Looking at 30mm. Also what height to just barely clear a Z6i 1-6 EE?

Alaska arms? CZ? Thanks for the info

Mine in 416 Rigby wears Talley. Cant think of any better.

I have Alaska, Warne, and Talley.
Its Warne for me, they are the only one's that won't mark your scope.

quote:

Originally posted by Gale Johnson:
I have Alaska, Warne, and Talley.
Its Warne for me, they are the only one's that won't mark your scope.

how can you get marks from Alaska rings?

I have and like Alaska Arms.

Above are the standard CZ 30mm rings.
There is nothing stronger or more repeatable on a CZ 550 Magnum.
Replace the main mounting screws with with socket-head, metric screws.
Torque them to 65 inch-pounds maximum.
My newer Fat Wrench goes to 65, this old one only goes to 60, which is OK,
more than enough to strip a Talley main mounting screw:



Below are 1-inch rings, using the same replacement main mounting screws as needed for the 30mm rings, metric designation:
M6-1.0 X 16 Socket Cap Screw Class 12.9
(6mm OD threads, about like a quarter-inch bolt, 1 thread per mm, 16mm length of threaded portion of screw)




Carry the Quick-Detachable-Quick-Detachable Lever in your pocket: A 5mm hex key/Allen Wrench.
One lever for two rings.
Snags brush less too.

You cannot get much lower than the standard 30mm CZ rings and still clear a large ocular bell, like on 30mm-tubed scopes, when working the bolt handle.

I have destroyed two sets of 1-inch Talley CZ rings on such a rifle as pictured above, a 500 Mbogo.
30mm Talley rings would be more prone to destruction,
since 30mm scopes are generally heavier than 1-inch-tubed scopes.

Gluing the scope to the rings with clear silicone "RTV" adhesive is also a good idea with a heavy scope and any scope rings.
It does take some stress off of whatever is holding the ring halves together around the scope,
whether used only in one ring half,
or in both ring halves.
Also seals out penetration of moisture and lubricants between scope and rings ...
except maybe Kroil:

I just yesterday removed some silicone residue from the scope rings of a Ruger Super Blackhawk with "pistol scope."
My latest discovery is that Kroil works well as a release agent for silicone adhesive on scope rings.
Those rings are now installed on another scope.

Rip ...

I have the medium Warne QD's and a VX-5HD 1-5x24. Eyepiece diameter is 1.8" and eyepiece length is 3.31". Works perfect. If you want, shoot me your email and I'll send a couple pics of my set-up to compare to.

Warne QD's have worked well for me with both a Leupold Euro 30 1.25-4 and a Swaro Z6i 1-6 on a .375 H&H.

I like the Warne better than Talley.

The ultimate low-mounted, light scope (1"-tubed Leupold 2.5x20mm) was done with the Warne Low QD-Lever rings for a CZ 550M.
Here is that setup on another 500 Mbogo:



Warne quit making those in Low.
With the tiny ocular bell of the Leupold 2.5x, that was the only scope I could find to be used with Warne Low for CZ.

With a heavier, 30mm-tubed scope: Standard CZ rings, as above.


Rip ...

I have Talley and it works.

Today, I would like those better: https://youtu.be/Qjj3bUxFoUM

Jiri

+1 for Talley we have them on our CZ in 500 Jeffery, M70 Classic 416 Rem, and 7 1/4 lb Rem XCR II in 375 Weatherby. Work flawlessly on all of them.

I used Burris, they have that socket head cap screw already.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod...06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

but of course, mine is only a 9.3x62 with a Leupold compact 2.5x

Does anybody make mounts for CZ with lateral adjustments? Using non-adjustable mounts if they don't just happen to line up well is a fool's paradise.

I have both a 458 Lott and a 505 Gibbs so bigger the better. Sounds like CZ mount. They only come in one height?

Thanks for all the info keep em coming

Too bad there is only one recoil notch in the receiver seems like 2 would be better......

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
I have both a 458 Lott and a 505 Gibbs so bigger the better. Sounds like CZ mount. They only come in one height?

Thanks for all the info keep em coming

You might check this out.
https://alaskaarmsllc.com/collections/cz-scope-rings

Those look pretty stout..

Alaska Arms are great to deal with. My Mod 17 Enfield has CZ scope bases that Nick Hughes installed. It is a 416 Rigby.

quote:

My Mod 17 Enfield has CZ scope bases that Nick Hughes installed. It is a 416 Rigby.

A very nice looking rifle

Thanks, I really like it.

quote:

Originally posted by aephilli:
I used Burris, they have that socket head cap screw already.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod...06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

but of course, mine is only a 9.3x62 with a Leupold compact 2.5x

IIRC, with the Burris, there are only two screws in each ring top, instead of four as on the OEM CZ.
And is that main mounting screw as robust as the M6-1.0 on the CZ OEM?

OK, plenty strong for a 2.5x Ultralight Leupold on a 9.3x62.
I have the old BRNO rings on my 9.3x62 CZ 550 Medium, with same scope, and they only have two screws in each ring top.
Degreasing the ring internal surfaces and scope tube and using silicone adhesive in the rings takes a lot of stress off the ringtop screws.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
Too bad there is only one recoil notch in the receiver seems like 2 would be better......

If your scope tube is long enough to move the front ring to the forward end of the dovetail,
then clamp it with 65 inch pounds of torque, that works as a second recoil stop.


The MRC PH has just the dove tails with no recoil-stop tab on the rear ring.



So you just clamp both CZ "front rings" as far forward as possible, one on the rear, one on the front.
The end of the dovetail works as a recoil stop for each of the rings. 65 inch-pounds.



This works for me on a 10.625# .408 Chey-Tac MRC PH.
If the scope tube is long enough, I can even get 3 of the CZ 30mm rings on the PH.
Two on the front, one on the rear:











But two rings are enough.
It is a kicker, no muzzle brake.
The three-ring circus above are 30mm rings, and I had not yet peeled away all of the oozed silicone.
Scope was a Tasco 10-50X50mm "Custom Shop" benchrest model.
Below are 1-inch rings on a longtom Zeiss 3-9X40mm:




Rip ...

The three rings should give you more protection against bumps - now you only have to worry about the erector tube being pounded to a rattle. But they've all got them, bar possibly some Valdada tactical scopes, so keep a spare in your kit.

sambarman338,

I consider any scope to be disposable, replaceable, and requiring a backup.
CZ OEM rings properly set up are infallible.
I could post pictures of many Talley-CZ "fails" but I really see no need to rub it in.

Rip ...

Yes RIP, in the face of bulldozers and black holes, nothing is indestructible.

And yet there was a time when scopes had either no regularly moving parts or ones that weighed about one-tenth what they do now. I've still got some and, though they may be 40 or 50 years old, I have enormous confidence that recoil affects them much less than anything with a 'constantly centred' reticle.

Makers like Weaver, Swarovski, Leupold, Vortex and Nightforce have all claimed fixes for the problems of image-movement - but I'd feel more confident if they supplied graticules fixed solidly between metal mountings or applied their marvellous springs and bearings to the minuscule inertia loads of reticle-movement.

How would a z6i 1-6 ee hold up on a 458 Lott? Any ideas?

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
How would a z6i 1-6 ee hold up on a 458 Lott? Any ideas?

Well, Swarovski is well aware of the punishment big rifles can give scopes and claims recoil can increase the inertia loads on the erector tube by 500 to 800 times that of one at rest (IIRC). Their answer is the four helical springs placed at the back to hold the tube against the turret screws; these should also resist rearward movement under the secondary recoil inertia as the rifle is pulled up by the shooter's shoulder.

They should know what they are doing by now and their Z6 scopes seem well respected by big-game hunters. However, I worry that over time the gimbal or other erector-tube hinge mechanism may wear, allowing the tube to move forward under that spring pressure, causing parallax.

One of the contributors here says calibres from the 458 Lott up will rattle the guts out of almost any modern scope, bar a 2.5x Leupold that may not even still be made.

Personally, I think scopes were better when little or nothing was left to rock around inside - but only one maker I know of (the Romanian Valdada) still makes stuff like that and I have never used one and doubt if the field blending and eye relief would be up to the 458 Lott.

Have you thought of using a Ghost Ring-type aperture, mounted solidly on top of the receiver ring - but not something with a bendy cross arm?

The thread deals with mounts, but if someone wants reliability in the field so that they do not need to send the scope back for repair - - -
Nikon.
The Inline and Slughunter also give 5.0" eye relief at the high magnification if you can fit the 4.73" mounting space on your rifle.

sambarman338,

At the suggestion of 416Tanzan, I tried the Nikon SlugHunter 3-9X.
Now I have three of them.
I doubt I will ever destroy the first, but if I do, I have backup.

Have you analyzed the Nikon SlugHunter scope?
I do not know anything about the engineering of the internals.
I just know the scope works very well on a .458 Win.Mag. LongCOL that can be loaded to beat a SAAMI .458 Lott:
I have discovered that the CEB 450-grainer at 2365 fps (5588 ft-lbs)
shoots very close to same POI at 50 yards as the Barnes 500-grain TSX at 2342 fps (6090 ft-lbs).





The CEB is also very close to the 500-grain TSX at 2250 fps (5620 ft-lbs), 0.80" high at 50 yards,
and 0.19 MOA for 3 shots:



How convenient! In a .458 Win.Mag. LongCOL:
CEB-450-grainer at 2365 fps as solid at short range,
to back up the TSX-500-grainer at anywhere from 2250 to 2342 fps as softpoint,
to be the primary zero for longer range use.
(Until GSC HV 400-grainer at 2500 fps can be had for primary "gamefield dominator bullet.")


For 0.56" high at 50 yards:
CEB 450-grainer with 2365 fps MV is dead-on at about 34 yards, and again at 133 yards.
This is for the WinCzechster rifle and Nikon SlugHunter scope.
They are both taking a licking and still ticking.
One of those $3000 scopes would buy about 15 of those SlugHunters.

Chimera WinCzechster: A CZ .458 Win.Mag. barrel on a Pre-'64 Winchester M70 action, with M70 Classic mix&match parts added, parts is parts:



I adore the matte-grey accents of the J-B Weld under the scope bases coordinating so nicely
with the matte stainless trigger guard, front action screw, and sling studs.


BTW, those Burris X-treme Tactical rings have six screws in each ringtop and the main mounting nuts&bolts can be torqued to 65 inch-pounds,
just like on the CZ OEM main mounting screws.

Rip ...

Torx screws are the best thing since sliced white bread..Isn't this the 21st century or close!

I like talleys best, and I like fitted custom bases with them that are lower than Talley bases, so as to clear my barrel mounted iron sights.

I'm glad the Nikon is working for you, RIP and 416Tanzan. I have a kind of love/hate relationship with the brand. I love the toughness of their old SLR cameras and the clarity and light weight of my 10x42 Prostaff binos; not so sure about the tunnel vision and field of view of my Monarch 4-16x42 scope.
I had a bad miss with it after bumping against soft bank - but cannot be sure this wasn't the fault of the mounts.

It may be their scope mechanics are just as strong as those of the old SLRs but I am absolutely certain they could be even stronger if they didn't have a mini-me rocking around inside.

If only more people were willing to use fashion accents and windage adjustable mounts, we could feed Mini-me to the ill-tempered sea bass

quote:

One of the contributors here says calibres from the 458 Lott up will rattle the guts out of almost any modern scope, bar a 2.5x Leupold that may not even still be made.

Sambarman,

You were given the links to Leupold's website in a previous post that shows the 2.5 compact scope indeed does still exist. Apparently you never followed up to find out for your self. Better to complain all new scopes are bad I guess?

nikon monarchs and JAPANESE made tasco titans seem to be pretty bullet proof -- leupolds frequently go back to the factory for a "rebuild"

prostaff is like the leupold "rifleman" --- it is the cheap brand .. i like them on middle calibers, not anything like as nice as a monarch, but certainly work, just wouldn't put on a bigbore

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:

quote:

One of the contributors here says calibres from the 458 Lott up will rattle the guts out of almost any modern scope, bar a 2.5x Leupold that may not even still be made.

Sambarman,

You were given the links to Leupold's website in a previous post that shows the 2.5 compact scope indeed does still exist. Apparently you never followed up to find out for your self. Better to complain all new scopes are bad I guess?

Not true, Cougarz, I did follow that link; I'm just not convinced it is still exactly the same scope that Atkinson scours the pawn shops for. While not an expert on the almost countless models Leupold has produced over the decades, I suspect the one he likes might be from the M8 series. Leupold do make light-weight 2.5x scopes now but the nostalgic tone of Ray's posts suggests to me they are not the same in his eyes.

I have not tried Nikon's Prostaff scopes, jeffeosso, just my big Monarch. It has large lenses, sharp optics and a long eye relief - but the fat rubber eyepiece and restrictive field stop cover up too much landscape for my liking. I hope the small, big-game scopes do not follow it in those demerits.

Hi

Bomb proofed return to zero 100% and groved for use with irons EWA mounts have a look at

http://www.eaw.de/en/products/pivot-mounts.html

you never going to look back.

Hope that helps

Freischuetz

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
* * *
The ultimate low-mounted, light scope (1"-tubed Leupold 2.5x20mm) was done with the Warne Low QD-Lever rings for a CZ 550M.
Here is that setup on another 500 Mbogo:


Warne quit making those in Low.
With the tiny ocular bell of the Leupold 2.5x, that was the only scope I could find to be used with Warne Low for CZ.* * *

I have those same Warne QD 1" Low Rings holding an old Weaver 1x-3x scope on my BRNO 602, a .375H&H. It's close, but the bolt handle just smoothly clears the ocular end.

Yeah, it's shame Warne stopped making those rings; they were really like 'extra lows.' Maybe because the trend now in low-power scopes favors large ocular ends and illuminated housings.

Although I had my BRNO's "Hog-Back" stock customized some years ago to relieve much of the rise of the factory comb, those Warne low rings really help with cheek placement so you don't have to Giraffe-neck your face around on the stock trying to obtain a consistent sighting thru the scope.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

My Mod 17 Enfield has CZ scope bases that Nick Hughes installed. It is a 416 Rigby.

A very nice looking rifle

Yeah, I like that. Very nice work!

quote:

Not true, Cougarz, I did follow that link; I'm just not convinced it is still exactly the same scope that Atkinson scours the pawn shops for. While not an expert on the almost countless models Leupold has produced over the decades, I suspect the one he likes might be from the M8 series. Leupold do make light-weight 2.5x scopes now but the nostalgic tone of Ray's posts suggests to me they are not the same in his eyes.

The FX II 2.5 compact that I have and the 3x version is the same as the old scopes. I called Leupold and asked about it. They are available through their custom shop.

I guess that settles it then. If I run out of Nickels and old Hensoldts, I'll race out and get one.