See-through Scope Rings

[Greysky]

To facilitate the use of the aftermarket iron sights I mounted on my 30-30 NEF, I recently had a GM gunsmith mount see-through scope rings on it as well for ranges exceeding fifty yards.

Do any of you folks use see-through rings?

If you do, are you satisfied with them?

[Mac11700]

I don't..I tried them 1 time..and haven't wanted to use them since..

Mac

[Hammerspur]

:xTried 'em but positively DETEST the things! Might be good for use with open sights, but using the scope I feel like I have my chin on the comb.

I prefer low power variable scopes left on lowest setting unless range is called for.

[quickdtoo]

:noway:  :noway:  :noway:

[superjay01]

I personaly do not like them because I have to hold my head up so high. Besides, I always make sure that my scope is good to go before I go hunting so I have never seen the point of them.

[sealer]

they are JUNK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dennis

[longwalker]

They were invented when scopes fogging up was a real problem. Buy a good scope and you won't need them. If you are using an old scope with some history to it. make sure you stabilize the the scope to the current outside air temerature. Leave it out over night.


longwalker

[Ditchdigger]

Also when your're hunting and its to dim to see your sights you can still see the animal clearly with a good scope. I use mine regurally to check for horns,beards etc. in dim light.  Digger

[Greysky]

Thanks for the honest, albeit negative opinions regarding see-through scope rings.

My wife and I both like to have the ability to use both scope and iron sights. And this has nothing to do with the functional quality of the scope.

We also prefer the heads-up, as opposed to the scrunched neck position when using the scope. Plus, there is no need to attach an offset hammer spur to clear the scope adjustment ring.

[bluebayou]

My right shoulder is quite a bit lower than my left from having some shoulder surgery.  I also have a long neck/big head so they say.  The see through mounts work similar to extra high mounts for me.  I couldn't give a flip about them for iron sights, but they are normally available at WalMart or where ever.  Sometimes high mounts are scarce.  Changing mount height improved my accuracy.  Otherwise, the butt of the Handi stock rests with the bottom edge on my collarbone.  I suppose a shotgun type stock with a lot of drop to it my work but then I am back to the cheekweld problem that I have now with extra high or see through rings.... ah, well.

[jbtazgrabber]

i used the see threw a lot untill i started shooting past 100 yds....then i took them off and group size shrank by half......buti cant hit the broard side of the barn <from inside the barn>with a scope at a running deer......but im too old to see horns  at much distance either.....so i use them<see thur mounts> if its under a 100 yd shot..........jb

[MSP Ret]

I have a couple of guns set up with them for woods hunting where the shots could be long (use the scope) or closer in the thick stuff (use the iron sights). I like them as lot for their intended purpose. And as Greysky says they are better for  "Heads up" shooting which is the best way for quick shots, bring the gun up to your eye level, do not bring your eye down to the gun, which is more like a deliberate, bench rest or varmit shot where you have more time to carefully aim with the scope....<><.... :grin:

[nomosendero]

Friends don't let friends use see-throughs!!

You will NEVER, NEVER see a serious rifleman use see-through mounts. I hate them & get p@&&*% off when I see them.

You will also NEVER see a GOOD Gunsmith that wants to mount them on a rifle.

When I was a kid, the scopes like the Weaver K4 & Redfields were starting
to trickle into our part of our then isolated World. As allways, change is hard for some & most people thought they had to have see-throughs.
1. As longwalker stated, some of the early scopes fogged which at least gave a little reason back then, not now. 2. Most people felt that the scopes did not have enough field of view & alot of this was because they also bought those stupid little 22 scopes for their 22's & they did not have much field of view. Some of us tried to tell hunters that the centerfire scopes had plenty of field of view, but it was like talking to a fence post in most cases or like talking to a Lib. today. 3. Scopes were not as rugged then as now & the rings & mounts are better now as well excluding the see-throughs.

As good as scopes are now, there is ZERO advantage to using see-through mounts.
1. IRONS are NOT faster. With irons you must align the rear sight, the front sight & the target. With the scope, you put the crosshairs on the target & that's it.  When we were in our teens, me & my brother mounted Weaver K-4's on our 22's. & we would practice getting on targets quick by aiming at Black Birds as they flew over. At that time, we had never heard of Dick Cheney, but we did point our muzzles in a safe direction. Anyway, we became very fast & many of our friends who hunted with us found out that Scopes are actually faster.
2. With see-throughs, you will not get a proper cheek weld & that means you will be slower with the scope than you should be & you will have
parralax issues big time and this will destroy your accuracy as jtbazgrabber mentioned. You just cannot be as accurate with this set-up.
3. Throw you trajectory charts away as they won't work for you anyway.
These charts were plotted with a scope at normal height above the centerline of the bore. No need to make your own charts because groups
at longer ranges would be eratic anyway.
4. See-throughs are not rugged mounts & have a much greater chance of being knocked off.
5. See-throughs are ugly & hurt the balance of the weapon.
6. Scopes will give you additional hunting time in the morning & afternoon
& more so if you are looking through the center of the scope.
7. You can see brush with the scope that you can't with irons & you can thread the needle with a scope IF you are looking through it properly &
don't have parrallex issues.

If you go on a Western hunt & you think that something may happen to your scope, use Weaver type rings & carry a tool in your pack to remove it. Then you have your irons.

In a lifetime of hunting & after taking a quantity of Deer over the century mark a long time ago, I have NEVER lost an opportunity by using a Scope instead of irons, not once.

Good rings are inexpensive, please buy some.

Greysky, I have no reason to be negative, but I do have a reason to be
factual & tell you my findings based on experience. This was done in the spirit of answering your question the best that I can.

[darat100]

nomosendero

you and some of the others here seem to be missing the point of the see through to me.  

When shooting at a deer or whatever else I might be hunting, I don't care about groups.  If I hit within 3 or 4 inches of my target, dead animal, humane kill.  Of couse, we all practice to be able to hit exactly where we aim, but that doesn't always happen.  As long as I make a clean kill, I am happy.

I challenge even the best shooter to find a way to hit a deer on the run with a scope inside 25 yards.  I can do it most every time with my open sights if the woods isn't too thick.  

No, see through sights don't offer the best option for target shooting, but if I can't hunt with a gun, why shoot anything bigger than a .204 or .17 anyway.  I have setups to target shoot with and setups to hunt with, but if you only have one, you have to be able to hunt with it too.

[nomosendero]

No, I did not miss that point at all. Scopes are faster, provided of course if you choose a scope that is not too high powered on the low end, with good eye relief & not set too high. I started shooting at about 10 years old
& iron sights is all we had. We squirrel hunted during our long season & would shoot snakes & plink the rest of the year, allmost a daily activity.
In my late teens we acquired 22's with K4 scopes & after a year or 2 of use, we found out we were quicker with these rifles than we were with irons, & that includes 25 yards or less. We did all we could to buy these 22 shells (difficult then) & we were as efficient as possible, that means if the irons were better, you best believe we would have went back to them.
Again, I believe our practice of following the Black Birds was a big help. I
think a less experienced person will at first be quicker with irons. I am not sure why you would make that challange, as it is done by hunters every year. I am around very experienced hunters a great deal, kind of who I hang with & NONE of them will disagree on this, we have ceased those discussions long ago.
But, I am thankful that we have the freedom to shoot what we like & I have no problem with those who want to hunt with irons. I still shoot them some just to stay familar with them & hunt with irons on half of my Handguns, but that is a different matter & with those we are talking about
a different deal entirely.
Sooo, I am sorry that you missed my point!

[Mac11700]

I challenge even the best shooter to find a way to hit a deer on the run with a scope inside 25 yards. I can do it most every time with my open sights if the woods isn't too thick.

It would be easy enough to do this with the right scope...say a good 1x or  2x..but it is a-lot easier to fit the gun to you..and make it easier to shoot with also..this is one of the reasons for the adjustable recoil pads from Morgan...they allow to to raise or lower the stock without the need for the see thrus and give you the best fit available..See thru mounts on a Handi..isn't the greatest to begin with..you would have to have your sites almost elevated completely to see over the scope rail to begin with..and while there are some who have already replaced the front site on their rifles..a-lot of folks haven't.. and you don't always have to have high scope rings to clear the hammer extention...or even use a hammer extention..so..that point is moot as well.Some folks do however like them..I know a bunch that do....and I even know a couple guys that still use the old weaver tip over rings and mounts..another type I cared nothing for..

My advise...get a good 2x7scope that has non-critical eye relief (re-Leupold)..and try it..it will allow you to see game clearly at spitting distance..you can shoot it and see thru it clearly with a high head hold..or low head hold..and you'll be more accurate at all distances...have your gun dealer put one on a try stock for you and you will see exactly what I mean..

Mac

[darat100]

Mac

I agree with you on all counts except one.  LEOPOLD.  You are talking big money for a scope.  I have never been able to afford high dollar scopes, so early and late light conditions really effect a hunter like myself.  There is no such thing as a perfect answer to this I am affraid.

[Mac11700]

darat100:

I don't consider a $179.00 outragously high for a good Leupold scope...which is what I paid for my VX-1 2x7x33..I've spent a-lot more..and wasn't happy with them..For me..the VX-1 line is about the best you can do..for the least amount spent. First and last lite is the worst time for me and my eyes as well...especially last lite..using the Leupold allows me to stay in the field till legal hunting hours are over..

Mac

[Hammerspur]

1)"We also prefer the heads-up, as opposed to the scrunched neck position when using the scope."

2)"I challenge even the best shooter to find a way to hit a deer on the run with a scope inside 25 yards."

1) If you have to 'scrunch' your comb is too high.

2) If you can line up THREE objects quickly (target, front sight, rear sight) lining up only two (target, reticle) would be even faster. A properly mounted low power variable on lowest setting, say 1 or 1.5, is every bit as quick to the eye, IF NOT QUICKER than irons... providing your rifle 'fits' you, same as open sights.

[Hammerspur]

Oh yeah, one more thing. If having trouble on a swinging shot with a low scope power, you're probably not keeping BOTH eyes open.

Two eyed aiming is only a problem if shooting right handed, but with a left dominant eye or vice versa.

[darat100]

Mac

No offense, but if you don't consider $180 for a scope to be expensive, you have either had time to acquire a little money, are single, or never known what it is to have to save to buy the things you like.  Any of these is not a bad thing, just not what I am capable of.

I have to save to be able to afford my Tascos.

[quickdtoo]

An affordable alternative at $115 to the Leupy is the Japan made Weaver K2½x20, weighs just 7.1oz, great eye relief, great FOV, clear and crisp view and extremely well made, it's used on many dangerous game rifles in Africa.

I've killed a lot of on-the-move deer and a few elk inside 25yds with my 2-7x scope set on 2x, it is extremely quick to aquire game. The only time that I can think of iron sights being an advantage would be in foul weather where the scope is constantly getting water on the the lense, then they can be a pain to keep clear, or scope covers will need to be removed before shooting, which can be done quick with practice.

http://theopticzone.com/detail.aspx?ID=2527

Tim

Weaver K2½x20 on my .30-30 Topper

[Hammerspur]

I too have a K2.5 on my old 158 Topper 30-30, the one with the fluted chamber/receiver.

I'm also fond of Weaver V-3's (1-3x), have two of them. Midway USA lists them for $149.95, I think. Great power range for close up to anything short of 'beanfield' yardage.

[tallyho]

Quick and Hammerspur,
Thanks for that bit of info on the scopes on your Toppers. I picked up an older Topper 30/30 recently ('fluted') and have some idea of getting a 45-70 as well.

Since I am moving up to NW Washington shortly, I've been contemplating a scope for hunting that country in the fall. You have provided some good ideas

And Tim, I'm curious about your silver colored Topper? Is that a stainless frame?

Cheers
Kerry

[quickdtoo]

Kerry,

It's just matte nickle plated like the standard stainless Handi frame.

Tim

[Norseman112]

When I was young many moons ago (when I was 14)I brought  my first deer rifle my mother & father got me.  My father was not a hunter, but took me  to a gun smith in my town to scope my new rifle. From the time I was 12 rather it be a shotgun or mil surplus rifle I only used iron sites.  We picked out a redfield 2x7 scope and I told Andy I want to be able to use my iron sites as well as the scope. He told me no you won't and it shouldn't be done with a list of reasons that has been already listed here.

John

[jbtazgrabber]

ok i missed my first deer with a low scope at 12 feet,,,,,ok guys look at your deer head on the wall at 12 feet and tell me what you see.....fur, upclose and personal......nothing else....now tell me if the fur is in the middle or low on the neck.....of coarse you only have a second or two to tell and fire.....ok the heads hit behind a tree all you have is a broadside shot  agian all you see is fur but where is that bullet going to hit at? but where??in the flip side if your a horn hunter can you relly make a good decision on horn size at 100 yds?? with a 2 x scope??im a meat hunter ,so i dont care...i missed a little doe at 15 ft once cause i took the <fur>out of the breast plate tracked for 200 yds and never found......it was at full run then seen me a paused long enough to jump over the fence..on 3 x all i seen was fur.....im not a big fan of see thur mounts...but they do have thier uses.........again ill hit a deer on a drive every time with open sights...the rest of the hunters usally just get it running faster with the misses....but im in pretty thick brush usally so my longest shot ever at a deer was 90 yards.....the  big wallhanger 10 point i got this year was at 20 ft.....the only thing i could see through the tress was a neck,with the scope on 3 all i seen was fur...glad thats all i could see,because my scope was mounted low........jb

[nomosendero]

I just took my Win. 70 Featherweight 30-06AI with 2x7Nikon into the living room & the first mount as you come into the room is a 230# 145-150class 10pt. I got not 12 feet but 10 feet away and aimed at the rather large neck (on 2X) & I could see the ample neck & his face. Pick your scope wisely, this one has allmost 4" eye relief & a great field of view. I then took my H & R Ultra with a 2.8X10Aetec in there & still got the neck & a little of the face, yes it just depends on your scope & have it cranked low.
I have shot them very up close & personal but overall, I guess our Deer are more wary, they will bolt before you get within 12 feet of them & in the hardwoods they will hear you way before you get there. I don't do drives anymore because it does not give me much time to field judge them & brush can give deflection problems, scope or not. But with Deer very close, I have not had the all hair problem, but I have taken a ton of Deer because of my scope set-up. Besides, normally I can still hunt or mainly stand hunt & get the limit anyway.
Also, here in AR. we have had a 3 point rule for many years, when a Deer is sneaking throug the thick stuff, I want to be able to see his rack quickly with a low mounted scope & know he is legal, I have seen a few (only 2-3) Deer with a good bit of horn, but not have 3 points on 1 side. A friend
killed a Deer with a large rack one day when we were hunting together
& it wound up being a perfect 2X2!!! Fortunately, it was before this 3 point rule.  I can do these judgements with a low mount scope, they rule!!

[quickdtoo]

Yup!!!

[blaster2560]

Totaly against anything is not seeing both sides. Dang, if it works for you it works.
John