S&F

Check with Michael458, I recall he was trying some shotgun scopes awhile back but cant remember the brand.

SSR

quote:

Originally posted by ShortandFat:
From what I've been told, Send Micheal458 a PM and ask him how many 1.5 - 5 Leupolds he's broken, it might give you a very big surprise ?


Also

NIKON Slughunter, has 5 inches of constant eye relief, magnification is 1.65 - 5, parallax set at 75 yards .......

NIKON Omega, has 5 inches of constant eye relief, magnification is 1.65 - 5 parallax set at 100 yards .......

has anybody tried one of these ?



regards
S&F

Thank you for reminding us of the Nikon's. The Omega 'muzzleloader' ought to work for some people and I need to recheck for myself. I use the Nikon Monarch 2-8 on my 416Rigbys because I can just fit the scope on the long bridge of the CZ550. The glass is good and the price is considerably less than a rifle. However, the Omega only has 4.76" of total mounting space before the tube expands into the bells of the objectives and the eyepiece. It just won't fit on a CZ550, at least not by normal numbers without getting a special ring set. I will need to check my Ruger Hawkeye in November. Maybe it will fit? If so, the Omega would be a natural fit for building a 500. I need 100 yard parallax because I do shoot over 200 yards and I'm not concerned about whether I shoot inside the left edge or right edge of a nostril hole if up close. 5.0" of eye-relief is certainly worth writing home about, and the price is half of a Minox. Would the glass be good? me thinks so, judging on the Nikon Monarch. However the Nikon website mentions up to 95% light transmission for the Monarch and 92% for the Omega. Would I be able to notice the difference in hunting? I doubt it, but it would be nice to compare them side by side. Maybe someone will get the chance and comment? Apparently Nikon does something for charging an extra $100 for the Monarch.

btw, there is an interesting exchange between Jim Capoward and Michael on scopes at

http://forums.accuratereloadin...071087151#1071087151
It seems that Michael has broken quite a few Leupold 1.5-5s but has faired better with the less-expensive Leupold in 1-4.

quote:

416Tarzan

Do you really think .3" is going to make that much difference ?

Well, in paying attention to these details for over 30 years I've never cut my eyebrow, though I have touched my glasses on occasion. Yes, 0.3" and greater is significant to me, and if I can get a whole extra inch I'll take it. One item that really turns me off of a scope is when it hits 3.5" eyerelief and lower. Those need to be limited to small bore rifles but they are sometimes marketed for large bores and even given descriptions like 'generous eye-relief'. Ha! A hunting buddy used to ask me to sight in his 300WM when heading out to the bush because he cut his eyebrow a couple of times. Head position and habits count quite a bit, too.

quote:

Originally posted by 500N:
416Tarzan

Do you really think .3" is going to make that much difference ?

What I do know is that I position my Leupold 1x4 as far forward as I can, and I'm convinced that .3" more would be better. I've had scopes brush my eyebrow many times, but no cuts yet. That slight and sly brush is enough to remind me to pay attention, and it's also a reminder that there is little margin for error.

I sorta wish everyone would use the 1.5x5 Leupold and break um regularly with their big bores, and send them in for repairs. Maybe that way Leupold would make a variable scope that would really hold up.

I used to shoot a 3x Leupold and really liked it, and it didn't break. The thing that made me sell it was after a while I compared it to some newer Leupolds, and the clarity of the older technology just was obviously inferior.

I also know for sure that as soon as I sell something for cash, I'm ordering a new 3x from the Leupold custom shop. I have a new rule lately that I can't buy something until I sell something. Too much stuff. I'm thankful for gunbroker. I don't have to concern myself with field of view on an elephant. My main concerns are eye relief, and adequate field of view, and breakage. I'll get a 3x Leupold, and then ponder other options, while enjoying one that I'm pretty sure will hold up. At least I'm up to finding out for sure by testing it.

I already have a sweet little 4x with shotgun style crosshairs, but if I use it the use will be limited to situations other than brown bear encounters. Too much magnification, too small of field of view.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

Originally posted by ShortandFat:
From what I've been told, Send Micheal458 a PM and ask him how many 1.5 - 5 Leupolds he's broken, it might give you a very big surprise ?


Also

NIKON Slughunter, has 5 inches of constant eye relief, magnification is 1.65 - 5, parallax set at 75 yards .......

NIKON Omega, has 5 inches of constant eye relief, magnification is 1.65 - 5 parallax set at 100 yards .......

has anybody tried one of these ?



regards
S&F

Thank you for reminding us of the Nikon's. The Omega 'muzzleloader' ought to work for some people and I need to recheck for myself. I use the Nikon Monarch 2-8 on my 416Rigbys because I can just fit the scope on the long bridge of the CZ550. The glass is good and the price is considerably less than a rifle. However, the Omega only has 4.76" of total mounting space before the tube expands into the bells of the objectives and the eyepiece. It just won't fit on a CZ550, at least not by normal numbers without getting a special ring set. I will need to check my Ruger Hawkeye in November. Maybe it will fit? If so, the Omega would be a natural fit for building a 500. I need 100 yard parallax because I do shoot over 200 yards and I'm not concerned about whether I shoot inside the left edge or right edge of a nostril hole if up close. 5.0" of eye-relief is certainly worth writing home about, and the price is half of a Minox. Would the glass be good? me thinks so, judging on the Nikon Monarch. However the Nikon website mentions up to 95% light transmission for the Monarch and 92% for the Omega. Would I be able to notice the difference in hunting? I doubt it, but it would be nice to compare them side by side. Maybe someone will get the chance and comment? Apparently Nikon does something for charging an extra $100 for the Monarch.

btw, there is an interesting exchange between Jim Capoward and Michael on scopes at

http://forums.accuratereloadin...071087151#1071087151
It seems that Michael has broken quite a few Leupold 1.5-5s but has faired better with the less-expensive Leupold in 1-4.

quote:

416Tarzan

Do you really think .3" is going to make that much difference ?

Well, in paying attention to these details for over 30 years I've never cut my eyebrow, though I have touched my glasses on occasion. Yes, 0.3" and greater is significant to me, and if I can get a whole extra inch I'll take it. One item that really turns me off of a scope is when it hits 3.5" eyerelief and lower. Those need to be limited to small bore rifles but they are sometimes marketed for large bores and even given descriptions like 'generous eye-relief'. Ha! A hunting buddy used to ask me to sight in his 300WM when heading out to the bush because he cut his eyebrow a couple of times. Head position and habits count quite a bit, too.

That extra 100$ on the Monarchs is in the lens coating

quote:

Originally posted by ShortandFat:
From what I've been told, Send Micheal458 a PM and ask him how many 1.5 - 5 Leupolds he's broken, it might give you a very big surprise ?


Also

NIKON Slughunter, has 5 inches of constant eye relief, magnification is 1.65 - 5, parallax set at 75 yards .......

NIKON Omega, has 5 inches of constant eye relief, magnification is 1.65 - 5 parallax set at 100 yards .......

has anybody tried one of these ?



regards
S&F

If my 1.5-5x Leupold breaks on my 500 Jeffery, I'll have Leupold fix it and stick with just iron sights on the 500 like Ray advises. Good news is I have Talley QR rings so if it breaks, I can just take it off and use the irons.

As I have said many time, the 375, 416s will work with any good qualityu scope..The 458 Lott and Up are the scope trashers..and the only scope I would use is the Leupold 2.5 compact, not the 2.5 Leupold, I have trashed the 2.5 and 3X Leupolds, the 1x4 Leupold and the 1.5x5 and the straight 4X...I have also trashed most of the European high doller stuff, Nikons, Burris and some others..

I know others who have done the same and a tests run by Rifle or Hanloader maginzine on the 458 Lott magazine a few years ago stated they had a shoe box full of high dollare scopes they trashed during the tests.

To each his own, and remember things go South at the worst of times, not at the range, so one must live of die with such decisions, and my is to use iron sights and I have shot a lot of buffalo with both irons and scopes and I have never had a incident wherein a scope saved the day..

BTW a .458, .416 and .375 soft or solid will shoot through high grass and Jesse all day long contrary to popular belief that originated in the Whitetail woods...Many a PH has told his client, when only the head was showing to hold about where the shoulder is stick a solid there..I have witnessed this many times with a number of PHs and have done it myself on more than a few ocassions, and within reason it works every time.

quote:

BTW a .458, .416 and .375 soft or solid will shoot through high grass and Jesse all day long contrary to popular belief that originated in the Whitetail woods...Many a PH has told his client, when only the head was showing to hold about where the shoulder is stick a solid there..I have witnessed this many times with a number of PHs and have done it myself on more than a few ocassions, and within reason it works every time.
Ray Atkinson

Maybe the operating word is 'within reason'. It may depend on how close the grass is to the buffalo, and how thick, and maybe if it is clearly all grass, or if it might have a bush in there. A glancing blow off of a branch can lead to a wounded buffalo.

And if a reasonable rest is available, between the eyes works, too.

What scope / reticle would you suggest if Leopard in a blind is part of the safari?

Is an illuminated reticle such a great advantage or is just a good quality scope adequate?