Scope for BLR 358 Winchester

[358Win]

I've owned several lever actions over the years.  But with rounds like the 45-70 and 44 Magnum, I've always thought a good peep sight was just the ticket.

I got what I now consider to be the best rifle I've ever onwed, which I got last summer.  But low and behold the 20 inch tube on my BLR will throw a 250 grain spitzer of fairly high balllistiic  coefficient, 0.375 for the Hornady, and  0.446 for the Nosler Partition at 2400 fps according to my Ohler P35 Chronograph.

So if I sight 3 inches high at 100 yards, I'm dead on at 200 yards, about 4.5 inches low at 250 yards and 11 inches low at 300 yards.  To put this in perspective a 7mm Rem Mag can throw a 150 grain at 3,200 fps.  When zeroed at 200 yards this is 6 inches low at 300 yards..  So the difference in trajectory is only about the width of my palm.  In other words I've got a real 250 yard shooter on my hands, 300 in a pinch.

So I need a scope.  Never thought I'd see the day I needed a scope on a lever action, but it has now happened.  So I've got several questions:
1) should I go traditional or use a forward mounted Scout scipe?
2) The BLR is tapped for some kind of scope mount and has a grooved  top on the action.  Any recommendations on what kind of scope mounts this is designed for?
3) I've been catalog looking at a lot of scopes, some of which cost more than the rifle itself did.  I have a Ruger #1 in 270 Win with a Leupold V-II 2-7 on it and have never been really happy with it.  The eye relief changes quite a bit as you adjust the power, and it just doesn't pick up quite as much light as I'd like to have.  I've been looking at scopes with the 30mm tube diameter on the thought that they might give a bit more light.  Is that a valid assumption?
4) In a similar vein I've been looking at scopes with the reticle in  the second focal plane.  They do seem to have constant eye relief.  Is there a down side to this?

I've got a list of possibles some with the 30mm tube and some 1".  Also some have the reticle in the 2nd focal plane and some don't.  I think I know what I want, but thought I'd check and see if any one has any input or ideas.

1) Burris Signature Safari - 1.75 to 5 power with a 32mm Objective lens, 1" tube, 3.8 to 4.5" Eye Relief, Taper-Plex Reticle

2) Leupold LPS - 2.5 to 10X, actual 2.6 to 9.8 power with a 45mm Objective lens, 30mm tube,  3.8 to 4.5" Eye Relief, Duplex Reticle

3) Leupold VX-L - 3.5 to 10X, actual 3.3 to 9.7 power with a 50mm Objective, 1" tube,  3.6 to 4.6 Eye Relief, Boone & Crockett Reticle

4) Nikon Monarch Gold - 1.5 to 6X, actual 1.55 to 5.82 power with a 42mm Objective lens, 30mm tube, 4.0 to 4.1" Eye Relief,  German #4 Reticle

5) Nikone Monarch Gold - 2.5 to 10 power with a 50mm Objective lens, 30mm tube, 4.1" Eye Relief, BDC Reticle

6) Kahles Helia CSX - 1.5 to 6 power, with a 42mm Objective lens, 30mm tube, 3.55" Eye Relief, P-Dot Illuminated Reticle

What do you think?  Which one is going to provide the best performance per dollar spent?

[358Win]

Help!!  Can anyone shed any light on the questions asked in my opening post?  I've got just a couple more weeks until my Birthday.  Then between the gift certificates I got for Christmas and my tax refund I'm planning to have my wife buy me the scope for my Birthday.

So far I'm leaning in the direction of the Nikon 1.5-6X Monarch Gold.  Any thoughts or opinions would be welcome.

[jason280]

I have an older Belgium made BLR in .308, and its one of my favorite rifles.  I've actually been looking for one in .358, but haven't found one yet.  Mine wears a Pentax Whitetails Unlimited 2-5x20 in standard Weaver rings, and has been reasonably accurate.  Of the choices you listed, I would go with one of the lower power scopes, specifically either the Monarch 1.5-6 or the Burris 1.75-5x.  Keep in mind the Monarch uses a 30mm tube, while the Burris is a 1" scope.  You can't go wrong with either.  I wouldn't really recommend any of the other higher magnification scopes, as you really won't need them with the .358 round.  

As far as mounting systems, standard Weaver bases/rings or Redfield style will work.  I originally used a Redfield base and ring seton my BLR, but opted for a Weaver set to use split Warne rings.  Also, I would definitely stick with the traditional mounting location over a scout set up.  

With light transmission, all of the scopes you mentioned are going to be very similar.  Quality of glass and coatings have a lot more to do with the amount of light a scope can transmit than the tube diameter.  Like I stated, though, all of those scopes will be similar.  Matter of fact, I doubt you would be able to see any considerable difference between any of them.  Keep in mind, though, that 30mm tubes are typically heavier than 1" scopes.  

If it were me, I would go with the Burris Safari in a set of split Warne rings on Weaver bases.  The reason is quite simple.  First, its the least expensive of the group, and it is a stellar performer.  Second, it is the most compact of the group.  The BLR .358 is a woods gun, and you don't need a big honkin' scope on it.  6x and 32mm objective lense will be plenty.  Plus, you can get it with the tapered reticle, lighted reticle, or German #4.

[pagris]

358Win:  Although I am not familiar with your hunting areas, I would tend to agree with jason280's reply - stick with the lower power scopes.  Even with a 250 yard cartridge, 4X is all you really need.  Here back east, my .358 BLR has carried a 2 3/4X Redfield for 25 years now and I have never felt the need for more.  And my 7mm-08 BLR with a 4X Redfield did just fine for a Pronghorn hunt in Wyoming two years ago.  I just can't envision a BLR carrying honkin' 10X variable on its receiver!

I kind of doubt that one can do a scout set up with a BLR - I certainly wouldn't want to - they carry so nicely with the scope mounted over the receiver!

pagris

1977 .358 BLR
1980 .358 BLR - original owner
1987 .243 '81 BLR
1991 7mm-08 '81 BLR

[oliverstacy]

I have been looking at these for an Encore Barrel I'm having made.  I like the idea of having a 30mm tube not only for the greater light transmission but also I like the way they look.  I have all but settled on the Leupold Euro 30 in 3-9x40.  They are supposed to be built to the same specs as the VX-II's and since I have two of them and love them both it's an easy choice for me.  The one I'm looking at has a German 3#4 reticle.  You can get them at most places, Grafs, Midway, Midsouth...all are reasonably priced and Ebay has them also (just be careful who you buy from).  

I guess the only draw back is their adjustments are 1 cm per click at 100 meters.  No big deal but a concern.

Burris has some Euro Black Diamond that have 30mm tubes.  

Josh

[358Win]

Thanks Guys, I really do appreciate the tips!!!

[JCM]

FYI, I posted a Nikon Monarch Gold 1.5-6x42 with Warne QD weaver style rings in the classifieds yesterday.

Might be what you're looking for.....  They are excellent scopes.  Awesome glass, great FOV, and great eye relief.

Take care,
JCM

[358Win]

One more question.  I hope one of you might know this from previous experience.

If I go ahead with the Nikon Monarch Gold 1.5-6 x 42, which is a little big for the BLR and I use Weaver Bases and Warne Maxima Rings.  Would I need the Medium or the High rings???

As I said in my first post I was very disappointed with the Leupold VXII 2-7 x 33 that I have on my Ruger #1 in 270 Win.  Part of the problem was just that the whole picture was too small.  So I definitely want something with a larger eye piece lens.  The other problem I had with that set up was that it was so low that I really had to put my cheekbone right down on the stock to see properly.  This lead to a huge perceived recoil problem.  I think it kicks a lot harder than my 358 BLR.  Which is odd given that it weighs about 2 pounds more and is shooting a cartridge with less energy.  My usual load in the 270 (Note: 21 inch barrel) was a 130 grain at 2900 which is a little over 2,400 ft-lbs.  Most of the loads I use in my 358 run between 3,000 and 3,200 ft-lbs of energy.  But yet I'd say perceived recoil is about 80% of what the heavier, weaker 270 feels like.

The current Willians WGS peep I have on the BLR allows me to shoot with my head up enough so that the stock rests along the lower jaw bone so I have an inch or so of soft cheek before the stock would come in contact with the cheek bone.

It may just be better stock design on the BLR, but I think getting hit in the cheekbone by the stock on the 270 has a lot to do with the perception of recoil..

So would the Medium Rings even work with the 50mm OD of the objective?    And even if they would, would I be better off with the High Rings so I can hold my head up high enough.  Or would the Medium rings be high enough?   I'm quite certain the Ruger #1 is set up with Ruger Low Rings.

I'm kind of hoping that with the added thickness of the Weaver Bases over the integral mounts on the Ruger plus the Medium Rings would be high enough.

Please feel free to provide any and all commentary on this situation.  I welcome advice as this will only be my second scoped rifle.

I've had peeps on my M1 Garand, my 45-70 Marlin and my 44 Magnum Win. 94.  Other than that I have one shotgun Win Mod. 37A and quite a few pistols.  One of which is an old Ruger 41 Magnum with an old Leupold 1X pistol scope bought back in 1975.

The point being this is only my second try at putting a scope on a rifle, and the first attempt didn't work out very well.

[killdeer]

Light transmission is the same for 1" and 30mm tubed scopes.
The Nikon is very heavy and large but a decent view.
I know what you are saying about the 2-7 Leupie.
The FXIII 6x42 is light weight, not bulky and would look very appropriate.
It also has the VXIII type lenses and coatings. It is also noticably brighter than the others listed, partially because a fixed power scope has fewer lenses. You could even try another brand like Burris in a 6x42 and reap most of the same benefits. You will also have more mounting options.
If you didn't fall in love with it you could sell it and try again. Fixed power is not for everyone.
 I own a Monarch Gold and wouldn't reccomend it for a walking rifle.
 Zeiss is coming out with a smaller line of scopes that should be out this month. Something along the lines of your Leupie in size. I perceive my conquests as brighter than any others I own.
 I would try to get a scope with about a 40mm objective, the woods can be dim and deer tend to move under those conditions.

[358Win]

Well I went for the Nikon 1.5-6 x 42mm.  I used the Weaver Bases and the Warne Medium Rings.  I haven't had to carry it all day but it is a relatively short scope and looke great on my 358 Win. BLR.

I love the 65 foot FOV at 1.55 power.  And the 5.82 magnification at the top end will most liley only see use at looking at Mule Deer racks, or Antelope horns.  I'd guess that most shots will be taken between 1.5 and 3 power.  Except off the bench.  I LOVE the constant eye relief.  The medium rings help me hold my head up just right.  I had them mount just about as far back as it would go.  This not only put my head in a comfortable position but makes getting at the hammer quite easy.

All in all I'm completely thrilled.  By the way it would have fit with the low rings, but I'm glad I went with the medium.

I'm one estaciic camper!!!!!

[killdeer]

Congrats, I'm sure it's alot lighter than my 56mm model at about 24oz.

  I bet it's quick in the brush. Enjoy.......