Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Super Sniper 3-9X42 on Kimber Montana

Multiplication is fun.

JeffhomO, how much elevation did you gain by going with those Talleys? I'm just getting into shooting, so I'm taking notes from skilled veterans. Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok that explains it --> NOT. +p++ ?

Imagine a newcomer to 24hr'fire -he decides to read this thread -no way in hades would he believe what he's reading or even know what the hale is going on with this thread about a 6x scope..
He'd ponder "will a moderator dynamite this thread ? " NO WAY --!
That's the beauty of the Fire' .!P +P ++

6x45 = 270

5.56x45 necked up to 6mm = 6x45

I can't simplify it or condense it any more than that...

Thanks.... they are Booners for sure... started out 10-12 years ago when my kids got tired of cleaning their goldfish tank so I put them in the stock tank. The fish, not the kids. Several goldfish and a couple shebunken. They bred. I have 75-100 fish in there now; it's a problem!

There was significant jip-jappery involved in getting the rifle to stay put like that.... grin.... see the wire?

Ok, I'll bite.

What wares am I talking shït about?

SWFA glass (which is what this thread is actually about) and 1913s on a Kimber....

You're also talking schitt about others using the same wares you use so proficiently.... like ass-shots. Your hypocrisy and idiocy know no bounds....

I love the sound you make when you STFU...

I'm not talking shít about SWFA glass. Scroll back, prove otherwise. My only opinion on it is that it would appear to have great bang for the buck.

EHG did post some specifics about tracking/RTZ errors he measured. I'm not EHG.

Stick, on the other hand, DOES talk shït about NF, and as we have seen has very minimal experience with it....... to put it kindly.

He also shot a deer in the ass with a 162 Amax, on purpose, at long range. Is what it is.

But you are missing something here. This is in good fun. Humor, man! Lighten up, Francis.

You're the one missing something here.... namely brain cells and a sack....

Funny you can't show me dissing SWFA, though, don't you think? Are you conceding that one, or would that take too much brain cells and/or sack?

SO GLAD I don't have to live in your grumpy-ass world.

I'd actually like to try me some SWFA sometime; people I trust, say good things.... but I decided to just skip the buy cheap then "upgrade" route (as Tanner put it) and go straight to NF. So far, I'm very happy with my POS Nightfarce scopes.

jeff0, how far have you stretched out those Nightforce? I'm looking into getting into long range, and you are a wealth of information. Thanks!

My advice... Warne bases (steel), with Maxima rings (steel).

I had Talley's crack on my 84. Mine were not fully bedded, but I'm not sure if bedding would solve the problem anyway. Others claim that it does, but I have no firsthand experience and would just skip the Talleys.



And I had Leupo DD crack...



No problems once the Warne bases and rings were installed.

Here's my setup. Warne bases that I had my gunsmith buddy open the cross slot on. With the APA rings, the scope height is perfect. Eye aligns perfect for me, no need for any stock pack or cheek risers.

Yep. If Maxima rings, or other Weaver-style rings, don't do it for you on Warne mounts, then open the slots on the mounts. You can mill/file/Dremel the rear face and keep things square on the recoil face.

Dang, torquemiester.....

You'd think someone would come along with steel LW'esque rings. Remmie had something floating around. I'd guess they were crap though. I think Echols does some, but I wouldn't wanna refinance my house for a set of rings.

16B,

Failures like those are interesting, and make me think that there might be more at play than recoil magnitude and/or fastener torque. Others have mentioned that the receiver might be out of spec. But.. all three brands of mounts fit the receiver well, and a center-less ground rod showed no issues with co-linearity.

Makes me wonder if mode shapes would reveal anything. One of these days I'll do a modal test and instrument a rifle with transducers to collect data while firing.

Jason

Speak English 4th.

?Do you feel that less torque (say 28"#'s) and bedding bases to the receiver is best.
With any action I have a gun smith square I provide a base and ask it to be set up with pins. I always looked at threads like a splitting wedge. I also think a tight fit pin, pinning the base to the receiver may stop the sheer from every so slight front to back movement during recoil. The pins would allow the screws to be focused on just clamping down as they are intended then my OCD beds the base to the receiver well because it's OCD and every bit helps.

Also what transducer are you using for pressure testing ect? I'm a fan of the piezo transducer but never used them out side of pressure testing with a wiseman universe receiver. I have rolled around the idea of an exterior set up to test hunting rifles but they seem less than reliable and not easily adapted to the rifles I would be interested in collecting data in.

Those Remington 700 ringmounts were not too popular. I ran across a rack full of them today, just medium height one-inchers, at $15/set and two sets marked $5 each! Skipped those even. I forget the particulars, but as I recall, there was a brand name associated with them before they became Remingtoons. This should be helpful information to those mounting SWFA 30mm scopes on their Montanas.

I think they have were called Durasight. I have a set on an AR.