Author Topic: Rifle scopes (Read 1479 times)

californiahunter93 · « **on:** June 21, 2007, 04:50:05 PM »

I am buying a new scope for my 30-06 Encore barrel I am limited to spending a max of $220. I was also wondering if anybody has tried the TC weaver bases.

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #1 on:** June 21, 2007, 04:53:28 PM »

It's pretty hard to go wrong buying a $150 Nikon prostaff 3x9x40 and spending the rest of your money on a quality scope mounting system.

californiahunter93 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 21, 2007, 04:59:36 PM »

I was looking at one of those on the Internet is the clarity descent and will it hold a zero pretty well on a 30-06?

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #3 on:** June 21, 2007, 05:21:54 PM »

Quote from: californiahunter93 on June 21, 2007, 04:59:36 PM

I was looking at one of those on the Internet is the clarity descent and will it hold a zero pretty well on a 30-06?

You would have to buy a Leupold VX-II to get better image quality, The Prostaff beat the pant's off my Rifleman and VX-I leupys. As for durability my prostaff has lived a complaint free life atop a 300WBY magnum

sweetwyominghome · « **Reply #4 on:** June 21, 2007, 07:59:25 PM »

Natchez and a couple other vendors were clearing out the current line of Nikon Monarch 3-9x40s for around $199 -- a SUPER deal to be sure. A new lineup of Nikon Monarchs is due out late this summer.

Another good choice would the the Nikon BM with choice #3 a Burris FFII. All will fit into your price range and give you excellent optics for the $$.

HEAD0001 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:57:19 PM »

If you can find one of the 3X9 Monarch's they were closing out-that would be a good choice. I think the Pro Staff has friction adjustments, and I do not like friction adjustments. "Clarity" is subjective. Tracking is essential.

The TC's bases are alright, but they are aluminum. I prefer steel bases, but I do like the Weaver style. If I were you I would go with the Warne steel base(picture). The steel is stronger. And the Warne is longer than the Leupold steel. You can use Warne or Weaver rings on the Warne base. Tom.

californiahunter93 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 22, 2007, 04:26:11 PM »

How much would a base like that go for?

Deadeye351 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 22, 2007, 04:41:40 PM »

Steel bases Expand and contract more when the temp... changes than Aluminum. Just something to think about.

HEAD0001 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 22, 2007, 05:19:12 PM »

I think the base is around $30. I have been shooting for 37 years-this is the first time I have ever heard of scope bases expanding??? Tom.

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #9 on:** June 23, 2007, 03:01:58 AM »

The Nikon prostaff uses CLICK adjustments.

californiahunter93 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 23, 2007, 03:29:00 PM »

Is the Nikon Buckmasters any better than the pro staff?

quickdtoo · « **Reply #11 on:** June 23, 2007, 03:47:14 PM »

One of the differences tween the Prostaff and Buckmasters is light transmission, 90% for the Prostaff and 92% for the Buckmasters.

Tim

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/product.php?group=16&subgroup=10&product=6320

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/product.php?group=16&subgroup=10&product=6421

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/group.php?group=16&subgroup=10

californiahunter93 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 23, 2007, 06:47:31 PM »

Is the extra 2% worth the extra $50?

quickdtoo · « **Reply #13 on:** June 23, 2007, 07:43:48 PM »

It is to me, I have several Buckmasters scopes, only two Prostaffs. I'm sure there are other differences, that's just one that stands out. Post the question in the Optics forum, I'm sure you'll find your answers there, Jon at The Optic Zone is very helpful in making comparisons of different optics, and pointing out the particular specs.

Tim

http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/board,54.0.html

Gabby · « **Reply #14 on:** June 29, 2007, 01:27:09 AM »

The Warne bases have 4 holes verses 6 for the Stratten steel bases. Do the extra 2 help much.

encore3006 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 29, 2007, 06:11:35 AM »

Correction and/or clarification are in order:

"Steel bases expand and contract more when the temp...changes than aluminum. Just something to think about."

Not true as stated. It is the other way around. Aluminum has a coefficient of linear expansion of 128 compared to mild steel which has a value of 65 (ignore where the decimal point is for the moment). Aluminum will expand and contract 2 x as much as steel.

With that:

The aluminum base and the steel base have approximately the same cross section at the groove or slot that accepts the weaver style ring. Aluminum has a modulus of elasticity of 10 while steel has a value of 30 (once again ignore the decimal points.) Given the same cross section, steel is 3 x stiffer than aluminum.

I use nothing but steel bases. In my opinion, the 6-screw base is advisable for very heavy recoil calibers. I have the 6-screw base on my 30-06 pistol barrel, on my 500 S&W pistol barrel, and on my 375 H&H rifle barrel. The 4-screw base overhangs in the front which is not a problem with light recoil and/or light weight scopes. I actually have the 4-screw base on my 30-06 rifle barrel and it performs just fine.

I discovered the limitations of the aluminum base when I had mounted a large heavy scope on my 22-250 rifle barrel. I could visually see the front of the scope deflect just with downward finger pressure. The steel base resolved that with just 4-screws. And the rifle shoots 1” groups all day long. In this instance the overhang with the large scope worked out O.K.

I have the 6-screw base on my 30-06 pistol because I was unable to get my scope to stop slipping in the rings. I opted for the J.D. Jones setup with 3-rings which includes the 6-hole base. Since then, if I suspect I will have a concern for slippage, I simply try 3-rings in combination with the 4-screw base. I have 3-rings on the 30-06 rifle barrel mentioned above which has the 4-screw base.

The 375 H&H was something I did not want to monkey with so I sent it to J.D. to have the 6-hole base installed and I am using 4-rings. Not about to go anywhere.

The 500 S&W pistol barrel was another story. I initially tried the 4-screw base. I mounted the base and went to the range. I soon discovered I had been shipped the wrong base. I had mounted a Contender base instead of an Encore base. After I got the blood to stop from the cuts in my forehead and stitches applied, I shipped the barrel to J.D. to get the 6-screw base and 4-rings. I suppose the properly sized 4-screw base would work but I did not want to have another run in with my 4x Burris scope which survived the ordeal. I am finally over the flinching! In the final analysis, a properly fitting steel base is better!

I suppose I should recognize part one of the original question…I use the 3x9 Burris Fullfield II scope on my 30-06 rifle barrel and it works just fine. You can get one at auction for around $150.

Grumulkin · « **Reply #16 on:** June 29, 2007, 04:43:36 PM »

Thompson/Center Weaver bases should hold up to 30/06 recoil but I prefer steel bases. For a 30/06, a 4 hole base is fine. In fact a steel 4 hole base held up fine for me in a 375 H&H Magnum.

The 500 S&W Magnum is a special case. An aluminum base or a 4 hole base will probably not stay securely on such a gun for more than 100 to 200 rounds. If you're going to shoot one of these and want things to stay put for awhile, I would recommended the SSK 6 hole, 4 ring T'SOB base.

HEAD0001 · « **Reply #17 on:** June 29, 2007, 11:10:49 PM »

To Encore3006: Well put, Tom.

30-06man · « **Reply #18 on:** July 18, 2007, 05:48:03 PM »

For about $200 you can have a Leupold Vx1 3-9 and i love that scope on my 30.06. as far as rings and bases you can have Leupold Steal Rings for about $35 which is around in your price range. Also I have one Nikon buckmasters scope on my T/C Encore 45cal muzzleloader. i like the Leupold better. and Leupold is made in the USA so its the best choice in my book. and its crisp and clearer than the Nikon's. Also i looked at Bushnell Elite 3200 scopes they are just as good as all three of these and i would stick with leupold dual dovetail bases and rings

sweetwyominghome · « **Reply #19 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:29:06 AM »

If your VX1 is significantly clearer and crisper compared to your BuckMasters, something is amiss. You'll need to send it in to Nikon to be checked out.

The BM holds a distinct edge in resolving power, apparent brightness, image contrast, (especially in the shadows) and edge-to-edge clarity over the VX1 lineup. There really is no comparison...

30-06man · « **Reply #20 on:** July 19, 2007, 01:57:30 PM »

thanks. today i went to the range and before i shot it i cleaned it and it was improved by a great deal.

sweetwyominghome · « **Reply #21 on:** July 19, 2007, 02:28:41 PM »

I am glad the scope is OK and that a simple cleaning took care of the problem. It's amazing how a thin layer of dust will affect image quality.

30-06man · « **Reply #22 on:** July 19, 2007, 02:37:49 PM »

true. have you seen the bushnell 3200 and what do you think of it? because i am thinking of buying it for another barrel for my encore

Ahab · « **Reply #23 on:** July 21, 2007, 12:42:17 PM »

Quote from: Deadeye351 on June 22, 2007, 04:41:40 PM

Steel bases Expand and contract more when the temp... changes than Aluminum. Just something to think about.

Sorry, the coefficient of expansion is greater for aluminum.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #24 on:** July 21, 2007, 01:16:10 PM »

Ahab is 100% correct, steel is thermally affected just about half as much as aluminum. Anyone old enough to have experience with early aluminum head automotive engines will certainly agree!!

Tim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_thermal_expansion

Davemuzz · « **Reply #25 on:** July 21, 2007, 03:39:43 PM »

Aluminum?

Anyone old enough to have a friend who owned a Chevy Vega? When they overheated those Vega motors just one time, that pretty much toasted 'em. Those motors were aluminum blocks and heads.....one of chevy's "marvels". (Or was it Marbles?)

Dave