quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
There are two kinds of people in the USA.

I'm not sure if there would be three or if it is just a transition. There are the two groups as noted, but for the last several years there is another group: People that are/were Democrats, but have been left by the Democrat Party. Most famous example and quote is Ronald Reagan: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me."

The other assessment regarding 458 Win Mag is also correct: there are those that see and believe its performance; and then there are those that look at its relative small size and claim that there is just no way that it can send bullets downrange with the same authority of older much larger cartridges. these two groups can be put into two classifications:

The Faithful and The Infidels.

Now this thread has gone completely stupid....

A bit of scope stuff since the thread has quite a bit of it. Not sure if this applies today but probably would.

Back in the late 90s I did some testing for Tasco Australia.

One rifle was a 416 Wby and brake removed. The other a 700 action (as a "glue in"), Jewell Trigger etc on an Alloy stock we had in Australia. They are basically a copy of the 40 X bench stock but a skeleton. It had a Number 5 barrel, .73" at 26 inches and in 6mm/06 and of course very accurate.

Scope first went on 6mm/06 to test it. If Ok then scope was first put on the 416 Wby and bag of led shot behind it so it could be shot heaps. Then scope put back on the 6mm/06. Did not use PPC bench gun because the lighter 6mm/06 has lots more recoil and for practical purposes just as accurate as the PPC bench gun.

Now I will tell what was interesting. This testing was done over a few times and few weeks at a range in Sydney and has plenty of shooters. Quite a few other shooters seeing me changing scopes ask if I would try their scope on the 6mm/06 and this is where it gets interesting. On average the scopes were Leupold Variables.

The blokes who scopes I tested typically had 270 and 308 and 7mm Rem and they shot "open and even" 1 to 1.5 inch 3 shot groups.

On the 6mm/06 quite a few of the scopes would put 3 in a hole with 2 flyers or 2 in a hole and 3 flyers and so on. In short the scopes had problems. HOWEVER on the bloke's rifles it was not showing up because compensating errors of the rifle etc.

As to the Tasco Australia work scopes were Tasco World Class, Tasco Titan, Leupold fixed and variable, Zeiss. You might be surprised at the results.

Well, you've got my interest, Mike, though I'm I'm a bit foggy on this and that.

What do you mean by "compensating errors of the rifle"? Does that mean that on the various rifles of the other guys at the range, the scopes gave larger groups than the 6mm/06 but without two or three bullets in adjoining holes?

Don't keep us in suspense. What were the surprising results?

The other rifles were grouping a small spray so scope moving was disguised but of course not on the 6mm/06.

In fat on a couple of the rifles I put a scope on for them and because scopes were Ok their groups changed and with flyers.

As to scopes that went to the 6mm/06 then 416 then 6mm/06 the Tascos won. Leupold variables last.

a mate of mine, he posts on AR as Blair 338RUM found the Tasco Titan optics not real good and critical eye placement especially when we were spot lighting. Actually we are the opposite in he is very fussy with optics but he reckons I would be OK with plastic lenses, even cheap plastic

About the best scopes I have had a Leupold 6 X 42s that are fucked and sent back to Leupold. Many many years ago I took 6 of the 6 X 42s to Herrons and I told Dave Billinghurst that one was Ok but did not tell him which scope

The scopes came back with a mini report and for the scope that was OK their note was it was OK.

I have never had a problem with Leupold that has been sent to them after it comes back.

My guess is Leupold quality control is not high but 97% of shooters won't notice the problem. For those who do Leupold make it right and I assume they think that shooter is a person that influences other shooters.

I forgot. The two Zeiss were fixed powers and one was fucked by the 416.

I should stress this was a tough test due to the accuracy of the 6mm/06 they went back onto after the 416 Wby.

About scopes for the .458 Win Mag (and the Ruger #1 45-70 LT):

On my #1 in .45-70 LT, I had a Burris Silver Safari for many years. It was a 4x21 fixed power. Wt. is exactly 8oz with Butler Creek flip-ups. It's over 20 yrs old and been on a number of heavy hitters. It started life on the #1 Ruger LT, and has experienced the recoil of some other 1895 Marlins before returning to the Ruger LT. I switched it out for a bit more light 4-5 years ago when more illumination was called for in very dark quarters (thick woods and brush) when black bears were coming to baits on the edge of darkness. It's now a backup for when and where need arises.

The point: ER is non-variable at 5.5", which to me is a critical factor. After a few years of hard work, it's reticle did begin to sag, meaning, with the field of view in focus the crosshairs were a bit fuzzy. With a number of years tinkering with eyepieces for astronomical telescopes, I removed the eyepiece retaining ring, plus the lenses, the brass ring that held the cross-hairs, and the final retaining ring was adjusted slightly so as to not permit the reticle to "sag" further. Everything was put back in place, and the scope has worked perfectly ever since on the #1 Ruger LT -- a period of over ten years (until replaced about 4 years ago. And it has never fogged, which is largely a myth as long as everything is tight. A fixed-power scope is more reliable in the long run than a variable on the likes of a .458 due to less inertia and fewer moving internal parts. That was confirmed by another 4x21mm Burris on my CZ550, .458 WM. It had an ER of 5", and NEVER gave a moments concern despite many loads of 500s going out the muzzle at 2200+ fps.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

Thanks Mike,
it had never occurred to me Leupold's quality control was bad. To me, the problem with almost all modern scopes begins with design - mainly having the whole erector/power-scroll/reticle assembly hinged at the back and suspended on spring(s) to be bounced around under recoil. Some makers seem to have civilized the concept, though - they must have stickier Band-aids

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:

... As to scopes that went to the 6mm/06 then 416 then 6mm/06 the Tascos won. Leupold variables last.

I have a treasured, Matte Black Tasco "World Class" 3-9x40 with mildot reticle.
It has been superb on a .300 WIN Ruger Mk II, blooded one deer season, now reserved for making bughole 5-shot groups at 100 yards.
She is satin stainless, with Ruger open sights, and came in a Zytel Canoe Paddle stock.
I would not dream of changing a thing about her, other than maybe to run her through a hot blue
to make her resemble her sister Alderella even more.

a mate of mine, he posts on AR as Blair 338RUM found the Tasco Titan optics not real good and critical eye placement especially when we were spot lighting. Actually we are the opposite in he is very fussy with optics but he reckons I would be OK with plastic lenses, even cheap plastic

That is very funny, and I am probably most like you in that regard.
I also note that I am not as fussy about eye relief on a scope as some people,
and a scope has never made me bleed.

About the best scopes I have had a Leupold 6 X 42s that are fucked and sent back to Leupold ...

Mitch Carter's accuracy scope for his .577 T-rex was a Leupold fixed-power 6X.
He also had dual-dovetail-type bases and rings soldered to the rifle, IIRC.
That scope took a lickin' and kept on tickin'.

... I have never had a problem with Leupold that has been sent to them after it comes back.

My guess is Leupold quality control is not high but 97% of shooters won't notice the problem. For those who do Leupold make it right and I assume they think that shooter is a person that influences other shooters.

Those anecdotes are greatly appreciated, for THE MISSION.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by .458 Only:
About scopes for the .458 Win Mag (and the Ruger #1 45-70 LT):

On my #1 in .45-70 LT, I had a Burris Silver Safari for many years. It was a 4x21 fixed power. Wt. is exactly 8oz with Butler Creek flip-ups. It's over 20 yrs old and been on a number of heavy hitters. It started life on the #1 Ruger LT, and has experienced the recoil of some other 1895 Marlins before returning to the Ruger LT. I switched it out for a bit more light 4-5 years ago when more illumination was called for in very dark quarters (thick woods and brush) when black bears were coming to baits on the edge of darkness. It's now a backup for when and where need arises.

The point: ER is non-variable at 5.5", which to me is a critical factor.

The Burris Silver Safari 4x21 has the Right Stuff!
I think it is safe to say the Leupold UltraLight 2.5x20 does too.

After a few years of hard work, it's reticle did begin to sag, meaning, with the field of view in focus the crosshairs were a bit fuzzy. With a number of years tinkering with eyepieces for astronomical telescopes, I removed the eyepiece retaining ring, plus the lenses, the brass ring that held the cross-hairs, and the final retaining ring was adjusted slightly so as to not permit the reticle to "sag" further. Everything was put back in place, and the scope has worked perfectly ever since on the #1 Ruger LT -- a period of over ten years (until replaced about 4 years ago. And it has never fogged, which is largely a myth as long as everything is tight.

Makes sense to me, and should warm the heart of any scope dissectionist.

A fixed-power scope is more reliable in the long run than a variable on the likes of a .458 due to less inertia and fewer moving internal parts. That was confirmed by another 4x21mm Burris on my CZ550, .458 WM. It had an ER of 5", and NEVER gave a moments concern despite many loads of 500s going out the muzzle at 2200+ fps.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

I am now settling on the fixed 2.5x20mm for Alderella.
Good news from the range today.
Zeroed in 4 shots, with initial bore-sighting with the SightMark:



Rip ...

24 clicks to the right moved the POI 4" to the right instead of the expected 3" at 50 yards.

See shot #2 below:

The above 100-yard, single sighter is good enough for me to take back to the woods,
and shoot from a tree-stand (Seatbelt on!) or a ground-hide in the timber.

The little Leupold responds properly to adjustment,
except the clicks are more like 1/3" instead of 1/4" at 100 yards.
Same in windage as in elevation changes.
No problem!



Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Thanks Mike,
it had never occurred to me Leupold's quality control was bad. To me, the problem with almost all modern scopes begins with design - mainly having the whole erector/power-scroll/reticle assembly hinged at the back and suspended on spring(s) to be bounced around under recoil. Some makers seem to have civilized the concept, though - they must have stickier Band-aids

A mate of mine who posts on AR as Blair 3338RUM has a lot of accuracy guns although stocked for field use. He settled a fair while ago on Nightforce stuff. S&B was not so good. The adjustments are spot on. Although he has said he would not chance one of a 378.

Saeed tried Nightforce, prefers his Olde Leupold 2.5-8x36mm which has survived his abuse for "decades."
A lightweight .375/404J (9.0 pounds scoped, he claimed) is nothing to sneeze at with 300-grainers at 2750 fps or thereabouts.

Rip ...

375/404J sounds very similar to the 375RUM. Shooting both, I'd put the heavier recoil with a 458 win Mag 500 gr bullet. but I haven't done the calculations to see how the numbers compare. The scope on my 458 is a Zeiss Diatal 1.5x that a friend brought back from Germany for me in 1985. Initially it was on a 375H&H but when I got the 458, it made the transition and it's been on it ever since then. It's a dreaded image mover and a rubber ocular ring to boot; but everything about it seems to be quite solid, particularly since it's a fixed power. I may take a try at getting a photograph through it tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Saeed tried Nightforce, prefers his Olde Leupold 2.5-8x36mm which has survived his abuse for "decades."
A lightweight .375/404J (9.0 pounds scoped, he claimed) is nothing to sneeze at with 300-grainers at 2750 fps or thereabouts.

Rip ...

Blair has not used the Nightforces on big stuff except for a couple of his trips to Africa with 338 RUM.

His biggest has been the 264 and a heavy rifle. When I say biggest I mean with lots of shots being fired and with high level accuracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
... The scope on my 458 is a Zeiss Diatal 1.5x that a friend brought back from Germany for me in 1985. Initially it was on a 375H&H but when I got the 458, it made the transition and it's been on it ever since then. It's a dreaded image mover and a rubber ocular ring to boot; but everything about it seems to be quite solid, particularly since it's a fixed power. I may take a try at getting a photograph through it tomorrow.

I suppose having waited 19 years to succumb to image-movement, Zeiss would take extra pains to make sure theirs could take it. Without destroying the scope it's hard to say, but there's a chance they used the Pecar Champion design in fixed power scopes. At 1.5x the FFP field stop would have to be very well calculated to prevent tunnel vision but any magnification gives some grace, as it cuts the field visible at the ocular lenses. In a 1x scope, however, a field stop around the reticle would have to cut the FoV to some extent, though maybe no more than those in the SFP do anyway.

A general observation I have made over the years is American seem to have more problems with cracked stocks than Australians but we have more scope problems.

I an assuming big bore forum blokes are shooting as much as us. We might be shoot the shit out of heaps more deer, goats, roos, pigs etc. but it does not matter if it that stuff or water jugs or woodchucks etc.

I think we shoot much more in summer than the Americans and their winters are freezing compared to ours.

So could freezing weather be an issue for stocks and very hot weather and strong radiant heat be a killer for scopes?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
A general observation I have made over the years is American seem to have more problems with cracked stocks than Australians but we have more scope problems.

I an assuming big bore forum blokes are shooting as much as us. We might be shoot the shit out of heaps more deer, goats, roos, pigs etc. but it does not matter if it that stuff or water jugs or woodchucks etc.

I think we shoot much more in summer than the Americans and their winters are freezing compared to ours.

So could freezing weather be an issue for stocks and very hot weather and strong radiant heat be a killer for scopes?

That is possible, a wood stock more brittle in the cold, and a scope more prone to deterioration in the heat.
Chemical deterioration of any surface coatings, adhesives, or seals (like rubber gaskets or O-rings) could be accelerated by heat.
Gas pressure inside a sealed scope increases with baking heat.
Thermal expansion of mechanical joints, threads, springs, sliding fits might put more rear on them with heat?
Could be complicated to explain it all,
but your observation will stand as another great anecdote of this thread,
much appreciated, for THE MISSION.

Rip ...

Ron, we have to make sure it hits 100 pages

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
Now this thread has gone completely stupid....

That is like saying Chick-Fil-A is a dangerous place.



Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
375/404J sounds very similar to the 375RUM. Shooting both, I'd put the heavier recoil with a 458 win Mag 500 gr bullet. but I haven't done the calculations to see how the numbers compare.
That is correctomundo. In a .458 WIN:
500-grainers at 2150 fps kick more than
450-grainers at 2365 fps which kick more than
400-grainers at 2525 fps which kick more than
350-grainers at 2750 fps.
It seems Bob's load with 350-grain TSX (~5800 ft-lbs) is some gentler-shooting competition for the
400-grain HV GameFieldDominator bullet (~5600 ft-lbs).
The scope on my 458 is a Zeiss Diatal 1.5x that a friend brought back from Germany for me in 1985. Initially it was on a 375H&H but when I got the 458, it made the transition and it's been on it ever since then. It's a dreaded image mover and a rubber ocular ring to boot; but everything about it seems to be quite solid, particularly since it's a fixed power. I may take a try at getting a photograph through it tomorrow.
We can only hope you succeed at the photography, for THE MISSION.

The ".375/404 Jeffery Saeed of 2012" is a reverse-engineered copycat
of Saeed's ".375/404 Jeffery Saeed of Whenever."

I have never been able to pin him down on exact year, I am guessing 1996, hunted by 1997.
His throat specs are also "classified": Cosmic Squirrel Top Secret.
My throat is the .375 WbyMag redesigned by Weatherby in 2001, homologated by C.I.P. in 2002.

Calling Saeed's cartridge simply the .375/404 Jeffery will not do!
The 9.5x73 Miller & Greiss Magnum (aka .375 Miller & Greiss Magnum) of 1926 or earlier
was the slope-shouldered .404 Jeffery simply necked down to .375 caliber,
a German creation that did not survive WWII.

Hence, for clarity, Saeed's cartridge may be known as the ".375/404 Jeffery Saeed"
and not simply as the .375/404 Jeffery,
or, alternatively it could be called the ".375/404 Jeffery Improved."
Saeed seems so humble as to eschew use of his name on a cartridge,
and it is sharper shouldered and shorter necked than the 9.5x73mm M&G.
So, there, it is done.
Saeed's cartridge is the .375/404 Jeffery Improved, the world famous one: .375/404 JI, pronounced "Jai" like the TV Tarzan's side-kick,
or like "jay-eye" if you prefer.
Mine is the .375/404 Jeffery Improved Weatherby Throat: .375/404 JIWT, pronounced "joot" and rhymes with "boot."

Here is my trouble-free max load for the .375/404 JIWT:
300-grain GSC HV (closest thing to a Walterhog)
90.0 grains of H4350
2859 fps MV
5445 ft-lbs KE
26" barrel
9.0# rifle:
Recoil velocity of rifle: 20.3 fps
Recoil free KE of rifle: 57.8 ft-lbs
Recoil Impulse of the cartridge: 5.7 lb-sec

A lesser, practical, hunting load in same 9.0# rifle,
with whatever 300-grainer at 2750 fps, and the arbitrary 87.0 grains of powder (this is near identical to the .375 Wby):
Recoil velocity of rifle: 19.57 fps
Recoil free KE of rifle: 53.7 ft-lbs
Recoil Impulse of the cartridge: 5.5 lb-sec

"Classic" .458 WIN 10.0# rifle with 500-grainer at 2150 fps using 72.0 grains of powder:
Recoil velocity of rifle: 20.2 fps
Recoil free KE of rifle: 63.4 ft-lbs
Recoil Impulse of the cartridge: 6.3 lb-sec

I am sure Saeed could handle the more powerful .458 WIN just fine,
if he should choose to vary his shooting a bit,
maybe to relieve the monotony of the same one-shot killer every year?
Add a little spice to safari life?

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
Blair has not used the Nightforces on big stuff except for a couple of his trips to Africa with 338 RUM.
His biggest has been the 264 and a heavy rifle. When I say biggest I mean with lots of shots being fired and with high level accuracy.

What a coincidence.
I have one Nightforce scope that I thought would go well on my .264 Ripmoor (.264/.375 Ruger).
I remain most impressed by two scopes:
Leupold 2.5x20mm
Leupold 2.5-8x36mm
I am going to use the latter on a CZ 550 Magnum with "Bob's Load."
What is that old saying?
"Bob's your uncle!"
https://www.phrases.org.uk/mea...bobs-your-uncle.html
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!
I got that right.
If you put a Leupold 2.5-8x36mm scope on a CZ 550 Magnum .458 WIN, Bob's your uncle.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
What a coincidence, I'll be a monkey's uncle!
Rip ...

Wow, I'm impressed!!!

I never thought I'd have the opportunity to converse with relatives of a former president, even if it is just typing on a keyboard.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
What a coincidence, I'll be a monkey's uncle!
Rip ...

Wow, I'm impressed!!!

I never thought I'd have the opportunity to converse with relatives of a former president, even if it is just typing on a keyboard.

Do you mean Bush or Obama?
But they were both related to each other through the Irish, eh?
Well, I am mostly Irish, and we are all related to Adam and Eve, right?
In Darwin's time, weren't the Irish considered subhuman?
Yes, I am a monkey's uncle.
Never fear, this thread is just getting started.


Rip ...

From what I've seen, virtually every species considers themselves to be God's chosen and all others to have been created for their use. Does not bacteria consider every living thing to be on its menu as Today's special? Or fungus that considers the rocks of even the highest peak as merely a means of providing exercise on the fungi's ride on the winds to a delicious rock at 29,000 feet? The rock is moved to lower elevations by snow and water as it is broken down into elements that are then claimed as a food source for grasses. The same elements are also claimed by woody plants who show their superiority over the grasses by blocking the sunlight that the grasses need. but before the grasses die from want of sunlight they are claimed as food by an herbivore; however there are different herbivores, some see themselves as superior to grasses and have been labeled grazers and so that the woody plants won't get an unsubstantiated sense of superiority over the grasses, there are herbivores that specialize on trees. Regardless of height, for there are giraffes that make even quite tall trees subordinate. then the carnivores come along to prevent the herbivores from being prideful. Omnivores then pick and choose among the flora and fauna as to which they like and seek to promote and those that they dislike and seek to eliminate. but so that the omnivores don't get too prideful, the bacteria comes along and eats a few of them, just so the omnivores keep things in proper perspective. And the circle continues, each with their own small view, thinking that each is dominate in their world and that those that are different- whether by entire species or maybe just by some slight phenotype or location of origin, re somehow "less".

Given that resources, that is the group of flora/fauna that one group consumes, are limited, then as populations of the consumers increase the balance between consumee and consumer is disrupted. the balance can be reinstated if the consumee population is increased and this has happened as a result of the increase in knowledge and mechanization, but the time tested and much more available system is for a group of consumers to select another group of consumers and consider that other group as competitors for "their" food source. So with claims of self-superiority the one groups seeks to remove the other group from the competition. Overtime, the need to dominate was shown to be counter-productive and cost prohibitive and means of co-existence were learned. This lead to territories where one group would confine their activities and were free from interference from other groups that shared borders. Some of these borders were natural boundaries and so movement across the borders was impeded. However some boundaries were simply designations on similar landscapes. These boundaries were routinely crosses. Those that crossed the border were treated with a variety of responses. In the case of large cats and wild dogs (wolves) the outsider was met with a physical challenge that generally resulted in on or the others death. Other species are more accommodating to outsiders and in the case of humans, much has been written regarding honorable interactions between the current occupiers of space and recent arrivals.

It all is a function of the consume/consumer balance. If the consumers do not see the additional consumers as a threat to their supply of consume, then the new consumers will be accepted, however if the consume is seen as in short supply, then all manner of resistance will be generated to keep the new consumers from entering the equation.

I forget where all of this was going, but I'll post it just to further THE MISSION, if nothing else.

I got my Leupold 6-24x scope by from the factory a few minutes ago, so I'll see if I can take a photo through the lens of it as well as the Zeiss 1.5x; the two most extreme scopes in my possession. Leupold said there was nothing wrong with the scope. I guess it's considered normal for a scope to use 3/4ths of it's potential elevation just to get bore sighted to a rifle. Oh Well.

Photos: 1 is through Zeiss Diatal 1.5x fixed power scope brought back from Germany in 1985. 2 is same scope, camera well back from proper eye position to show area around scope.
3 is Leupold 4-24x just returned from factory saying there was nothing wrong with it, at 4x. 4 is same scope at 24x.

For comparison to the Zeiss 1.5x, here is a Nikon 1-4x (small tube). One is at the 1x setting, the other (approximating the Zeiss) is set midway between 1 & 2 power, so is about 1.5x.

Oh, the pictures show that the sun has gone behind the hill, putting the foreground into shadows, so I guess that's it for photographs for today.

That top picture looks like the picket reticle in the old Pecar scopes.

They were a flat top and subtended right on an inch at 100 yards. Some blokes used to turn the scope upside down. You still adjust OK.

As noted, I received my VX6 4-24x 52mm scope back from Leupold customer service today. as a reminder, the scope was sent back to Leupold when I installed the custom dial for bullet drop and found that the scope ran out of elevation adjustment at 425 yards (the dial was calibrated to 1050 yards). the techs inspected the scope and said it was fine. so the problem was in the mounts (also Leupold). the solution is to get a Picatinny type rail with 20MOA tilt and rings to replace the non-adjustable dual Dovetail. But now the tech tells me that Leupold doesn't make a rail with drilling for a M70 with .33" rear hole spacing. but evidently, the contours match the M70, so the only difference is the rear holes (at least one of them) are in the wrong spot relative to my rifle. So the rail is made out of some numbered aluminum alloy and I'm wondering: How hard could it be to get the base and have some qualified machinist drill a new hole so that it fits the rifle? If Leupold doesn't want to spend a few minutes with a drill press for their customer service, maybe the machine shop down the street is willing.


What I know now is that the entire project has turned into a lot more trouble than it should have and if I knew going into it what I know now, I'd likely choose a different brand of optics and mounts.

Ray B,

You have surely mastered the art and science of scope reticle photography.
sambarman338 has some competition now.
He ought to be along with some comments on the field blending soon.
Remember, each photo above with a brief comment could have been a reply in itself, thus each a faithful tolling of THE MISSION bell in itself.
They are that good, they deserve it.
Good work.

Rip ...

RIP-

When I was in school I didn't bother being concerned about what grade I was given - well there were a few times where I was robbed; but my primary activity was to learn the topic being taught. the reason for the class wasn't to give grades and "sort" the students for future assignment, but for the teacher to impart his/her knowledge to the students. If I learned the course content, then I was prepared for the next step in the subject matter. And this preparedness was completely disassociated from the opinion of the teacher giving out grades. And so it is with THE MISSION. We all continue to post and provide information to each other that is significant to each other's learning. If this continues, the thread will provide the value to those participating and THE MISSION will take care of itself.


there was the time in high school where I got the highest score in the class and because the teacher saw me as disruptive, gave me a B. What a loser teacher.

Ray B,

A simplified explanation of the circle of life and death, an all encompassing one that includes your intricate, intermediary details:

After the Big Bang all came from condensing stardust, and all will return someday to stardust from supernovae. And that stardust will form more stars and planets and life.

So when I am in the field, pursuing the consumee as a good consumer in the circle of life, I realize I am one with the great circle, a tiny cog in the wheel.
There in the wild, I ask myself first, does a consumee do its business in the woods? Is the Pope catholic? Yes to both. Am I not also a consumee in the grand scheme of things? Yes. It is humbling.
So I do my business into a cathole and I pile the paper on top of it and let it burn to ashes stoked with dry leaves and grass.
And I say the funeral prayer:
"From stardust to asses, from asses to ashes, from ashes to stardust again. Amen."
Then I cover it up with 6 inches of dirt and hide the sign with scattered plant debris.
If you can find my business in the woods, it is your lucky day, better go buy a lottery ticket.

Californians should omit the cremation part. Just bury it and say:
"From stardust to asses, from asses to stardust again. Amen."

Rip ...

The Nikon SlugHunter is in the shop in Los Angeles, CA, the concrete jungle protects it from the forest fires.
Warranty is covering it. An exact quote of their written "Reason for Service:"

CONTROL BUTTON/KNOB/LEVER NOT WORKING FORNT O-RING DETACHING
This repair is covered under warranty

I guess the "control button/knob/lever" is actually the screw-in ring that is supposed to hold the "front O-ring" in place,
but has loosened in recoil?

That is all the explanation I can get.
I called them and was told that the "control thingy" was what was holding the O-ring in place.

Obviously a canned, check-off-the-box, 'puter-generated communication on the pdf repair estimate.
That is the way of modern medicine and the Electronic Medical Record too.
Garbage communication. God help us!

Save your warranty card and sales receipt if you buy a Nikon scope.

A smaller-than-40mm objective lens would be less likely to detach its O-ring, no doubt.

Rip ...

In realizing I have a Zytel-stocked .300 WIN Ruger M77 Mark II stainless with factory sights,
I looked back at her file.
I noted a primer test done with her handloading.

8 shots each with .308/140-gr Barnes XBT, 74.0 grains of IMR-4350, WW case, and 3 different primers,
5-yard chrono average velocities:

CCI-250: 3260 fps, Sd 22 fps
WLR: 3259 fps, Sd 12 fps
F-215: 3301 fps, Sd 2 fps

That is why I have stuck with the F-215 or GM215M primer for the "magnums" with all powders, and in any "standards" using ball powders, ever since.

IIRC, the WLR was supposed to be for magnums also, way back then.

Now there is the WLRM.
I am loading some of "Bob's Load" with 350-grain TSX, H4198, and the WLRM primers.
If all goes well in Alderella then I will use that load in the CZ 550 Magnum .458 WIN and Bob's my uncle!

Rip ...