often special springs that won't twist and hang up out at the edges of adjustment. Some dudes on opposition forums say modern advances can't be explained because they are 'proprietory', nothing that can be patented but secret so competitors can't steal them. That may be true but it doesn't satisfy my need to know. Burris's Posi-Lock is the only recent idea that appeals to me but one of our members says it is not made strong enough. Makers make advertisers' puffs but until the scopes have been used as long and hard as some of you guys have used them, how would anyone know for sure? No lifetime guarantee will compensate a hunter who has his scope stuff up on the trip of his lifetime. So, my book is about stuff like this and ethical issues such as Ray mentions. Rather than go further into it here, I'd like to give some copies away to the last (ie previous) four posters on this thread. PM me your addresses and I'll pop them in the mail. | |||
|
| One of Us |
And NO SCOPE is even better on big bore guns!! Nothing to get in the way of stuffin those cigar sized cartridges into the mag! Think stripper clip on the 425 WR!! Stoppers ya know!! Not snipers! Don't mind me Ripster. I'm just supportin the mission and  a little. It's fun to watch the reactions of some when they suddenly have a knot jerked in their tail! | |||
|
| one of us |
Quit looking after Mark 6. So the "Mark" number equates to the price in grand? Should go catch up on them for a few laughs. Rip ... | |||
|
| one of us |
sambarman338, CTF, Ray B, p dog shooter and Todd Williams, Thanks for the sorties flown. I look at scopes as expendable, easy come, easy go.  I like a QD scope of practical sort with backup iron sights of practical sort, and backup scope ASAP, don't give a flip of tail about stripper clips, and will knot allow my tail to get in a not over it. One shot meat, two shot maybe, three shot heap big #@&$%!^ noise. Rip ... | |||
|
| One of Us |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sambarman338: say modern advances can't be expained because they are 'proprietory', nothing that can be patented but secret so competitors can't steal them. /QUOTE] Life is full of examples where something was invented with expense in Research & development, protected by Intellectual [property laws, only to have a competitor (company or country) obtain one of the new products, take it apart, see how it worked and Reverse Engineer their copy. So much for proprietary protections. With regard to scope strength I have two observations. the first is that the support of internal parts in the scope seems to be supported against rearward acceleration, that is, the anticipated movement rearward of the scope as part of the rifle firing a bullet forward. The second is that there seems to be little internal support in several scopes against rearward deceleration. This was first observed in air rifles that had very little movement since they were shooting a 10 grain pellet at low velocity, but scopes were failing. The cause was the two directional movement of the rifle when shooting. the next source of failed scopes was shooting the scope mounted rifle and using a heavily supported LeadSled. All sorts of maladies were blamed on the LeadSled. the problems that I have investigated were a result not of the LeadSled holding the rifle too firmly but not holding it firmly enough. The damage resulted from actions similar to the air rifle. A large cartridge scoped rifle is placed in a LeadSled that is anchored with 50+ pounds of lead. The rifle is fired and to appearances the rifle is held in place and for some reason the scope is broken. What happened was the rifle actually accelerated rearward with the recoil. the force was quite immediate so the acceleration was immediate, but it only travelled a very short distance. Even though it may have traveled only a centimeter the rifle was at near full speed from the recoil. the slack in the LeadSled system was taken-up and the movement of the rifle was transferred to the weight of the LeadSled and slowed to a stop. This quick start and sudden stop was what damaged the scope. The scope was not designed to absorb the deceleration or viewed in reverse, the forward acceleration of the rifle. I am not versed in which scopes are so constructed as to absorb high levels of deceleration and it would be counter-productive to test a one-of-a-kind to me scope and see if it got damaged. So I'll cede to those that have direct knowledge of the various scopes and which have adequate construction- then of course, the other solution is to just shoot the rifle and let my shoulder do the decelerating of the rifle, which is what the scope designer likely had in mind when the scope was on the drawing board. | |||
|
One of Us |
For the "Cause" : My 458 has worn a little 2.5 x Konus Shotgun scope with the reticle etched in the glass now for about 3 years. I have shot probably 400-500 heavyweight cast bullets through it at 1750 fps so aimed. Still holds perfect zero and is a very clear little optic. $65.00 at Midway when I bought it. I have another scope, Burris Fullfield 1x4 with Posi-Loc but the little Konus just keeps on ticking. Also as noted in the above post, all of my shooting is done with only me absorbing the recoil, sitting over sticks or standing offhand "The liberty enjoyed by the people of these states of worshiping Almighty God agreeably to their conscience, is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights." ~George Washington - 1789 | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ain't that the truth ! My secret , favorite brand is IOR Valdada. Kinda like CZ 550s . They are just Great. But, I can't afford them at this time. Phil Shoemaker : "I went to a .30-06 on a fine old Mauser action. That worked successfully for a few years until a wounded, vindictive brown bear taught me that precise bullet placement is not always possible in thick alders, at spitting distances and when time is measured in split seconds. Lucky to come out of that lesson alive, I decided to look for a more suitable rifle." | |||
|
| One of Us |
With regard to scope durability, I was talking with a friend that served in Afghanistan as a designated marksman. During his tours he used a rifle equipped with a Leupold Mark4 10x scope. these have since been replaced by models that have more features, but he said that the Mark4 was virtually bullet-proof. I understand that the scope was designed with military used in mind, so it may have construction that differs from the standard sporting scope, but I'm wondering if the M4 have similar construction to the mega$$ European scopes, and if so, are there other Leupold scopes that have similar construction- if so, how does one tell one from the other? | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ... 235 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores 458 winchester magnum
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
