quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

Strangely, I think as much damage results from the deceleration from recoil, when the erector tube returns to battery. Then we have them scraping past the windage screw and crashing into the elevation one.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
... I seem to slip over once or twice every hunt but usually manage to save the scope. However, the last time I hunted tahr in NZ I managed to drop the 270 WSM three times on the shingle slides - but it didn't seem to change the Leupold's zero. In the long run, of course, it is recoil that usually kills scopes; the inertia on the heavy, suspended erector tube every time you touch off.

quote:

Originally posted by .458 Only:

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
those are pretty woods.

On scope, I just picked up a rather light Nikon Prostaff 2-7 (12oz) for a Kimber Hunter Edge 308Win. The Kimber wanted something light.

The eye-relief 3.8" is more than adequate for a 308, but should work for Alderella should you want some "reach" for looking at a bush some yards out. It is amazing what quality can be obtained for relatively low cost these days.

416Tanzan;

That's the same scope I have on my Ruger #1 .458. Before that, it was on my Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT (long-throat). Recoil from that rifle was between 40 to 60 ft-lbs. Never a problem, and it's very bright and clear. 1/4 clicks work as claimed. It's great in thick brush or woods at 2X.Pic is on the header of my blogs.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

quote:

Originally posted by .458 Only:
RIP; I love those pics of Alderella in the thickets.

My #1 Ruger in .458 is only 38-1/4" -- as you would know. Great brush gun, but heavy (as I wanted for eye protection), but still lighter than the CZ550 with scope, sling and 4 in the magazine at 11.25 lbs. Nominal wt, for the #1 Ruger with 4 on the stock, one in the chamber, scoped is 10.6 lbs. It does hold very steady once up and pointing at a "target".

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
It occurs to me that there is virtue and personalization to giving names to various firearms. Naming a firearm is a time honored tradition going back at least a few centuries. But names for firearms are like names given babies, in that the name will become both definer and predictor of the child and the rifle. So it is important to choose an appropriate name. In this endeavor, I seek guidance from this August body regarding the criteria used in selecting a proper name.


What process and criteria do you use to select a suitable name for a firearm?

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
It occurs to me that there is virtue and personalization to giving names to various firearms. Naming a firearm is a time honored tradition going back at least a few centuries.

Daniel Boone: His Pennsylvania Rifle "Tick Licker" could lick the ticks off his hound at 100 yards. Caliber is disputed, most likely a .45-cal, the All-American caliber. Davey Crockett: "Ol' Betsy" was his first rifle, a .40-cal flintlock. Maybe he just liked the name. Another fine, presentation-grade flintlock, from his grateful political constituents, was also .40-cal and named the same. Buffalo Bill Cody: "Lucretia Borgia" was a deadly woman, name-sake of his Trapdoor .50-70 Govt.

But names for firearms are like names given babies, in that the name will become both definer and predictor of the child and the rifle. So it is important to choose an appropriate name. In this endeavor, I seek guidance from this August body regarding the criteria used in selecting a proper name.

What process and criteria do you use to select a suitable name for a firearm?

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
I have never been one for naming inanimate objects but sometimes names are acquired and bestowed by others, not unlike those acquired by native warriors.
The late gunwriter Finn Aagaard wrote how my 458 shot and handled well and was perfect for its intended use but even Finn couldn't ignore the fact that it was ugly. ( I judge its beauty on performance and had not noticed )

Then Rifle magazine editor Dave Scovill began calling it Old Ugly and the name stuck.

I still judge it only on its performance and the more I experience with other large bore cartridges, the more I appreciate the standard 458 Win.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

Strangely, I think as much damage results from the deceleration from recoil, when the erector tube returns to battery. Then we have them scraping past the windage screw and crashing into the elevation one.

I talked with a Leupold tech awhile back and asked about potential damage due to recoil when a scope was fitted to a heavily recoiling rifle and fired from a LeadSled with significant weight. The tech didn't have a qualitative answer but did say that Leupold had received damaged scopes as well as reports from various writers noting that the common factor resulting in the damage was shooting the heavily recoiling rifle from a LeadSled with more than 25 pounds of lead in place.

Since the problem wouldn't occur if the rifle itself weighed more than 35 pounds (Leadsled 10 pounds + lead 25 pounds), this would indicate that the problem lays in the movement of the rifle. If part of the rifle, the recoil would be against the weight of the rifle and would be a factor of the recoil force resulting in a rearward velocity reduced by the rifle weight. (F=MA, where the recoil force results in an acceleration that is divided by the rifle mass, the more the mass the less the acceleration. So having a scope on a 458WM that weighs 35 pounds would not be the cause of damage to the scope.


So how is the LeadSled arrangement different? My opinion is that it is different because the initial rearward force from the bullet moving through the barrel is restrained only by the actual weight of the rifle because there is slack between the rifle and the LeadSled. This would be due to the rifles recoil pad as well as the slot/collar in which the rifle sits. While the movement allowed by this slack is quite short in distance, it is significant enough to allow full recoil velocity of the primary stage- that being the recoil due to the bullet and powder gases traveling from the chamber to the muzzle. At that point the slack is absorbed by the system and the 35 pounds of resistance is added to the recoil formula. So in effect the rifle goes from weighing 10 pounds to 45 pounds (10 + 10 + 25) and the velocity is rapidly absorbed, virtually halting rearward and upward movement of the rifle and scope.


Most scopes are designed to withstand severe amounts of acceleration to the rear resulting from recoil, but they are not designed to withstand the deceleration in the distance afforded by the increased resistance of added weight. Evidently, if the added weight is less than the 25 pounds then no immediate damage occurs to the scope, however if the weight is increased, say to 50 pounds of lead (10 + 50 + 10 for rifle) then the deceleration of a full charged load from 458s and larger will cause damage to the scope in a very few shots.


So if you want to shoot a 458 and larger and you want it to have a scope, then you get to make a choice: do you prefer to damage your scope or your retinas?

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338: Has anyone called theirs Druzilla ?

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
A photo of the K2.5 60A Weaver with my son's crosshair. In the photo it doesn't seem to show but when looking through the scope it is clear.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
New photograph of the K2.5 with baby crosshair. I focused on the crosshair to the exclusion of other aspects of set-up. So the xcope isn't squared-up or pointed at an informative area, but the crosshair is visible. Not sure what that says about my eyesight since when I look through the scope both the crosshair and the target area are both in focus.