Originally Posted by 340boy
+1 on the bitchfest, Mike.

I don't think I could shoot a rifle with the scope as far back as JO prefers-on the other hand, if it works for him that is fine by me.


You might be surprised, Tim! Have you ever tried mounting one of your rifles with your eyes closed, to help find the natural way your body wants to interface with the rifle? For me, that's with my head/face a little further back on the stock than many others seem to prefer- though I'd ask them if they've tried the above, also. You might try it. Try it in different body postions, rifle at an up angle, down angle... note whether you'd be better off with the scope forward, or back, relative to your natural position mounting the rifle. Just a thought.

I've had a lot of luck in the shooting sports by placing the scopes of my rifles where they function best, when my body is in it's most comfortable, natural position with the rifle. As opposed to, placing the scope where "everyone says" it should go, then contorting my body to that placement. Is this because my body is odd? I have no idea. It might be. I'm a big guy, and a limber neck is not an Olsen attribute <g>. We are kind of stout and stiff in the upper shoulder/neck area. My dad has degenerating disks in his neck that, he's told, are congenital. Maybe my neck is screwy. So it could certainly just be a "me" thing.

As to getting hit by the scope, sometimes the mental exercise called reducto ad absurdum is useful. Reduce the argument to an absurdity, in one direction or the other, and examine it from that context.

In that light, imagine moving the scope on your rifle forward a couple inches (towards the muzzle). Now imagine "chasing" it with your head, forward, such that you've maintained the same distance from scope to eyebrow (since we are all, apparantly so deathly afraid of a scope cut!)... now, imagine the physics of a rifle under recoil. It doesn't want to come straight back; it sort of rotates up, and comes back. With that in mind, picture the result of moving the scope that far forward, then chasing it with your head, forward. Ouch!

Now, imagine the same physics of recoil, except with both your head, and the scope, moved further back. The distance from head to scope is the same, but both are farther back on the rifle, which is coming back, and rotating up, in recoil. Is it better, or worse, in terms of a potential scope cut?

That said, it's just a thought experiment. Could be completely off base, and I make no claims of expertise in knowing what is best for ya'll. I simply, humbly, and as nicely as possible do make the claim that, having messed with this scope placement and LOP business to my satisfaction, I have found what works best for ME. Across a decent span of time, numerous brands and types of rifles, over 10,000 rounds fired, and to include several hard kickers- notably my .325 WSM Montana, and my sporter .338, both of which I shoot so much that I have to STOP myself from taking them every time. It just... works for me, and works well.

Fuel for the fire. Just put some Talley's on my 30-06 to replace the clusterphuck of mounts/rings I had on there. Thank you to the Campfire, for helping me discover Talleys!! Anyway, while I had the Talley's in my hand I compared them to the mounts/rings on my .338. It's a M700. Right now it has Warne cross-slot bases and, if I'm remembering right, Warne rings. It has been absolutely, completely, reliable and rock-solid. And I'm poor as a churchmouse right now. So what am I about to do? Order some Talley's for it. Why? Because they'll let me move the Zeiss 3.5x10x44 further back towards me almost 1/4", and that would be a good thing- for ME. And it's MY RIFLE.

Good day to all, except Art, who can kiss my hairy white ass for starting all this!




Last edited by Jeff_O; 06/04/09.
The CENTER will hold.

Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two

FÜCK PUTIN!