Ray B,

I see that the heads of the bolts are bent outward some.
Makes me think that it must have been improper heat treating of the castings, left them soft.
Less likely a void inside the casting at a critical point could have weakened the structure.
Even less likely a cause if it happened to both main-mounting bolts.
Improper heat treating is most likely, IMHO.
Might have been one of those Monday morning or Friday afternoon batches of lemons.

I pulled both bolts out of Alderella's new rings and inspected them. No problems.
They seem to be made to a slightly different pattern, maybe with a greater diameter of the non-threaded portion of the shaft,
all the way to the heads of the bolts.
Maybe, maybe not. Little difference.
Looking really close in the nooks and crannies some minor imperfections suggesting superficial casting defects that did not get polished away are visible.

Here is one of them:

I would still recommend the Ruger OEM standard rings over any other, for a Ruger rifle with Ruger integral bases.
The main-mounting nut I would torque to 60 inch-pounds.
If I ever noticed them getting loose at that torque, I would go to 65 inch-pounds, no more.

I can use the Burris Xtreme Tactical rings on my Round Top Ruger M77. Those half-inch main mounting nuts are recommended to be tightened to 65 to 100 in-lbs by Burris.
I myself am too puny of grip to get any higher than 65 in-lbs with my Fat Wrench tool. That will have to do.
The ring-top screws are supposed to be 20 in-lbs maximum for those 6-screw Burris rings.
Good, the torx driver for those screws is a T-15, handles it well.

The 4-screw Ruger OEM ring tops have lately been coming with the tiny-torx T-10 size screw heads.
I am short on those T-10 bits because I have broken off so many in Ruger ring screws.
No more than 15 in-lbs there, henceforth, and be prepared to frequently check for tightness.
I am happier with a switch to the slot-head screws and torque them to 20 in-lbs in the Ruger rings.

The Ruger OEM rings are great, with integral bases on rifle, assuming you got no defective product.

CZ 550 OEM rings are great, with integral bases on rifle.

Burris Xtreme Tactical rings are great, on a base that has been 8x40-screwed and J-B-Weld-glued to the rifle.
Like on my old Ruger Round Top.

I can figure out a pocket-carried QD-QD lever for any of my "great" favorites above.

Rip ...

Nikon Black Force 1000 1-4x24mm
compared to
Nikon M-Tactical 1-4x24mm:

These two scopes are the same length, 30mm tube, same weight (16.4 oz), power range same, etc.,
but the M-Tactical has no third turret/battery/illumination.
Where is the extra weight in the M-Tac which has a slimmer profile on the left side of the scope?

The M-Tac has a wire reticle.
Black Force has an etched glass reticle.

Nikon BLACK FORCE1000 Rifle Scope 30mm Tube 1-4x 24mm 1/2 MOA Adjustments Illuminated Speedforce Reticle Matte
From MidwayUSA, these specs do not show the adjustment range in MOA, but the literature in the box says 350 MOA

Finish Matte Black
Waterproof Yes
Weight 16.4 Ounce
Tube Diameter 30mm
Power Variability Variable
Minimum Power 1
Maximum Power 4
Adjustment Click Value 1/2 MOA
Adjustment Type Click
Exposed Turrets No
Finger Adjustable Turrets Yes
Turrets Resettable to Zero Yes
Zero Stop No
Turret Height High
Fast Focus Eye Piece Yes
Lens Coating Fully Multi-Coated
Warranty Nikon No Fault Lifetime Warranty
Rings Included No
Sun Shade Included No
Lens Covers Included No
Reticle Speedforce
Reticle Construction Glass Etched
Illuminated Reticle Yes
Battery Type CR2032
Holdover Reticle Yes
Reticle Focal Plane Location 2nd
Parallax Adjustment No
Fog Proof Yes
Shock Proof Yes
Overall Length (A) 10.5 Inches
Eyepiece Diameter (H) 1.7 Inches
Objective Lens Diameter 24 Millimeter
Eye Relief 3.8-4.1 Inches
Exit Pupil Diameter 6.0-24.0 Millimeter
Field of View @ 100 Yards Minimum Power 110.1 Feet
Field of View @ 100 Yards Maximum Power 27.2 Feet

Nikon M-Tactical Rifle Scope 30mm Tube 1-4x 24mm MK1-MOA Reticle Matte
From MidwayUSA, specs do show adjustment range: 220 MOA

Finish Matte Black
Waterproof Yes
Weight 16.4 Ounce
Tube Diameter 30mm
Power Variability Variable
Minimum Power 1
Maximum Power 4
Adjustment Click Value 1/2 MOA
Adjustment Type Click
Exposed Turrets Yes
Finger Adjustable Turrets Yes
Turrets Resettable to Zero Yes
Zero Stop No
Turret Height Medium
Fast Focus Eye Piece Yes
Lens Coating Fully Multi-Coated
Warranty Nikon No Fault Lifetime Warranty
Rings Included No
Sun Shade Included No
Lens Covers Included No
Reticle MK1-MOA
Reticle Construction Wire
Illuminated Reticle No
Holdover Reticle Yes
Reticle Focal Plane Location 2nd
Parallax Adjustment Fixed at 100 Yards
Fog Proof Yes
Shock Proof Yes
Overall Length (A) 10.4 Inches
Objective Diameter (G) 1.18 Inches
Eyepiece Diameter (H) 1.73 Inches
Objective Lens Diameter 24 Millimeter
Eye Relief 3.8-3.7 Inches
Exit Pupil Diameter 24.0-6..0 Millimeter
Field of View @ 100 Yards Minimum Power 118.8 Feet
Field of View @ 100 Yards Maximum Power 29.9 Feet
Maximum Windage Adjustment 220 MOA
Maximum Elevation Adjustment 220 MOA

Alderella Ruger-Shilen says the BF makes her feel fat.
She wants to try the M-Tac because it looks slimmer, and has no third turret.
More like the good old days when scopes had 1-inch tubes and no third turrets.
She also thinks the same weight in the slimmer scope must surely come from stronger internals.

The Tacticool Age of scopes is here, good or bad?
I am starting to sound like sambarman338 ...

Rip ...

We are so fickle, but you gotta please your girl.
The BF has been removed from the Ruger rings, and the M-Tac has replaced it.
Absolutely no marring of the scope by the Ruger rings, just as they came from the factory packaging.
Ruger got those rings right in that regard.

White knuckle tight on the main mounting nuts.
Fingertip tight on the ring-top screws.

Rip ...

Well, I can understand wanting an illuminated reticle and the Black Force. So dropping down to a 3.8"+ eye-relief can be justified on light-loaded 458's.

But dropping the illumination and further dropping to a 3.7" eye-relief, just gives up too much, IMHO. As one pushes loads towards 6000 foot-pounds I think that the Slughunter (75-yd parallax) and Inline (100-yd parallax) remain the scopes of choice providing the very comfortable 5" eye-relief. Personally, I choose the Inline with 100-yd parallax, but it is inconsequential if keeping one's eye naturally centered. The increase in muzzle energy to 6000 ft# tends to coincide with higher velocities, lighter projectiles, and a flatter reach to 300 yards. Eland of the veldt beware! So the eye-relief, higher magnification, and marginally lighter scopes all favor the Slughunter/Inline model. Yes, the objective bell does need clearance but it seems to work well. Our Ruger Hawkeyes handle the scope, minimally clearing the barrel shank. We now have the Inline on a 500 AccRNyati, 416 Rigby CZ, 375Ruger, 338WM Hawkeye, and 270Win Tikka. A little black ring around the field of view on higher powers is a neglible price to pay for such a great hunting package. Close or far, lightweight 270 or hefty 416 and 500 rifles, the scope puts one's eye on the quarry.

Of course, I did just order a 2-7 Prostaff for the grandkid's 308. The lighter weight (12oz) is fitting for a super lightweight Kimber Hunter, and 7-power is plenty out to 300 yards and then some. The 3.8" eye-relief is plenty for a 308 and still good training for the next generation of hunters.

I've been a little busy with rifle projects to absorb all of the technical data you've supplied, RIP, but I noticed your arrow pointing to the massive, 350 MoA, adjustment range in that Nikon scope. As you'll see well into the book, I have several doubts about winding even image-movement scopes to the edge, a couple of which are illustrated in March's abandonment of internal adjustments in their Genesis 6-60x scope for extra-long distances, and explained in the 'Epilogue'.

Nikon certainly know how to make great lenses and, according to yours and dgr416's experience with heavy kickers, seem to have conquered recoil. However, if the ridiculous tunnel vision on my Monarch 4-16x is any indication, it may just be that they don't know everything about all aspects of scope making.

I think their use of an etched reticle in the Blackforce should be a good idea, because recoil can destroy metallic ones in any scope. The illumination is something I'd rather do without, though, but it might take a chapter to explain my objections

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
Well, I can understand wanting an illuminated reticle and the Black Force. So dropping down to a 3.8"+ eye-relief can be justified on light-loaded 458's.

But dropping the illumination and further dropping to a 3.7" eye-relief, just gives up too much, IMHO.

416Tanzan,

Thanks for supporting THE MISSION.
The eye relief of any of the scopes you mention is not an issue for me.
I am not a "stock crawler."
I tolerate "tunnel vision" on the long range shots just fine, as I can still see all of the MK1-MOA reticle graduations on 4X.
No significant tunneling, i.e., good field blending, when you set the M-Tac on 1X for close and fast shooting.
It is like a heads-up, both-eyes-open, canopy display in an F-22. Fox-one.
To me the most important issue is getting the ocular bell forward.
The BF and M-Tac are identical in that regard. Same external dimensions applicable on both.



I generally like to try to get the ocular bell end forward to line up with the back of the trigger guard, on a hard kicker.
That is as good as a scout scope for safety of eyebrow.
A little farther back than that is allowed with my firm "resolve." (See the sambarman338 quote after the Stroebel quote.)

Mention in sambarman338's book of that of Nick Stroebel, OLD GUNSIGHTS & RIFLE SCOPES IDENTIFICATION AND PRICE GUIDE,
led to this, the finer points of which may be debatable by some.
Quoting Stroebel:
********************************************************************************************************************
EXIT PUPIL AND EYE RELIEF
The ocular lens has a focal point at some designed distance behind the scope.
This distance represents the "eye relief" for that scope.
Several factors can influence this distance.
The distance, and therefore the eye relief, can be increased by increasing the focal length of the ocular lens,
but doing so will decrease the magnification and field of view of the lens system.
Decreasing the focal length of the objective would also increase the distance, but would also reduce magnification.
Decreasing the focal length of the erector lens system would increase eye relief, but reduce field of view.
As one can see, scope design is a study in compromise.
Long eye relief can be obtained, but only by sacrificing some other useful characteristics.
********************************************************************************************************************
I must be like one of sambarman338's sons:

"One of my sons always holds the scopes farther away than everyone else, even with glasses on,
so I know this can be a matter for some resolve."

Yes, after over half a century of shooting my own guns, I have RESOLVED how not to sweat the fly poop in the pepper.
I happily make do. I have never been cut by a scope.
This resolve came several decades ago, sometime after a scope lightly kissed the bridge of my shooting glasses, ONE TIME.
Not ever again after that.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I've been a little busy with rifle projects to absorb all of the technical data you've supplied, RIP,

Ha! What about me pondering your LIGHT AT THE START OF THE TUNNEL!
You make a lot of sense, but what are we to do if we are getting by with our modern, cheap scopes?

but I noticed your arrow pointing to the massive, 350 MoA, adjustment range in that Nikon scope. As you'll see well into the book, I have several doubts about winding even image-movement scopes to the edge, a couple of which are illustrated in March's abandonment of internal adjustments in their Genesis 6-60x scope for extra-long distances, and explained in the 'Epilogue'.

Nice indeed for King of Two-Mile competitors. Way above the pay-grade of .458 WIN lovers.

Nikon certainly know how to make great lenses and, according to yours and dgr416's experience with heavy kickers, seem to have conquered recoil. However, if the ridiculous tunnel vision on my Monarch 4-16x is any indication, it may just be that they don't know everything about all aspects of scope making.

I have a Nikon "M-308" 4-16x42 and will have to go check the lack of field blending.
I'll look for the specs on that one for pondering too.

I think their use of an etched reticle in the Blackforce should be a good idea, because recoil can destroy metallic ones in any scope. The illumination is something I'd rather do without, though, but it might take a chapter to explain my objections

There you have given me concern, in that last paragraph.
The M-TAC has heavier internals more prone to recoil forces, and a wire reticle, not strictly etched glass,
also more prone to recoil damage.
But at least there are no electronics to go dead and not be covered by a lifetime warranty.
Maybe 1 year or 2 years is covered on some, no coverage on some other scopes.

Nice to see that Colin Shadbolt's article in the June 1966 Australia Outdoors
featured a "BSA Majestic 458 WM (see magazine photo)" fitted with a Nickel Supra 1-4x21mm scope.
Shades of the Nikon Monarch African 1-4x20mm for $250!
That article you say inspired your scope collecting and your book.
THE MISSION, thanks you again, for your book, and for the latest reply.

Rip ...

quote:

I happily make do. I have never been cut by a scope.
This resolve came several decades ago, sometime after a scope lightly kissed the bridge of my shooting glasses, ONE TIME.
Not ever again after that.

Yes, I share similar experiences (or lack there-of ). I have seen friends cut their eyebrows with their scopes and my scopes, so I, too, have learned to pull my eye maximally away from a scope, and to keep a fairly stiff upright head orientation. Nevertheless, long eye-relief in a scope for rifles over 5000 ft# is a blessing.

On the 'black ring'/tunnel, it would be good to compare the Nikon 4x16s with the 3x9 Inline/Slughunter. I'm thinking that the more modest 3x9 would ameliorate the situation a tad.

Due to the constant 5.0-inch eye-relief, the 3-9x40mm SlugHunter has only 25.2 feet FOV at 100 yards on 3X.
That is the same as the "tunnel-visioned" 4-16x40mm M-308 has on 4X, with 4.0-inch eye-relief, 25.2 feet at 100 yards.

Compromises.

Here is the comparison
Nikon SlugHunter (75yd parallax)/INLine (100-yd parallax) with the simple BDC 200 reticle (useful to 600 yards with .458 WIN)
versus
Nikon M-308 (adjustable parallax & "Rapid Action Turret Technology" (Nikoplex reticle model only, but BDC 800 reticle also offered):

sambarman338,

Only 40 MOA of windage and 40 MOA of elevation, on the M-308, total range of adjustment!

Adding parallax adjustment and waterproofing
must be limiting in some way?
Maybe the RAPID ACTION TURRET TECHNOLOGY sets it up for stops at +/- 20 MOA on the elevation?
Might need a 20-MOA tilted Picatinny base just to get it to work!

Yes, you have to look through a black doughnut when sighting with the Nikon 4-16x40mm, of whatever persuasion, M-308 included.
M-308 especially so, a doughnut with 3 knobs sticking out:



Rip ...

M-Tac specs are outstanding, for those that resolve not to let it hit them in the forehead.
Can the wire reticle hold up to a .458 WIN?
For $220 it is worth a try.



Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I've been a little busy with rifle projects to absorb all of the technical data you've supplied, RIP,

Ha! What about me pondering your LIGHT AT THE START OF THE TUNNEL!
You make a lot of sense, but what are we to do if we are getting by with our modern, cheap scopes?

but I noticed your arrow pointing to the massive, 350 MoA, adjustment range in that Nikon scope. As you'll see well into the book, I have several doubts about winding even image-movement scopes to the edge, a couple of which are illustrated in March's abandonment of internal adjustments in their Genesis 6-60x scope for extra-long distances, and explained in the 'Epilogue'.

Nice indeed for King of Two-Mile competitors. Way above the pay-grade of .458 WIN lovers.

Nikon certainly know how to make great lenses and, according to yours and dgr416's experience with heavy kickers, seem to have conquered recoil. However, if the ridiculous tunnel vision on my Monarch 4-16x is any indication, it may just be that they don't know everything about all aspects of scope making.

I have a Nikon "M-308" 4-16x42 and will have to go check the lack of field blending.
I'll look for the specs on that one for pondering too.

I think their use of an etched reticle in the Blackforce should be a good idea, because recoil can destroy metallic ones in any scope. The illumination is something I'd rather do without, though, but it might take a chapter to explain my objections

There you have given me concern, in that last paragraph.
The M-TAC has heavier internals more prone to recoil forces, and a wire reticle, not strictly etched glass,
also more prone to recoil damage.
But at least there are no electronics to go dead and not be covered by a lifetime warranty.
Maybe 1 year or 2 years is covered on some, no coverage on some other scopes.

Nice to see that Colin Shadbolt's article in the June 1966 Australia Outdoors
featured a "BSA Majestic 458 WM (see magazine photo)" fitted with a Nickel Supra 1-4x21mm scope.
Shades of the Nikon Monarch African 1-4x20mm for $250!
That article you say inspired your scope collecting and your book.
THE MISSION, thanks you again, for your book, and for the latest reply.

Rip ...

You are too kind, RIP. (I replicate your whole post, to help your cause and mine .)

As to your asking what we are to do with our modern scopes: keep at your other mission - to destroy them. Nikons at least seem to have found some way to fortify the movement but their scopes would last even longer if they put similar quality into one with reticle movement or none at all.

For me, shooting in ultra-low-light conditions is irrelevant, so I find old scopes in excellent condition and press them into service. The extra effort needed to find mounts and set up the scope properly is just part of the frisson, like tuning handloads to give best accuracy.

In the future, I would love to see some scope maker admit the emperor has no clothes and dare to make the old-pattern scopes again - at least in a size suitable for the formidable 458 Winchester Magnum - but with etched reticles, modern coatings etc.

Yes, Shadbolt's rifle was a 458 WM BSA Majestic with muzzle brake; forgive me for not identifying it in the blocklines. Some of the text in the article can be read if you look closely but I deliberately cropped the bottom side to stave off copyright problems.

As it happens, $250 was about what I paid for my old Nickel 1-4, but it had been refurbished for $100. I've only seen one other on eBay since, so maybe the price was not so full up, looking back.

Cheers

These are the mounts that replaced the factory rings on the Ruger 77. It came from the factory a 270 Win that wasn't actually bad; at 300 yards with no special load technique it would shoot 10 shots into 3 inches, which is not spectacular, but 5 of those ten would go into less than an inch. However, I had CP Donnelly rebarrel it to 30-06 Match specs. while at is, the Leupold Vari-X III 2.5-8x was replaced with a Mark 4 M1 10x, the model previously used by the military for their designated marksmen, prior to going full techie with variable bullet drop etc. the rifle is quite accurate within the limits of its design- 175 gr bullets; which translates to 600 yards. but it's a fun rifle to shoot. The mounts, which were the topic of the post are Warne and they are much more secure than the factory ones, which also helps with the 30mm tube scope.

As much as I'm not a fan of the 06, I gotta say, that is a pretty great setup u have there Ray. With a min spec chamber and pushing that bullet. It should be quite good out to 1k.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
I generally like to try to get the ocular bell end forward to line up with the back of the trigger guard, on a hard kicker.
That is as good as a scout scope for safety of eyebrow.
A little farther back than that is allowed with my firm "resolve." (See the sambarman338 quote after the Stroebel quote.)

Mention in sambarman338's book of that of Nick Stroebel, OLD GUNSIGHTS & RIFLE SCOPES IDENTIFICATION AND PRICE GUIDE,
led to this, the finer points of which may be debatable by some.
Quoting Stroebel:
********************************************************************************************************************
EXIT PUPIL AND EYE RELIEF
The ocular lens has a focal point at some designed distance behind the scope.
This distance represents the "eye relief" for that scope.
Several factors can influence this distance.
The distance, and therefore the eye relief, can be increased by increasing the focal length of the ocular lens,
but doing so will decrease the magnification and field of view of the lens system.
Decreasing the focal length of the objective would also increase the distance, but would also reduce magnification.
Decreasing the focal length of the erector lens system would increase eye relief, but reduce field of view.
As one can see, scope design is a study in compromise.
Long eye relief can be obtained, but only by sacrificing some other useful characteristics.
********************************************************************************************************************
I must be like one of sambarman338's sons:

"One of my sons always holds the scopes farther away than everyone else, even with glasses on,
so I know this can be a matter for some resolve."

Yes, after over half a century of shooting my own guns, I have RESOLVED how not to sweat the fly poop in the pepper.
I happily make do. I have never been cut by a scope.
This resolve came several decades ago, sometime after a scope lightly kissed the bridge of my shooting glasses, ONE TIME.
Not ever again after that.

Rip ...

I'm afraid I have been cut by scopes a few times - but it generally hasn't hurt. One place it happened was at the range, where I used a hot-water bottle filled with hydrated garden crystals to make a gel recoil reducer. Trouble was, the gel squished too quickly, allowing the scope to come back farther than desirable.

As to Number One Son and the eye relief, the kids were asked to hold the scopes, sans rifle, at the perfect distance but his measurements always came out longer than Number Two's, their sister's or my own.

I agree that sacrificing a little FoV to get a longer eye distance is a good idea with heavy kickers like the 458WM, and I like Leupolds and many of the old scopes because their generous eyeboxes allow this. When shooting at social-but-dangerous game like buffalo, lions and elephants, the FoV thus lost within the scope is more than recouped by the increased vision outside the scope, where some other group member may be taking umbrage.

My only complaint with Stroebel on optical matters (apart from his unquestioning acceptance of image-movement) was his saying that ocular diameter determined exit-pupil size, which is really the unstopped objective-lens diameter divided by magnification, of course.

The ocular diameter is, however, one of the most important factors in the competing interests of FoV and eye relief. Once we add a modern rubber doughnut around it we finish up with enormous eyepiece diameters, almost twice the size some old scopes needed to give similar FoVs. Of course over-constrictive image-movement field stops and the more-constant eye reliefs in modern variables have some part in this.

Ron,

You now need to change the title of your thread to 458 Winchester Magnum, scopes and mounts. It could become a total resource thread for all gun related matters.

Mike,

You make a good point.

But I didn't start this thread, so cannot change title.
I have just grown old here.


Rip ...

sambarman338,

You have created another old scope connoisseur.
You have my eternal gratitude for the education.
Modern scopes: Can't live with them, can't live without them.
Maybe someday, some firm will bring back a REAL RIFLE SCOPE,
as you say with reticle movement instead of image movement,
OR NO INTERNAL ADJUSTMENTS AT ALL, with an adjustable base setup that I could 8x40 and J-B-Weld to a .458 WIN.

Not like this:

Considering the comments regarding ocular housing diameters I checked a few scopes available for me to measure. Results are:


7/8" Tube
Lyman Alaskan 2.5x 1.24"
Unertl Ext Adj 10x 1.26
Leupold Alaskan 4,6x 1.32"
Leupold Pioneer 4x 1.51"


1" Tube

Possible Weaver 1.24"
Bausch&Lomb Balfor,var 8 1.34"
Unertl Hawk 4x 1.40"
Weatherby Imperial 6x 1.41"
Unertl UltraVarmint 2" 1.42"
Weaver K 2.5,3 60 BC 1.45"
Leupold Several 1.55"
Schmidt&Bender 6x Rubber 1.6"
Nikon Monarchafrican Rub 1.6"
Zeiss Diatal,vari Rubber 1.72

26mm
Kollmorgen BearCub 2.75,4 1.45"
Zeiss Zeilvier 4x 1.50"

30mm
Leupold Mk4 M1 10x 1.7"

34mm
Leupold VX6 4-24X Rubber 1.63"

What all of the measurements mean with regard to separating vision between through the scope and around the scope I don't know, but it does give one measurement in the endeavor to determine why I would be more comfortable using one scope in deference to another.

Well, OK, I might be able to use the Leupold Alaskan,
but only until I could get a Lyman Alaskan more like this one:



Or this one, yep, used as a sniper scope in WWII:



Above are excerpts for book review purposes of Nick Stroebel's book, OLD GUNSIGHTS & RIFLE SCOPES.

Book Review: Good book. Great companion to LIGHT AT THE START OF THE TUNNEL by Samuel B. Mann.

Rip ...

Comparing Older & Newer, moving reticle & Moving Image, Internally & Externally Adjustable; the oldest is the Zeiss Zeilvier 1935, the newest is the Leupold VX6 from a couple years ago. A few move the reticles but most move the image, and there are a few (the Unertls & B&Ls) are external adjustment. I have several of the B&L adjustable mounts but I much prefer the Buehler adjustable, but I only have one of those.

Magnificent scope, mount, and rifle you got there, Ray B:
The Pre-'64 M70 with Leupold Pioneer 4X, no internal adjustments, and the Buehler-clone adjustable mount.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
... The mounts, which were the topic of the post are Warne and they are much more secure than the factory ones, which also helps with the 30mm tube scope.

Ray B,

You got a bad set of Ruger rings over 40 years ago. They had soft primary mounting bolts.
You need to get over it. Forgive and don't forget, just move on to some proper Ruger OEM rings.

The Warne Ruger rings: They are OK for .30-06-class rifles, surely.

But they are by no stretch of the imagination stronger than the OEM Ruger rings, which I would prefer on a .458 WIN such as Alderella.

30 mm rings:



I had some of those Warne Ruger rings, used them on Ruger No.1 rifles.
Be careful torquing the small diameter screws holding the ring halves together, easily stripped.

The recoil stop on the bottom of each Warne ring is a loose bit of cast metal trapped between the vertically split ring halves.
It is not integral to base of ring as on a Ruger OEM ring.

I broke off one of those Warne recoil stops on a .475 Linebaugh Ruger No.1, a hot loaded revolver cartridge was all it took.
I switched back to Ruger OEM rings. No worries now.

Rip ...

Pictured is the Leupold Adjustable base/rings holding a 7/8" tube Leupold Pioneer 4x scope dating from shortly after WWII. The mount is very resistant to being "bumped", but it's something of a pain to try and sight-in as the scope is moved up&down, side to side by Tightening/loosening the Allen head screws that have no measuring system. additionally to remove/replace the scope in the rings, the ocular bell needs to be removed, which doesn't help the interior humidity and sealing of the scope.


In those days the shooters weren't as obsessed with developing subminute loads with the fine tuning of aiming point not to mention the bullet-drop-compensation dials now seemingly required for a scope to be considered by the buyers and in particular the gun-writers.

Cool, something else for me to look up in the books!

Sambarman338 thinks the B&L mounts are the cat's pajamas.
Any pictures of those would warm the cockles of his soul.

Rip ...

I'll post a few of the mounts on the Alaskan & Zielvier, it's getting a little early here (2A) so I'll do the B&Ls later today.









Top is the Lyman All Weather Alaskan 2.5x with internal adjustments, referred to in the advertisement as costing $20 more than the external adjust scope. $20 when these were made was a considerable amount. the rifle is a mere youngster Marlin 1897Texan approaching 20 years of age.

Bottom is the Zeiss Zeilvier 4x in Redfield adjustable mount. the scope has internal adjustment of the horizontal crosshair, giving a vertical adjustment by moving the hair. the mount has opposing screws in the rear base to drift the scope side to side for the windage adjustment. the rifle is a Remington 30S 257R dated January 1935. I'd guess the scope was installed when the rifle was new, so probably made in 1935, just before the government started controlling manufacturing/exporting activities.

Ray B,

Putting a Lyman Alaskan on a Marlin Golden 39-A is gilding the lilly or lillying the gold, one or the other.
Gold Medal Class.

Like sambarman338, I saw a Lyman Alaskan at a gunshow years ago, but was not an "old scope collector" back then. Just ignorant.

Here is the only "old scope" I have, and I only have it because it came with a BRNO ZKK-602 I traded for about 25 years ago.
This scope must be over 50 years old, from a time just before the Euros all went to image movement?
It is a ZF4/S CARL ZEISS JENA DDR ... (spelled out in white letters on the top, front turret):





Elevation adjustment is in the forward dial of the "uni-turret" on the top, focus is in rearward dial on the top.
Windage adjustment is in the forward part of the rail mount: 4 screws, two on either side.

Roll-stamped on the left side of the rail, integral to scope:

ZBROJOVKA BRNO ZKK-602
MADE IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

I cannot find this one listed in Nick Stroebel's book, but I have seen one like it on this forum,
on one of ALF's "collectible" rifles.

Mine is a working scope, if I put a little piece of electrician's tape over the top of the rear turret.
Recoil makes the focus wheel un-focus if I leave it free, on the 23"-barreled .338 Lapua Magnum it sits on.
It has the usual European No. 1 "Graticule."

I previously thought this scope was merely a curio. I think more of it now, having read sambarman338's book.

It might have to go on a CZ 550 Magnum "Welterweight" .458 WIN rifle, but would be better on a lighter kicker, to keep it focused.

I am wondering if this fixed 4X focuses by moving the erector inside the main tube?
Inertia of the erector tube inside the main tube might be moving the focus wheel under recoil?

This would make it sort of a transitional scope,
with both reticle movement (up and down only) AND erector movement (fore and aft inside the main tube).
They would have to move independently of each other.
Call it an "un-focus-movement" scope, to be perfectly un-clear about it!

Rip ...

Bausch & Lomb adjustable mounts:

I have a Weaver K3, but that has "image movement."
The K3 was made from 1958 to 1984, according to Stroebel.

The Weaver K2.5 and K4 started in 1947 with "reticle movement."
I am wondering if they were switched over to image movement too, about 1958?
Those were made through 1984 also.
There's more Weaver K's than I can shake a stick at!
And Ray B might have all of them on hand ...

Rip ...

From Stroebel:

LYMAN ALASKAN 2.5X (1939-1957)
Magnification .................... 2.5X
Field of view .................... 40.0 feet at 100 yards
Luminosity ....................... 81.0
Eye relief ....................... 3.0 - 5.0 inches
Length ....................... 10.5 inches
Weight ....................... 11.0 ounces
Tube diameter .................... 0.875 inches steel tube
(Value: $150 - $350;
add $50 for early exposed adjustments model,
deduct $50 for "Fixed" non-adjustable model) year-2008 US dollars

LEUPOLD PIONEER 4X (1951 - 1959)
Magnification .................... 4X
Field of view .................... 35.0 feet at 100 yards
Luminosity ....................... 76.5
Eye relief ....................... 2.5 - 4.5 inches
Length ....................... 11.625 inches
Weight ....................... 8.0 ounces
Tube diameter .................... 0.875 inches must be an alloy tube to be so light
(Value: $175 - $325)


ZEISS ZEILVIER 4X (1935 - 1940)
Magnification .................... 4X
Field of view .................... 32.4 feet at 100 yards
Luminosity ....................... 76.5
Eye relief ....................... not given
Length ....................... 10.625 inches
Weight ....................... 13.75 ounces
Tube diameter .................... 1.023 inches steel tube
(Value: $450 - $650);
add $150 for leather case)
The Zeiss Zeilvier Featherweight 4X (1935 - 1940):
Has all specs/info/prices same as standard model (steel-tubed) above,
except weight = 10.0 ounces for this alloy-tubed version.


Rip ...

Did you American ever have or see the German reticle moving scopes. The recticle system could be removed and replaced and some people in fact had a couple of reticle systems such as cross hair or the picket.

The only lens that could cause problems was the objective lens since all other lenses were behind the reticle.

Mike,

Yep, heard about that in the book LIGHT AT THE START OF THE TUNNEL by Samuel B. Mann.
Excerpted here for book review purposes:



Book review: A very rewarding read.


Rip ...

Above is the MAGNUM BRA (Bubba's Recoil Arrestor).
I have plans for a .458 WIN Ruger No.1 stocked just like this, so this is applicable to the thread.

Bell & Carlson used to make this synthetic stock for the Ruger No.1, but it is short in LOP, only about 13.25", including the recoil pad.
So I need two slip-on pads toget to 14.75" LOP.
A Limbsaver over the B&C pad (Decelerator), and then the leather slip-on over it all.
Triple recoil padding.
Add 5 rounds of .500 A-Square and the whole contraption as shown adds 1.5 pounds at the butt end of the rifle,
nice for balance of the barrel which is 1.000" diameter at the muzzle.
Magnum recoil reduction!

Rip ...

Without the loaded cartridges, the two slip-on pads, elastic & nylon ammo carrier, and a piece of parachute cord, altogether weigh 12 ounces.
5 rounds of 570-grain-bullet loads weigh 12 ounces also.
24 ounces fully loaded: 1.5 pounds of MAGNUM BRA.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Not like this:

How much is that G force? Or what is that amount of G force comparable to ?