Eterry,
Me too like in also! barrel band front sights and rear sights and swivel. Shallow V and 3/2nd Ivory..QD Talleys, 3x Leupold on my DG guns..I have irons on PG rifles and 4X or 2x7x28 discontinued Leupold, I like that varible as its the same siize as a 4x..All just what works best for me..

quote:

Originally posted by 30.06king:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Ray, I agree, but I often take only one rifle, usually my .416 or at most two rifles. When I take a light rifle, a lot of smaller game gets shot with the larger rifle because that is what is in my hand, so it might not be withing 100 yards. That's why I like a variable.

If you have a follow up on dangerous game especially, I like to be able to reduce it to a true 1X and illluminated is useful. Had to follow up a leopard last year due to my bad shooting and my variable froze and wouldn't reduce power, so I detached the scope. Variables, illuminateds and detachable mounts give you options. Fixed powers scopes don't.

Lavaca
What was the make / model of variable scope that "froze" on you ?

I don't think that got answered but some of us would really like to know.

As you may recall, I follow Ray's ideas but even more seriously - and love that story about the special scope Leupold made for him because he'd wrecked so many of their others.

It is a real shame that serious hunting-scope makers no longer sell small models without articulated erector tubes, just for use on dangerous-game rifles.

The old reticle-movement scopes are not only much less likely to break down but give bigger fields of view with the same ocular size and eye relief - and much less tunnel vision, something you can really do without when some herd animal is charging. Those scopes take more trouble to mount, of course, but considering the time we spend on fine-tuning reloads and the money we put into safaris, doing it properly or paying a competent gunsmith to do it should be a matter of pride.

Unless some new firm takes up the idea, reticle-movement won't be made again, of course. The existing makers would have to admit that their Emperors were a little short of raiment.

The one thing I learned but never bothered to take up completely was that I could handle any animal on earth with a 30-06 and about any good scope...it never failed me..

Plus one Sambarman!

I like the 500 Jeff...for no logical reason! Anyway, put a 1-4 Kahles on my 500. The third practice shot, got nailed in the eyebrow (Sitting position)

Moved scope forward and substituted a Silvers pad for the oiginal Pachmnyar (Less compession...I thought)


Fired a honest 100 rounds in practice from all positions except for prone without incident. But,that was a great test for reliabity of the total package


The excitement of a shot at buff sorta changed everything.! REALLY topok a pounding on the nose and eyebrow. Another game shot a few days later..same thing! By now, my trip to Hollywood was seriously compromised!

Point is: be real careful and aware of eye relief on a scope/DGR combo. Even though I sort of had to stretch a bit to get a full field, I believe I could have mounted the scope half way down the barrel and still found a way to get a full field.

Eye relief was simply too short.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
I like the 500 Jeff...for no logical reason! Anyway, put a 1-4 Kahles on my 500. The third practice shot, got nailed in the eyebrow (Sitting position)

Moved scope forward and substituted a Silvers pad for the oiginal Pachmnyar (Less compession...I thought)


Fired a honest 100 rounds in practice from all positions except for prone without incident. But,that was a great test for reliabity of the total package



The excitement of a shot at buff sorta changed everything.! REALLY topok a pounding on the nose and eyebrow. Another game shot a few days later..same thing! By now, my trip to Hollywood was seriously compromised!

Point is: be real careful and aware of eye relief on a scope/DGR combo. Even though I sort of had to stretch a bit to get a full field, I believe I could have mounted the scope half way down the barrel and still found a way to get a full field.

Eye relief was simply too short.

I have a Leupold 1-5x 20mm on my 500 Jeffery in Talley steel QR rings. It's been fabulous. I won't shoot it prone but sitting with a sling is fine, offhand of course, it's a bit punishing from the bench. I limit myself to 4 or 5 shots from the bench and only do that if it's a last minute sight in or if I've taken the scope off and put it back on. I have over 400 full power rounds through it but that's over a 10 year period

Leupolds do seem to have decently long eye reliefs, and that looks like a hell of a nice rifle, Chuck.

We've got a 1.1-4x24 Kahles from early this century that is not bad for eye distance but the eye box seems a bit short. The old reticle-movement Kahles scopes, though tough as anything, were a bit shorter in eye relief. However, it was very flexible and, because I sacrificed a little FoV and set my 2.3-7x variable down at 3x, only got hit once or twice in 40 years.

Even so, I unconsciously crawled the stock, maybe because the mounts were really low and the Sako's sloping comb would have been too high at the rear. I've since had an old Hensoldt Diavari 1.5-6x36 installed, which has a rail that mounts the scope higher. But that's good because the long eye relief puts my eye farther back, comfortably head-up on the high comb.

Thanks! Just because it hasn't bit me yet doesn't mean it won't but the Leupold has worked for me so far.

Well thought out and that's a dcandy rifle...All bsiness!

quote:

Originally posted by chuck375:
Thanks! Just because it hasn't bit me yet doesn't mean it won't but the Leupold has worked for me so far.

When that scope gives up from the recoil, Chuck, ask Ray Atkinson if he will sell you his old 2.5x. He wrecked so many on big rifles that Leupold made him a special one (probably reticle-movement, by my analysis of their words).

Well...after 400 rounds, wouldn't hold my breath. Like a VW bus with 300,000 miles....proved itself!

Yes, Duane, it's hard to know how truly durable something is until it finally wears out - and then you find the model was superseded years ago, so getting a new one is impossible.

All I know are the generalities of scope design: that a modern scope has five-to-10 times more moveable mass able to be shoved around by recoil inertia than the old reticle-movement ones, and that it moves in an arc reciprocal to the rising rifle - while the little-old reticle cells moved in a plane perpendicular to the barrel.

That scope of Ray's has apparently withstood 1500 rounds on 458 Lott and 505 Gibbs rifles and is still going. Some of the company's modern variables, on the other hand, reportedly rattled at around 100 shots.

As I understand Leupold used a 2.5 compact scope and the reticles were situated under the adjustment knobs. I do not know if it was a special product or just because of that it worked, and it has been one tough cookie..I sold it a while back along with one of my big bore guns as my African days are over..

Sorry to hear you sold it, Ray, at least to someone who wasn't me

As I 've explained before, it must be reticle-movement because just putting the reticle on the front of an erector tube would add to the recoil inertia, if anything, not reduce it.

The worse scope cut I received was from my 300mag.

Prone off bi-pod with sharp down ward angle on a mule deer buck.

Still have the scar.

Point is with any higher powered rifle if one gets careless.

It can hurt.

I like Irons on big bores, but have never seen the need or any caliber over the 404 or 416 Rem. Mine had 3X Leupold scopes and QR rings for iron sight use..Likewise my med and some small bores..

Return to battery with the big 50s always bothered me in the short go on DG, something I seldom see mentioned on the internet.