MOUNTING A SCOPE

[williamlayton]

I have been challenged on another board because I choose to have a gunsmith mount my scopes.
Vandenberg did the work on the Leupold to a NEW Remington Speedmaster.
I took it too the range but it would not zero---scope would not go high enough.
I took it back to Ed and he has had it for two weeks.
I got a call from him last night.
He says he will write a report for me to take to the local Remington service center but he will not raise the scope as high as needed because there is something wrong with the rifle.
Now, I would question him if he was just another scope mounter at a store. He build custom bench rest rigs and is well known in the trade.
He said shimes were the answer to problems concerning defects in the rifle and mine was so far out he would not do the work.
How about that boys, and, what do you think.
Blessings

[Glanceblamm]

I know what you are feeling William, It is kind of like the old TV commercial where the gent is having trouble with his Brand New appliance and steps outside his house only to see miles of desert in all directions. Quite a punch in the stomach!

The layman, or the under financed, may just choose to yank that scope and see how the rifle preforms with the iron sights as a fault in the scope (even the Leupold) may come to mind.

Others may try the burris ring with the off-set inserts that claims one can often sight the rifle with the recticle still at center within the scope.

I would stick with Vandenberg myself. I would have him articulate a description of the problem in letter form to be sent back to the factory along with the rifle. Vandenberg description is going to be technical enough that you won't have
To worry about them "blowing you off" and doing nothing...unless an accountant sees the letter

[Dogshooter]

I had a Ruger No 1 that had the same problem. Spent a lot of time and ammo and two different scopes to figure it out and Ruger did make it right but maybe a gunsmith could have saved me some of the aggravation.

[Rangr44]

Although I've only mounted about 150 scopes on various rifles over the years, I've only run across that particular problem three times.

In two of the three times, the "problem" disappeared with a scope change.

in each of those two cases, the original/"problem" scope was manufactured (properly) with a limited adjustment range that could not adjust far enough to zero the rifle it was mounted on.

In the third case (A Marlin BA .22 Mag), the rifle had to go back to the factory because the receiver grooves pointed the scope well off to one side of the direction the barrel was pointed/installed.

I just saw your other post, with pics of the scope you had mounted, and IMHO it's too much scope for that rifle.



If it's not an optical confusion that the scope/receiver clearance differs in front and in the rear of the turret area, I would try another, smaller, scope.

(jes' sayin'................. )

.

[williamlayton]

I will post Ed's report tomorrow night.
I asked Ed before I bought the scope and he said it was large but not too large.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

Just got back from Vandenbergs with the report.
THE REPORT
Model 552. Optic is Leupold 4X12. Rings are Weaver (tip off/dovetail).
Optic has a total of approx. 67.5 MOA--approx.= 33.75 " @ 50 yards.
When one half the optic's adjustment range and the 2.5" (POA-POI) error are added, the resulting net change required would be on the order 19.375" @ 59 yards or approx. 0.6167 degrees of angle.
(with 2,5 scope ring spread, this would require 0.0269" of change).
His conclusions are that the barrel is not parrallel with the reciever--and may be out of drift.
To correct this by shims would require such a rise that the scope tube would be crushed when tightening them in the rings.
Off, Monday to find the Remington S/C here.
Blessings

[PowPow]

I had a Remington Nylon that was the same way.  Because it had a sheet metal receiver cover screwed onto a piece of plastic, er, I mean, nylon, the large difference in POA and POI made it a POS.