quote:

Originally posted by .458 Only:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 4sixteen:
Each gets to go once in 4 years?? I get to go hunting a lot more often than that.

Yeah, I knew you hunted more often than once each year Just kidding around.

Loved my #1 in .45-70 LT. Sorry to see it go, but even the load of the 350 Speer at 2500 fps, or the TSX at about the same were generating over 50 ft-lbs recoil...

...as the meat supply gets depleted.

My .45-70 LT No.1 packs considerable power for a lightweight compact rifle. No plans to part with it. Reduced loads can always be made for managing recoil.

Got an even lighter and more compact .45-70, my Traditions Outfitter G2 takedown. Weighs 5.5 lbs unscoped. Even with its very short throat length at near maximum pressure it can fire a 300gr TSX at 2350 fps or a 350gr Speer Mag Tip at 2150 fps. Decent trigger, very good accuracy and effective muzzle brake.





[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
The early 1990's Sako integral scope bases paired with that vintage of factory Sako rings were the cat's meow.
A shrewd gunsmith in Alaska traded me out of one of those rifles in return for his services.
I was such a nice guy on that deal.
Later Optilocks requiring a base to go on the integral dovetail, and then a ring to go on a stud on that base ... Rube Goldberg comes to mind.

Compared with the crap going on inside an image-movement scope, RIP, the Optilock base is simplicity indeed - but it is high and may make a weaker link than the solid, chunky old Sako mounts. The bases are longer than the old mount's grip on the dovetail, though, and maybe that restores strength sacrificed to the ring bolt.

Also, as I've said, Optilock does provide a robustly simple lateral adjustment and made a handy vehicle for me to mount a railed Nickel 1.5-6x.

As I suspected earlier (but could not find), Optilock does also make a model with half the ring and the base as one piece:

https://www.berettausa.com/en-...lued-steel/s1701900/

No reliability issues using Leupold Sako ring mounts on my AV or 85's.

Your mounts look like yet another kind of mount, 4sixteen - a bit like those in my link but with the bolt heads more exposed.

Moving right along to page 99 of THE MISSION.

Rip ...

The silicone adhesive is drying in the bottom ring halves only of this rig, excess squeezed out will peel off easily when hardened:



They may not make it anymore, but I think ye olde Leupold VARI-X III 1.75-6E x 32mm is just the ticket,
to shoot until it breaks.

Length 11.1": That is 0.2" shorter than the 2.5-8x36mm that has survived 20 years of Saeed Safaris on a .375/404 JI that kicks consideraby.

Ring spacing usable: 5.4", 0.3" greater than on the 2.5-8x36mm.

Ocular bell diameter: 1.6", same as on the 2.5-8x36mm.

Objective bell diameter: 1.6", which is 0.1" smaller than on the 2.5-8x36mm.

Weight: 11.3 oz, which is 0.2 ounces lighter than the 2.5-8x36mm.

1.75-6Ex32mm FOV at 100 yards: 47.0' on 1.75X, 18.0' on 6X.
2.5-8x36mm FOV at 100 yards: 37.0' on 2.5X, 13.5' on 8X.

Eye Relief compared for the two scopes:
4.8" at 1.75X and 3.7" at 6X
4.7" at 2.5X and 3.7" at 8X

The 1.5x20mm Leupold VARI-X III has 5.3" of ER at 1.5X, and 3.7" of ER at 5X ... There is also no consensus on how much Eye Relief is safe on a .458 WIN.
Lots of good choices.
Nikons too.

A new and improved "custom" Picatinny is pending for use with short-tubed scopes.
Bobbarrela has plug screws in her Picatinny holes, until the next cross-slotted, prototype scope base is ready.

Rip ...

Thanks RIP, looks good and I like your take on QD mounts.

I don't suppose you could tell us the FoVs at 4x, a traditional yardstick?

Someone over here has a minty Leupold Mountaineer 4x from 1955 for sale, complete with box tabling eye relief, FoV etc. The claims are quite astounding, really: FoV of 35 feet with a non-critical eye relief of four inches.

These figures have been reflected in Stroebel and his figures show that once Leupold went to constantly centred reticles with the M-8 4x, the FoV fell away to 30 feet at 100 yards - without any extension of the eye relief.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

They may not make it anymore, but I think ye olde Leupold VARI-X III 1.75-6E x 32mm is just the ticket,
to shoot until it breaks.


Rip ...

Had the same scope on my old Ruger N# 1-H (.458Win) and it performed spectacularly. Great scope!

Now, my new "jungle carbine" http://forums.accuratereloadin...043/m/5071088422/p/1 wears a Leupold VX-6 1-6x24 30mm (FireDot), which is also a very neat scope all the way!

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
... I don't suppose you could tell us the FoVs at 4x, a traditional yardstick?

By interpolation, the 1.75-6Ex32mm FOV in feet at 100 yards:
1.75 X: 47.0'
4 X: 31.6'
6 X: 18.0'
That is based on a 1999 Leupold catalog.

Same catalog shows the M8 4x33mm FOV in feet at 100 yards:
4 X: 24.0'

That 1999 Leupold catalog has a two page spread echoing the one from the 1999 Burris catalog ...

Rip ...

Gustavo,

A picture of your jungle carbine wearing that scope sure would dress up this thread. (hint)

quote:

Originally posted by Gustavo:
Now, my new "jungle carbine" http://forums.accuratereloadin...043/m/5071088422/p/1 wears a Leupold VX-6 1-6x24 30mm (FireDot), which is also a very neat scope all the way!

I looked in the 2017 Leupold catalog to check the specs on that one. Impressive!

VX-6HD, 1-6x24mm CDS-ZL2 Illuminated Reticle
Length: 10.7"
Ring Space: 7.4"
Objective end diameter: 1.2" (30mm tube)
Ocular bell diameter: 1.8"
Weight: 13.4 oz.
1X FOV in feet at 100 yards: 114.6'
6X FOV in feet at 100 yards: 19.6'
Eye Relief at 1X: 3.8"
Eye Relief at 6X: 3.8"

Rip ...

Thanks RIP, the 31.6 feet is reasonably good these days; 24 feet a bit sad unless the scope has enormous eye relief, good for rifles with heavy, long recoil. As I've said before, though, long eye relief does have the additional advantage of revealing more country around the scope, an important matter when hunting dangerous game.

From Winchester R&D in 1955, no later than early November 1955, this may be from the earliest published word about the .458 WIN:

Above is an excerpt, for book review purposes, from Roger Rule's THE RIFLEMAN'S RIFLE.
It is the figure on page 96.
Just below that figure he discussed the development of then new chamberings for The Winchester M70 circa 1955: .243 Win. and .358 Win.
Then he continued with this:



Book Review: Great book!

Rip ...

sambarman338,

That M8-4x33mm has an ER of 4.0".

Here is Leupold's "bragging spread" from 1999:

They claim their recoil-pounding test broke all competitors, but not the Leupold.

Rip ..

Leupold claims their impact testing broke all competitors, but not the Leupold.

Rip ..

Few scopes have let go under heavy recoil. One was a VX-3 1.5-5x on my .45-70 No.1 firing 500gr at 1900 fps.

Quit holding zero. When removed and given a shake something was rattling around inside. Sent it to the repair center. Quick turnaround. Decided to sell it.

Nice scope actually. Magnification range that handles most hunting situations. Compact and lightweight with good clarity and brightness. Got another one on my 9.3x74R No.1-S. No issues so far.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

Leupold claims their impact testing broke all competitors, but not the Leupold.

Rip ..

Leupolds I’d full of BS

My Leupold M8 Compact 4x28mm still provides reliable service after many years. Long since discontinued. Generous eye relief, lightweight, good clarity and brightness. Got it retro-fitted with a German No.4 reticle. Shown here on my .458 WM Remington 798.

My Nikon scopes are holding up to heavy recoil. Got an Omega BDC 250 3-9x40mm on my .45-70 No.1-S. Constant 5" of eye relief throughout the magnification range with very good clarity and brightness.

Has the ballistic reticle and got it calibrated using their Spot On app for the Barnes 450gr at 1900 fps. Works as claimed out to extended ranges.

FX-I 4x28 RF matte on my .458 Lott. Actual magnification is 3.6x, weighs only 7.5 oz and has 4.5" of eye relief. Appears to be the same as the discontinued M8 4x28mm Compact except it's 60 yard parallax-corrected.

https://www.leupold.com/scopes.../fx-i-rimfire-4x28mm

Got it 100 yard parallax-corrected and retro-fitted with a dot reticle. The dot reticle which subtends 2.5 moa can be used as a range finder.

Accuracy shown with Speer 400gr at 1350 fps and Hornady 500gr DGX at 1750 fps.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
Leupolds I’d full of BS

jwp475,

I guess you're saying Leupold is full of Braggadocio regarding their claims of Superiority to their competitors in scope recoil resistance?
Plumb cocky of them!

Rip ...

4sixteen,

Thanks for supporting THE MISSION.
Great through-the-scope photography, you got that technique down pat.

I never busted a Leupold 1-5x20mm, but will give it a try.
That does seem to be the one to use if the 2.5x20mm is too short to fit properly in the CZ rings.
It seems to be the default scope for the .458 WIN and the Lott, for most shooters/hunters.
When I get the CZ Picatinny perfected, I'll get back to trying to bust the 2.5x20mm.

I considered the Leupold M8-4X33mm, and the Leupold Compact 6x32mm that I have on hand,
then thought why not go whole hog on a fixed power scope, for benchrest testing of handloads:

Bushnell Elite 3200 10x40mm.

Rip ...

Just for fun, I dug into the parts bin for some homemade CZ QD levers.
They are easy to replace with the socket-head cap screws,
if the QD levers get tiresome.

I had some old Leupold QRW levers from scrapped rings, the old rings with the no-good, rounded recoil stop on the bottom. Big booboo by Leupold that was!

I drill and tap the levers, screw in the cap screws, time the levers by grinding/filing or use of a washer or two,
The levers are all J-B-Welded to the socket-head cap screws.

Blued screw and blued steel lever that had a color change from grinder heat, J-B Weld :

Stainless screw, blued lever, yellowed clear epoxy,
and lock-washer:

Stainless screw, nickled lever, J-B Weld:



I can still use the Fat Wrench or the 5mm hex key for torquing.
The levers just serve as a visual AND tactile index mark for tightness of main mounting screws.
I can thus obsessively check for tightness, with a glance, or with fidgety fingers checking the levers for tightness.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
sambarman338,

That M8-4x33mm has an ER of 4.0".

Here is Leupold's "bragging spread" from 1999:

Well, RIP, whatever else is true in that faux-antique spiel, the BS is in the first sentence. The basic construction has not been the same since 1947.

As my last post indicated, their change from reticle-movement and fixed reticles to image-movement in the early 1960s brought not only a complete change in the way the scopes were zeroed but a massive loss of field of view and a loss of construction integrity to boot. Though I am yet to see through one of those 1950s 4x Leupolds, it is my bet that their 35-foot FoVs came with much better field blending, too. What makes me think that? Well, when you throw a restrictive field stop around the picture that cheats you of five feet of vision, chances are it will be replaced with a black nothingness.

Obviously more BS from Leupold, but I shan't cry in my beer about it.
Not much to be done about it either except to have a backup scope to use while the busted one is out for warranty repair.

Rip ...

Front extension ring needed if the Leupold FX-II Ultralight 2.5x20mm is on my .458 WM Remington 798.

Seems to be a very robust scope. I have another one but with a different name, an earlier version known as the M8 Compact 2.5x from the early 90s that's on my Ruger Deerfield .44 Magnum autoloader.

4sixteen,

That is an outstandingly low extension ring for the Leupold 2.5x20mm.
Made by Leupold?

Nice muzzleloader scope protector on the Ruger carbine.
Is there any gas leakage from that ejection port, or just the flying brass dinging the scope?

Bobbarrella has had an extra "L" added to her name, just to make it not only a triple-letter name, but also a-double-double-letter name,
thus more cool, and more phonetically consistent.
I only left off the double-L first time around to make it more different from "Barbarella" but some folks have a tendency to pronounce a long-E sound
if the double-L is not present.
No to "Bobbarreela."
Yes to "Bobbarrella."

Bobbarella has been taken back to Hilltop Gun Shop and Spa for Wayward Rifles for this:
(mock-up using double-sided Scotch tape to hold the VVA bases in place)



The Virgin Valley Arms stainless steel bases are high quality.
They are going to lose their virginity.
Three of the old screw holes will be enlarged and a new one drilled to accept 8x40 screws.
One of the old 6x48 screw holes will be left untouched.
One more screw hole will be drilled for a 10x32 socket head screw to enter from the underside of the base, head down.
That will become a recoil stop stud.
Stud service for Bobbarrella.

That should allow safe mounting of the 2.5x20mm on the long CZ Magnum action.
Safe sex for Bobbarrella.
A Leupold 2.5x20mm mounting a CZ 550 Magnum is like a male honey badger mounting a female brown bear.
"Honey Badger don't care what happens in Las Vegas!"
Yep, I got the T-shirt.

As you were.
The improvements here over the previously shown 1-piece Picatinny:

Concavity in midline of upper surface of base, plus no rearward or forward projection of base beyond the action top flat.
This will allow lower mounting of a big-belled, short-tubed scope like the SlugHunter/InLine.
Thus use of LOW rings instead of medium height rings will be possible.
The OEM "Standard/Medium" CZ rings are actually not so high as they look, it is an optical illusion.
They are just about exactly the same height as a .295"-tall Picatinny plus a 0.250"-height of LOW ring.
This is a height that works well with just about any ocular bell size, for bolt handle clearance.

Rip ...

Ms. Bobbarella Shilen CZ in Halloween costume, for trick-or-treating as a target rifle:

A Dremel tool with a drill bit, a toothpick, and a dab of J-B Weld made this possible, and permanent,
not removable:

Never fear, I can still use a standard swivel stud on the underside of the forearm, the filler screw there is removable, as previously seen:



This allows me to hang a long Harris bipod on the forend.
Then long-range field shooting from a sitting position becomes possible.
Don't laugh.
I used to do that with a .500 A-Square in a cattle pasture, getting on paper at 942 yards, with a 5-mil holdover for 750-grain A-Max at 2150 fps.

A special high BC bullet for the .458 WIN will be needed, to be loaded to 3.800" COL.
Any weight of bullet will be considered as required to get BC over 1.000.
Some sort of pointy ballistic tip or hollow point that would allow use both for target work and hunting would be most desirable.
Proposals and competitive bidding from all bullet makers welcome.

Rip ...

Leupold reversible extension front ring, needed for use with the short length Leupold 2.5x on my .458 WM, and used with FN Mauser 2 piece bases.

Standard Leupold rings work fine with the longer Nikon Monarch 1.5-4.5x20mm that's on my .416 RM Carbine.

https://www.midwayusa.com/prod...-rings-remington-700

https://www.midwayusa.com/prod...ser-fn-remington-798

I would rather have 4 or 6 screws in each ringtop rather than only 2, on a .458 WIN.

GUNSMITH says the Reverse-Seyfried-Schtick 2-piece bases submitted to him are hard as glass,
and he does not have a tap that is hard enough to put 10x32 threads on a hole for a recoil stop.
He did succeeed in getting the through-holes fixed up for mounting with 4 of the 8x40 screws, by using his best carbide bits.

Bubba Gunwerkes R&D will have to reconsider the design of a recoil stop on the underside of the front base.
Maybe a soldered lump of steel filed to fit and then glass bedded ...
Or just a very short piece of upside-down Picatinny rail J-B Welded to the underside, flat to flat, of the portion of base overhanging ...
like a piece comprised of one cross-bar and one cross-slot.
L-shaped like a barrel recoil lug.
Bubba Gunwerkes R&D will gitterdun, just because ...

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Thanks 4sixteen,
could you take out the bolt and look at the gas port up near the lugs? The model I reviewed had it pointing left in the closed position, which would have vented into the lug runway. I wonder if my gaffer may have passed on my complaint to Winchester/Sako, though, because I looked at another Hunter model a year later (about 1988?) and saw that the vent had been moved back to the r/h side, as it is on my 1979/'80 Finnbear.

Here's the bolt from my .458 Lott Sako AV (1991 production). With the bolt closed the hole between the 2 lugs lines up with the left hand side port in the receiver.

Presumably, in the event of a pierced primer, gas escaping against the bolt face into the firing pin hole would vent through that bolt side hole and out the receiver port.

L61 sako actions will give you a face through the bolt. I’ve seen it happen.

^^
Root cause failure analysis?


From an article in Rifle Shooter mag, May/June 2003.