Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics more on the new eclipse.......in depth

You didn't offend me at all....came close expaining the "appearant" thing though <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I understand what your boy is saying about scope height, but I cannot fathom anyone thinking of it as any more than a side note.......At best all extending P.B.R. could do is to make up for someone's not knowing much about their rifle....SO in my mind, anyone who would hear what he says is already beyond needing to hear it.
Have you taken the time to see how much differance in PBR an additional inch in scope ht would get you ? I haven't because I wouldn't raise my scope on a dare.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I hope I haven't offended anyone, it was not intended if I did.

WGM

I agree with your statement that the conventional wisdom of mounting a scope "as low as possible" is not always the right choice for every shooter.

I learned this lesson first hand when I mounted identical Leupold 2-1/2X scopes on two different rifles using "medium" height rings. On my Ruger 77/44 .44 Mag., the scope height and alignment was perfect with the factory medium rings. On my Kimber 84M .308 Win., I had to force myself into an unnatural mounting position to acheive proper alignment with factory bases and Burris Signature medium rings.. I measured the difference in drop-at-comb and centerline-of-bore to centerline-of-scope on both rifles and determined that I needed high Burris Signature rings on the Kimber to duplicate the alignment on the Ruger with the medium factory rings. After I made this change, both rifles mounted naturally for me.

Proper scope mounting height is a function of many factors. Some shooters have long narrow faces while others have wider or rounder ones. Different brands of bases and rings have slight variations in the actual height of their "low" rings from the centerline of the bore. Stock dimensions, particularly drop-at-comb, also play a significant part in selecting proper ring height.

I prefer my hunting rifles to to mount and line-up naturally like a shotgun with light cheek contact. What works for me, may not work naturally for you, and vice-versa. My point is that conventional wisdom of "as low as possible" is not always the right choice for every shooter and combination of equipment. If you have to adjust your head and/or neck away from your natural mounting position to properly see through your scope, I suggest that you consider that higher rings may be right for you despite what conventional wisdom says.

Phil

Phil,

I would like to hear more about shooting rifles with high scopes and light cheek contact, as I posted above I am trying to improve my shooting, and haven't heard of that technique for shooting rifles other than off of a bench, but you mentioned raising your rifle naturally, so I think you mean in a standing position.......

Most of my shooting practice is in the prone position, with more emphasis on the sitting position starting very soon...

Thanks for your time.

I've been through it with Ken before(my stance being the merits of low mounted glass,affixed to a rifle geared to accept same).

Let's just say you cain't mount a scope high enough on a 30-30,to change it into something it isn't.

That'd be the long and the short of it................

I guarantee some guy out there will buy it simply BECAUSE of the funky way it looks. Likely sway it around the range until someone makes a comment- then leap at the opportunity to tell them how cutting edge he is for being the first on the block with one. My thought is - It would look great on a Remington ETRONIC!!!! If you know what I mean.

Weak argument, it�s like saying that you shouldn�t get a Premier Reticle installed in your Leupold, since after all it�s a Leupold�.If you want to improve, do it right and get a Conquest maybe� Then again, I might agree...

Mike, does your keyboard play tunes for you as you type ?

not sure, have no speaker...

I'm all ears on the Conquest's ability to flatten 30-30 trajectories,especially as compared to a Leupie scoped version of same.

Enlighten me..................

It seems to me that the physics of optics dictate round lenses to be the most efficient for telescopes. This has been known for hundreds of years and will not change. Redfield pushed this with the ellipse to good effect. I feel there was nothing wrong with that approach, to trade a little efficiency for functional shape. If Redfield had advanced in the construction excellence and production efficiency that Leopold did, they would be here as an equal now.

If the lense is sliced, then it seems that some light would be lost at the input (50mm across is really 45mm overall or something). Throughput would be the same, yet there would not be as much to start with:) Slicing it on the bottom only (verses the ellipse) would reduce the cut in light by 1/2 and still lower the scope. This would roughly give only 1/2 of the "top heavy" reduction of the Redfield, though.

The Redfield was a much better looking scope. Why can't Leopold do simply a better job of building that shape?

There are obviously some reasonable limits to scope height, so thinning a scope does look appealing. The top heavy aspect could really apply to a very large scope. To get higher magification dictates more light must pass to achieve the same brightness as for lower magnification, so larger objectives and tubes are required.

I wonder though, how many of us really shoot a significant percentage of game at 400 yards plus?

Then there is this to consider. Up to a limit, dead zero distance is increased by RAISING your scope. This can very important if you hunt in generally thick areas that sometimes open to a 250 yard quick shot. Not having to worry about hold over on top of everything else can mean the difference between taking the game or not.

To me, the quality of light transmission is of paramount importance so that the size of the scope can be MINIMIZED. Then, I can raise it over my steel sights!!

Try the new Hornady Leverevolution 30-30 Ammo. Get ready for a pleasant shock!

Just ran a coupla trajectory ribbons through my PACT,which I've beaucoup faith within.

Anywhoo...

Figuring 3000fps muzzle velocity,with a .505BC,the 1.5" sight height yields a MPBR on an 8" target,of 331yds.

Same load,via 5" sight height,yields a whopping 368yd zero.

The 1.5" sight height rifle drops -258.4" at 1000yds.

The 5" sight height rifle drops -240.4" at 1000yds.

Amazingly compelling stuff....give or take.................

IMHO, if ya gotta relay on gimmicks to make the difference on hits and misses, ya need more range time and less number crunching.

Amazing how those buffalo hunters with BP Sharps rifles hit at long-range, and how PD shooters with the little .221/.222/.223 cartridges smack prairie poodles WAY out there... all without the newestest and mostest specialest scopes, mounts, and doo-hickeys.

Can't be the trigger-time... can it?

So when is the last time someone saw a buffalo hunter work? They can be hunted under some circumstances again. But hey, those guys rode horses and stuff. We have all this stuff to save time so we can do the extra figuring. See nothing wrong with that. And sometimes those poodle shooters just lob it out there and work it on target.

Anybody who is running their scope in crazy high rings for tradjectory reasons needs to do some extra figuring to over come all the extra figuring which they have already either done themselves, or bought into through ignorance............

Big Stick was generous enough with his time and equipment to prove it to you about two replies ago........

" This can very important if you hunt in generally thick areas that sometimes open to a 250 yard quick shot. Not having to worry about hold over on top of everything else can mean the difference between taking the game or not. "


I would like to see the effect of your first ten quick rounds on a paper plate at 250 yards..........BTW how quick is quick, and how long does it take to estimate a 1 or 2 inch bullet drop from your 200 yard zero ?

some people ain't good at math ?!

Some people ain't good at anything.................

I do wonder if anyone has considered "Mirage" when designing this .
Leupold would have done better to improve the whole line of scopes and drop the bottom end stuff.Then maybe we would not have to send them back so often. Nuff said!
Glenn

I'd of settled for a 1pc tube 6x42,with etched SPR reticle and M2 turrets.....................