Thanks for that post on the Lead Sled, Ray. I seem to recall that some scopes, possibly the Polish/Japanese Delta Titanium, are recoil tested reversed as well as looking forward. That, I imagine would be something like use on a laden Lead Sled.

I pulled an old, single-turret Nickel Marburg scope to bits and found the reticle ring slid up and down in a dovetail slot, located from below by a very strong spring. I'm pretty sure that part of it would withstand the second jolt.

quote:

and if so, are there other Leupold scopes that have similar construction- if so, how does one tell one from the other?

To tell one from the other you get a Nikon.

(Not meaning to be flippant, it was meant in fun. )

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

To tell one from the other you get a Nikon.

I've had Nikons (cameras & lenses) since 1968 and have found them to be almost as good as my Hasselblads, and considering the price differential, a Best Buy winner However I only have one Nikon Scope, a 1-4x African. It seems quite durable but it does seem a little limited on view diameter or whatever that is called.

Taking the recoil and maintaining zero is one component. Another big part of scope durability is being able to take direct impacts from rocks , ice , the ground ect. Whatever the rifle may get dropped onto.
The last Nikon scope that I had wouldn't take a sliding fall onto a rock . The zero got knocked off over 12 moa . And it wasn't even a hard hit. 7

Fury01,

Thanks for supporting THE MISSION.

Ray B,

I am surprised you said you have a limited field of view (FOV) on a Nikon,
"1-4x African"?
Is that the 1.5-4.5x20mm Monarch (1-inch-tubed) or the 1.1-4x24mm Monarch African (30mm-tubed)?
The latter of those (bulkier, heavier) was discontinued last time I looked.
The 1-inch-tubed one is still going strong, and reportedly indestructible.
There is also a 1-4x20mm M-223, with BDC 600 reticle,
And the truly 1X 1-4x24mm BlackForce 1000 with SpeedForce reticle: Huge FOV on 1X.
All of these are pretty good for FOV on lowest power settings, maybe not so much at top end?

CTF,

Knock your scope on rocks, or whatever, in a fall, etc., and note change of zero: Could be the scope mounting knocked askew, eh?

And to move us along to page 73, a few pictures:

No drop tube used, guesstimated volumetrics:

85.0 grains of AA-2230 is about a 95% volumetric load with the stubby 400-grain Speer (about 0.975" bullet length).

85.0 grains of H4895 is about a 104% volumetric load, mildly compressed, same bullet and seating depth.

Brass length 2.560"
COL 3.190"
For .458 WinRuger.
Home-made dies, bolt closes snuggly.

I have not chronographed them yet.
Will do so soon as I get caught up on my chores and can go play.

The SPEER RELOADING MANUAL #14 shows the "45 FNSP" 400-grain bullet loaded in the .458 WIN with 24" barrel length:
BC = 0.259
SD = 0.272
COL Tested = 3.125"
Maximum charge of AA-2230 is 82.0 grains (compressed)
>>> 2429 fps MV (pressure not reported)

Now recall the
WESTERN POWDERS HANDLOADING GUIDE Edition 1
(no powder compression with their maximum loads):

.458 Winchester Magnum 24" barrel length
400-gr Barnes SSSP, COL 3.140", 80.0 gr AA-2230 >>> 2457 fps MV <<< 53,690 psi
500-gr Hornady RN, COL 3.305", 72.0 gr AA-2230 >>> 2159 fps MV <<< 53,808 psi

.458 Lott 24" barrel length (no 400-grain bullet data given)
500-gr Hornady RN, COL 3.600", 82.0 gr AA-2230 >>> 2275 fps MV <<< 60,000 psi

The .458 WinRuger at 3.340" COL is about identical to the .458 Lott at 3.600" COL, in net case capacity, except for throating effects.
So the .458 WinRuger is about identical to a .458 Lott with .458 WIN throat.
So it can beat the .458 Lott, or do the same top MV as the .458 Lott but at lower pressure.

Any .458 Lott maximum load ought to be sub-maximal in the .458 WinRuger.

Here is a 400-grain bullet maximum load in the .458 Lott from the BARNES RELOADING MANUAL NUMBER 3.
(They had to go and use a 26" barrel on their .458 Lott to make it look better against their 24"-barreled .458 WIN. data.)
So, here ya go,
.458 Lott 26" barrel length
400-gr Barnes XFB, COL </= 3.600", 85.0 gr H4895 >>> 2549 fps MV (pressure not reported)

What all this means to me is that 80.0 to 85.0 grains of AA-2230 and H4895 should be a good starting place for the .458 WinRuger
with the 400-grain Speer FNSP.
3 shots with each 1-grain charge increment, looking for any signs of high velocity, uniformity, accuracy ...

Rip ...

The top one is through the Nikon Monarch African 1-4x, set on 1x. The bottom is a Zeiss Diatal 1.5x. Both are one inch tubes.

In taking the photos (I know, quite amateurish) I realized the reason I had a bit of a problem with the Nikon was that I needed to have my eye a little farther back from the scope. the problem is that the scope is as far forward as it can get as presently mounted, so I may need to get an extended base to move the ring a quarter inch or so forward. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference in the scopes optic wise. From what I've heard, both are sturdily constructed.


Hey Hey, to quote Harry Carey, Page 73!!

Side view of above mentioned scopes. Clearly, the Nikon needs to have a base that puts it a little farther forward.

both rifles are M70s. The Nikon is on a 404 Jeffery, the Zeiss in on a 458 Win Mag.

Ray B,

Thanks for clearing that up, excellent MISSION SUPPORT.
Looks like the Nikon has a better FOV than the Zeiss!

You need a Seyfried-Schtick Extended Base to get your Nikon scope a quarter-inch forward.

Your Zeiss scope is already doing the Seyfried Schtick.
The rear base is schticking forward of the bridge.
That is the way it is done on a "professional's rifle," good job!

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

Calculating based on Noslers cartridge diagrams for the 375 & 416 Ruger, I figure the shoulder of the 458 ruger to be about .015". How does that compare with what you have? With the 30 degree shoulder that should be quite adequate and precise for headspacing.

Ray B,
That is correct, 15 thou per side, or 30-thou difference/step-down from shoulder diameter (0.515") to neck-1 diameter (0.485"),
and the shoulder angle (semi-angle) is 30 degrees at each side,
or 60-degree shoulder cone-angle.

Yep, it is a "Thirty-Thirty-Shoulder."
More than adequate.

Rip ...

Methinks any tightness of the .458 WinRuger ammo in the chamber of the rifle may be due to a visibly imperceptible bulge of the shoulder,
produced by the downward force of the expander plug inside the RCBS ".375 to .45" neck-expander die.
This despite inside-neck lubrication with graphite powder, as the shoulder is not supported inside the RCBS neck-expander die.
The ammo chambers snugly with some extra force required to turn down the bolt handle.
Should be headspacing very well, very good for fire-forming.
Custom dies based on fire-formed brass will make for easy.
Hi ho!

Rip ...

Rip, you are right on with your comments about Nikon's 1-4 optic's. Tough as nails and can take the biggest cal's. One of my new favorites is the BLACK FORCE1000 1-4x24, 30mm tube with illuminated speedforce reticle. Gets you on target quickly and accurately. Plus, sub-$400 and backed by Nikon's No Fault Warranty, dang tough to beat. I just got one for my .375 H&H.

Barton Hege,

Thanks for MISSION SUPPORT.
Yes, the 1-4x24mm BlackForce 1000 is incredible. True 1X.
Ought to be excellent on a .375 H&H.
But how will that both-eyes-wide-open-headsup-canopy-display-illuminated-SpeedForce reticle standup to the pounding of a .458?
To be continued ...
Hi ho!

Rip ...

Lol, Just let me know! Great thing about Nikon's No Fault Warranty, if it fails, send it back, no receipt needed. If I can help you outr just let me know.

I should probably post this on the gunsmith forum, but since I'm here I'll give it a try. I removed the scope and rear base from the 404 and searched through my collection for an extended base to move the scope forward. I didn't have any that matched. The holes don't line-up. The other "magnum" bases that I have are 12.7mm c to c. The rear bridge and the present base measures .44" which computes to 11.2mm. I checked a few Internet sources and the smallest listing I find for the M70 is the 12.7mm that I have. Is there another source for the 11.2mm spaced base for a M70?

Otherwise I'll see if I can get a machinist to drill a hole in a base to fit. However, I caution myself; I took a Pre-War M70 to a "gunsmith" about 30 years ago with a similar problem and he found it easier to drill a new hole in the bridge than fit the base. Still aggravates me aster 30 years.

Ray B,

If you get it worked out, Bubba Gunwerkes would like to add that Seyfried-Schtick Extension Base for Pre-'64 M70 to the offerings.
That would be # SSEB-P64M70.
I used an improper Reverse-SSEB by having the front base schticking rearward over the ejection port on Chimera the .458 WIN. with a Warne Maxima base pair:



It would be good to correct that, now that I know better.

Rip ...

With a BC of 0.259, and 5-yard chronograph velocity is in the 2400 to 2500 fps range, add 16 fps to correct the 5-yard velocity to MV:



For fire-forming, using home-made dies, I really cannot expect the .458 WinRuger to be ready for its best accuracy.
That might come with proper dies and formed brass, trimmed to uniformity.
This was the best 3-shot group of the lot.
I guess AA-2230 works better in a smaller case at 100% fill.
It is diddly squat in the .458 WinRuger at about 90% fill.
And it developed excessive pressure signs.
H4895 is slower and bulkier, and much more uniform at full-case loading, short-COL.

The H4895 82.0-gr and 83.0-gr 3-shot groups both had 2 bullets in one hole, but flyers for the third shot of each group,
it would be embarassing to show those "pulled" groups, which overall were bigger than the group above.
A 1.5-4.5x20mm Nikon set on 4.5X was used for this.

Of course the bullet is paramount in accuracy, and I reckon the 400-gr GSC HV is more accurate,
and can work wonders with a longer-COL loading.
I will have to try that HV next,
with the NightForce or SlugHunter.

Like the .45 Colt versus the .454 Casull,
the real advantage of the bigger case here, oddly enough, comes with the lighter bullets.
Ross Seyfried pointed that out on the handguns,
and did not acknowledge it with the .458 WIN.

Both the .458 Lott and the .458 WinRuger would be better with shorter bullets that are just too short to take full advantage of Long-COL loading in the .458 WIN.
Of course the .458 WinRuger can be Long-COL loaded too, but it will have magazine capacity and feeding complications when compared to the .458 WIN.
The .458 WIN is still the King of Carts, IMHO.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

To tell one from the other you get a Nikon.

I've had Nikons (cameras & lenses) since 1968 and have found them to be almost as good as my Hasselblads, and considering the price differential, a Best Buy winner However I only have one Nikon Scope, a 1-4x African. It seems quite durable but it does seem a little limited on view diameter or whatever that is called.

According to Opticsplanet the field of view is about 92 feet at the lowest power but only 23 feet at 4x, which is marginal since 30 feet is the seen as standard. Some of this deficiency can be ascribed to it having a long eye relief, though, and when it comes to heavy kickers, go for eye relief. Is the tunnel vision as severe as shown in your photo? I've only got a Monarch 4-16 and am sorry to say field blending on that is pretty bad.

Looking forward to learning something about scopes from sambarman338's book, thank you.

Bubba Gunwerkes is working on developing the SSEB for the Pre-'64 M70, like Ray B needs.
The hole spacing is indeed variable on the M70s from Pre-'64 to Post-Connecticut, but IIRC, the height differential between the bridge and the receiver
is the same for all of them, or close enough to use a shim in the rare one out of spec.
So a "Long Action" M70 rail of any make ought to be perfect for cutting and drilling.
I know I have used Leupold and Warne rails and Burris 2-pc Picatinny bases.
Here is the Warne on an SC M70 that was re-barreled from 7mmRM to .264/.375 Ruger,
which would be a good one on which to do a .458 WinRuger:

A single cross-slot or a few could be schtuck forward of the bridge, as needed.
And nothing need be hanging over the ejection & loading port at the front adjacent to receiver ring.
That really makes best sense if you must have some schtick. Schtick it at the rear of the port, not the front.
More ergonomic to shove cartridge bases under the rear base, and no over hang at the front base to fumble around with fingers,
and no possible interference with ejecting loaded/unfired or fired rounds.
And overall better than some obstruction across the entire top of the port, like pictured below.
And primarily, of course, the SSEB allows the eye relief to be increased by moving the ocular forward.
Avoid Weatherby Eyebrow!
Hey! That Ross Seyfried had a thing or two figured out, learned the hard way possibly?

Does the lettering on this scope look like it is done in light pink or white?

The Nikon BlackForce 1000 fits on Woodie the .458 WinRuger with LOW Burris Xtreme Tactical 30mm rings.
This is in spite of the fact that the ocular bell on the Nikon BlackForce is bigger in diameter than the one on the Nightforce SHV 3-10x42 pictured above.
And since the bases on Woodie (8x40-ed&J-B-ed) are a wee bit lower than the rail mount above,
Woodie now has a very low mount indeed, even with the obese 30mm-tubed scope.
That is about as low as possible with reasonable clearance in working the bolt handle.
Another Queen of Low.
With Woodie, that would have to be a "Drag Queen of Low."
This bodes well for Woodie not busting a move on the internals of the scope, I hope.



Will try the 400-grain HV in the .458 WinRuger.
Recoil is about the same with 500-grainers at 2150-2200 fps or 400-grainers at 2500-2600 fps.
Maybe a little more in the .458 WinRuger than with a .458 WIN since more powder must be burned to get those velocities.
It is a good start at trying to bust a BlackForce.

I wonder if straight back recoil is easier on a scope, or is recoil with more muzzle rise easier on the current type of scope internals?

Rip ...

Come to think of it, an SSEB for the commercial Mauser M98 would be a good idea too.
Bubba Gunwerkes products, inventory codes proposed so far:
SSEB-CZ550M
SSEB-WP64M70
SSEB-M98
Gunsmith installation may be required.

Rip ...

Without a trip to a gunsmith (I haven't found one that I was totally pleased with since CP Donnelly passed away about 9 years ago), I have a few options. From looking at the photographs it would appear that the ocular bell is longer on the Nikon than on the Zeiss. The present mounting on the Zeiss has the rings placed about an inch forward of where they are on the Nikon. So I could switch scopes. The Nikon could sit farther forward so would have proper orientation to the shooters eye, while the Zeiss would sit a little farther back but due to its shorter bell, would still be usable. this would put the 1-4x scope on the 458 and the 1.5x scope on the 404.

Option 2 is that I found some B&L adjustable bases for their old externally adjustable scopes. the bases have the correct screw spacing so would work well on the 404 which presently carries the Nikon scope. the Zeiss/458 would remain intact, the Nikon and Warne(I think) bases would be removed from the 404, replaced with the B&L bases/rings and a 2.5-4x Balvar scope. the downside is that I'm giving up the bottom end power of the Nikon scope and I don't have a great deal of confidence in the ring/mount system, although I used it for years back in the day.

I e-mailed Warne, I got a quick response, but they didn't have any. Leupold who also does redfield now, doesn't take e-mails and their customer service line closes at 3:00 or some such and by the time I remember, it's too late. Maybe tomorrow. I should make a list of things to do that I can read when I first get-up.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

...I wonder if straight back recoil is easier on a scope, or is recoil with more muzzle rise easier on the current type of scope internals?

Rip ...

Straight-back recoil would at least stop the erector tube scraping past the windage screw and bashing into the elevation on returning to battery but might, as has been mentioned, put more strain on the gimbal over time. As you say, some of these modern scopes seem to be able to take this punishment - but I'm not sure how.

Thinking of the piccatinny rail, ugly as it is it is one way to give mounting flexibility and make sure the rings line up. On a DG rifle, would it make sense to mill out a bit of the middle section after the rear-ring placement is established, to make loading easier?

With that in mind, I wonder why the modern makers don't do as B. Nickel did and put the elevation turret on the left.

I hope you get those B&L mounts to work, Ray B. If you found a good old Balvar 5 to go with them, eye relief would be the last of your worries.

Great pic,Rip. That is a beast of a set up. I can't wait to read your range report.Hopefully more pics?

The 404 with scope and mounts switched out to an old set of B&L Adjustable mount/rings and a Balvar 2.5-4x scope. The mount and length of ocular bell are such that the eye relief is right where it should be. So it would be fine except that on this cartridge I'd prefer a wider field of view. Comparing the 1, 1.5 & 2.5x pictures there really is a big difference. So I'll continue to search for a system that I like. I contacted Leupold and the tech said I had one option for a M70 with .44" rear spacing and that was part 349836. I looked it up and it's the QRW with straight up rings, which is what I have now, so no help. I have an e-mail into Talley and I see that I have a response from them, so after I complete this I'll see what they have to say. Otherwise, if I'm going to use this rifle for hunting this year I'll probably just stay with the B&L for now.

Ray B,

That will certainly work well, but not as well as a Picatinny rail for any M70 action, cut into 2 pieces of desired lengths and with holes drilled to match the Pre-'64 hole spacing on the bridge.
Spacing on the receiver should be the same for all M70 actions,
as should be the height differential and contours between bridge and receiver ring.
Use 8x40 screws of course.
So Bubba Gunwerkes could convert any M70 one-piece Picatinny rail base (plain or 20-MOA, etc.) to fit any M70 action.
A Short Action 20-MOA rail cut and stretched out to Long Action would just make it slightly less than 20-MOA tilt.
With the Bubba Gunwerkes SSEB you would be able to use the Nikon as far forward as you like.
Hope you find a gunsmith with two eyes and two hands and a brain that is functioning properly!

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by Barton Hege:
Great pic,Rip. That is a beast of a set up. I can't wait to read your range report.Hopefully more pics?

Yep, The Drag Queen of Low is now re-named to "The Beast of Low."
Hope it stands up to .458 recoil.



First test for Beast and Woodie will be starting over with 80.0 grains of AA-2230 using the 400-grain HV and working up.

I will also try Ye Olde Hornady 500-grain RNSP with H4895.

I do not think I can get enough H4895 into the case to be interesting with the HV.
Need to go up in bullet weight with the bulkier, slower H4895.

Maybe I can get the case full with AA-2230 and the long-for-weight HV at the COL of 3.325", shooting for +2600 fps.

Maybe I can get the case full with H4895 and a conventional/cup&core 500-grainer at a COL of 3.340" or less, shooting for +2200 fps.

Keeping to ShortCOL with the .458 WinRuger. Otherwise I might as well be using a .458 WIN at LongCOL.
Anything but a .458 Lott!

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
The 404 with scope and mounts switched out to an old set of B&L Adjustable mount/rings and a Balvar 2.5-4x scope. The mount and length of ocular bell are such that the eye relief is right where it should be. So it would be fine except that on this cartridge I'd prefer a wider field of view. Comparing the 1, 1.5 & 2.5x pictures there really is a big difference.

Your B&L is a predecessor to one I've got, Ray. They are a bit long, which makes them susceptible to bumping at the front, but at least with the plunger mount there's a chance it would spring back if knocked.

In regard to field of view, if you have a good, long eye relief with your mounting, and the rifle fits and points naturally with the scope, it may be no big deal. Compact oculars and long eye relief always reduce FoV, but that's not necessarily a bad situation.

For one thing, having the scope well out and no doughnut rubber eyepiece, it will not block landscape the way modern ones do. With game like buffalo, the danger may come not from the animal you are aiming at but another nearby - and even a big FoV may not take in the other danger.

However, tunnel vision might well hide that other threat. The old B&Ls I've got blend the fields like a Zeiss of the same time, but all magnification robs us of vision; and the higher the power, the worse the situation.

I asked Talley if they had bases/rings, M70 Win pre-64 w/.44" spacing on screw holes in rear base, 1" tube. I got a response back that they did and it's product #93x702. I contacted OpticsPlanet. They had 1 so I ordered it. It'll be here in about a week. There is one customer comment on it, which causes concern. the commenter praised it highly, but said it was for his pre-64 30-06. The standard action had different hole spacing than the magnum. But I guess we'll see. as noted I can go with plan B- B&L. Or I might load-up some 350 gr bullets for the 458- call that Plan C.

Well, this is kind of silly.
With the old Hornady 500-grain RNSP, if the .458 WinRuger brass is as short as 2.565" (supposed to be 2.580" maximum),
the COL is way over 3.4" and won't fit in the Mauser box, unless the bullet is seated way deeper than the cannelure.
So, I used the Hornady 500-grain DGS FMF/solid with its flattened, ogived nose.
Seated and properly crimped on the cannelure, COL is exactly 3.340" with 2.565" brass length.

The .458 WIN continues to look better and better.

Rip ...