What would you guys recommend for optics choices on a .222 Remington barrel or a .243 stutzen barrel? The .222 is standard length and the stutzen is about 20".

This will go on a very slim K95 and I am afraid of putting too much power on the barrels for fear of overloading the balance and slim appearance.

Your thoughts?

Cliff,

I'm saving up for a K95 and I've been thinking lately that a Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x24 compact might be pretty slick. 30mm, but straight tube... might not be too physically overwelming while still providing a broad power range.

I've got a Kahles 2-7x on mine but it's a 7x65R.

Stick with something slim and trim or it'll look and feel top heavy I reckon.

Cheers.

GG

Swarovski's AV-line is very light and looks good on top of a K95! The 3-9x36 or 3-10x42 would be perfect.

My K95, in 7x57R, has a Zeiss 3-9x42 on a rail mount.
Get yourself a rail mount scope they are better than the rings and base ones.

I am a big fan of the 30mm rail mounts. But mine have one inche Kahles on them.

I will have a rail mount but feel I need to wait a while before doing that. I am thinking that the .243 Stutzen barrel will wear a Kahles 2-7x36 that I have and the .222 barrel will sport a Bushnell 4200 Elite 1.5-6x36.
Both scopes are excellent and I already have them. Is there reason to switch the scopes to different barrels or does it make that much difference to anyone?

quote:

Originally posted by Cliff Lyle:
What would you guys recommend for optics choices on a .222 Remington barrel or a .243 stutzen barrel? The .222 is standard length and the stutzen is about 20".

I like to take more time when hunting with a single-shot so I've usually gone with a little more magnification than the 4x I fancy on a repeater. The Leupold FX-3 6x42mm shouldn't unbalance the K95. If it did the slightly tidier FX-II 6x36mm might be worth a try (while I haven't tried it myself I've yet to be disappointed with any Leupold). Good hunting!

quote:

Originally posted by Cliff Lyle:
I will have a rail mount but feel I need to wait a while before doing that. I am thinking that the .243 Stutzen barrel will wear a Kahles 2-7x36 that I have and the .222 barrel will sport a Bushnell 4200 Elite 1.5-6x36.
Both scopes are excellent and I already have them. Is there reason to switch the scopes to different barrels or does it make that much difference to anyone?

The Kahles should be a good match for the 243 stutzen.
As for the Bushnell, I dunno, I've not ever seen one.
As for your question on scope switching, I'm not sure what it is you'r asking, perhaps others can help.

What I intended to say was should the Kahles be on the .222 instead of the .243 and such...
I don't think it'll make much optical difference but the Kahles will certainly look right on the .243.

As a rule I would suggest a light weight 1' scope for a K95,

Swarowski makes a 3-9x36 scope that is great for most applications and will balance well with the rifle.

Khales are/have similar scopes.

Best regards Chris

As well as not unbalancing the rifle the scope needs to look right.

K95s do not have the lowest mounts on the block. Anything less than a 42mm objective is going to leave a lot of air between the barrel and scope objective which doesn't look great.

I've got a Swaro 6x42 on mine in ring mounts which have been ground lower. 50mm doesn't look bad either.

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:
As well as not unbalancing the rifle the scope needs to look right.

K95s do not have the lowest mounts on the block. Anything less than a 42mm objective is going to leave a lot of air between the barrel and scope objective which doesn't look great.

I've got a Swaro 6x42 on mine in ring mounts which have been ground lower. 50mm doesn't look bad either.

The rail mount is slightly lower than the ring mounts, and I agree about scopes with objectives less than 42mm can look stranded.
My 3-9x42 is on a 1 inch tube and to my eye looks just right. More than that it is on aim when I throw the rifle to my shoulder.

Whilst talking K95s I took mine to the range yesterday to check if the point of aim had change now that temperatures have dropped since it was last sighted in during summer.
I had to raise the point of impact 1/2 of an inch, verticaly it was still on line.
The K95 rifle with the octagonal barrel is a bloody marvel. All the loads I've tried with 140, 150, 154 and 175 grain bullets have produced half inch and less 3 shot groups.

I also felt that the original rings were a bit high, so I had a gunsmith to lower a pair of Leupold steel-rings a couple of millimeters. (Beware that the Leupold rings, unlike the superb finish on K95, may become "rusty" in tough conditions.) I am very happy with the result, looks better and my cheek gets a firmer "grip"/position on the stock. Downside is that there is less space left for the thumb to operate the lever when opening.
I have a Swaro AV 4-12x50 (4A), which I move back and forth on my two barrels. Works ok, just a few clicks difference (lucky?). BUT I need to adjust the base 1/8turn since the 22-250 barrel has somewhat wider drilled holes than the six-point-five.
I must admit that the 4-12 is a bit big and "longish" on the sleek rifle. But I like to have a scope similar to my binoculars (10x42). And get a similar picture in the scope as you had before lying down your binos. I had an AV 3-10x42, but traded it for the 4-12x50 when I found that 4-12 gave a sharper and better "wiew" at 10x. But the price to pay is that the "package" gets bigger. It's barely enough room for the Butler-Creek to go clear of the rear sight when opening. If you feel that you will be happy with less magnification, the smaller scopes would be better looking.
Swarovski makes a 6x42 that is extremly light and compact. Expensive though...

Good Luck!

I'm going to look at the leupold FXIII in 6x42. I have been told by one whose opinions I value that it's a great piece of glass.

quote:

Originally posted by Cliff Lyle:
I'm going to look at the leupold FXIII in 6x42. I have been told by one whose opinions I value that it's a great piece of glass.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, for your 222 it would be perfect.

Not really on the optics front but a couple of developments. I have a talley mount that allows for talley base & rings to utilize the Blaser mounting system. I'll get some rings and mount my scope for photos.
The barrels will have to be sent to Blaser-USA in San Antonio, TX for fitting to my receiver. I expect this to take about 3 weeks or so.

I have on my K95 b(one of the few in 257 WBY) a 3-9x42 Kahles. However, one (the only maybe) disadvantage of the Blaser mount is that you do not really benefit from any scope smaller than 50mm because the height of the mount is as it is.

I'd have to vote for a Leupold VXII 2-7.

When I'm looking for a quality, smaller sized scope that's the one I think of. The VX3 2.5-8 would also be a good choice.

Ken

quote:

Originally posted by jaegerfrank:
I have on my K95 b(one of the few in 257 WBY) a 3-9x42 Kahles. However, one (the only maybe) disadvantage of the Blaser mount is that you do not really benefit from any scope smaller than 50mm because the height of the mount is as it is.

Very true!

quote:

Originally posted by Cliff Lyle:
Not really on the optics front but a couple of developments. I have a talley mount that allows for talley base & rings to utilize the Blaser mounting system. I'll get some rings and mount my scope for photos.
The barrels will have to be sent to Blaser-USA in San Antonio, TX for fitting to my receiver. I expect this to take about 3 weeks or so.

Yes I have seen this before, very ugly! The Blaser saddle mount is better.

I really like the Blaser factory saddle mounts.

All the ones I have used performed perfectly.

I do not feel that they are to high.

Later this year I will obtain a rail mount and scope for the stutzen barrel. I am told they are the best.

Cliff

If I was starting over, ALL of my Blaser scopes would be rail mounts.

I have a feeling that once I get the first one, it will be a steady (slow) progression of one after another...