Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles opinion of 7mm-08 rem. vs 308

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!

Jeff
Wow, we get a hissy fit for the same price of admission!

Anyone that has actually used a rifle much knows what can happen when absurd shot positions are required. Getting hit by a scope is not a joke. There are one-eyed folks that can tell you how funny it is.

I have hunted with a large number of different folks over the years and many were quite new to shooting. I have yet to see a scope mounted that far back... And that includes many scopes with seriously compromised eye relief.

The really funny part is how hard you are working at getting a rise out of me.
art

That was funny.

Coming from Jeff, I'd say it's more likely a come on line, than an insult.....just sayin'

Jeff,
I tend to be a 'stock crawler' and have, I hate to say, gotten wacked or bumped in the eye several times.

For that reason, I prefer to mount my scopes with the end of the occular lined up with the point where the back of the action meets the stock(the tang?) and do any fine adjusting from that point depending upon the rifle, scope, etc.

So, I prefer my scopes considerably farther foward than what seems to suit you.

Lucky never gotta the magnum eyebrow as of yet.Actually kinda proud of the fact.

Funniest thing said in the last 100 pages.........

...and this might be a very good time to do so.

Good deal, Mike!

I have never gotten wacked so bad that I had bleeding or anything, but they were enough to hurt and piss me off, that is for sure!!

When I did feel the presence of a scope near my eyebrow was with my very first rifle, a 30-06, with the scope mounted by a "pro".

Guess where it was mounted? Guess what fixed it? Anyone?

How is that? If a "pro" mounted the scope properly (i.e., farther forward than you personally mount scopes), and you place your head so far back on the stock, how could you have possibly "feel the presence" of the scope???

Lemme guess, you moved it back? A scope almost bit you, so you fixed the problem by moving it closer to your eye......

Telling....

So here's the thing that nobody is saying. Your stance is very wrong. I'd guess that your offhand game at moving targets with a rifle is pretty poor. Judging from the pic of your stance, your weight is waaaay to far back to have a consistent swing and follow through. Having shot a bit of trap, and a lot of offhand rifle work, I would say your stance has a bit of silhouette influence, where you are trying to support most of the rifle weight with bone stucture to minimize rifle movement.

Which brings up the next point. Anyone can pick up a rifle with the scope set too far back (as long as they know its too far back) and hit with it from a rest. Very few can use that same rifle to hit a moving target.

What I'd like to know is how 4" of eye relief, with your ear resting on the butt pad, is somehow better than 4" inches of eye relief with your cheek on the "cheek piece", where it's supposed to be.

TFF.....

Surprised I was the only one to comment on that......grin

Me too, but it still don't diminish the inherent humour.....grins

Wall, you listening? Didn't think so.

Jeff,

If you naturally place your cheek that far back on the stock, how do you go about shooting an AR with A2 style sights?

Especially from the sitting and kneeling.


Travis

At some point Pathos sets in and respect is hard to find. He insists he has it dialed and he does not even begin to have a clue. It is harder and harder to feel sorry for him though when he refuses to acknowledge the experience of those knowing better...

The best he has in support is "Well, if it works for you..."
art

Interesting. Other people assuming what works for someone else can't be right if it doesn't work for them.

The world (internet) is so full of dumbazzes as to be amazing...