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

When I'm feelin' really sexy, I wear my "flyweights"...

Sorry, I had to do it....
Ingwe

The M7's have the standard Remington/McMillan/most everyone 13 1/2'' LOP. I'm guessing it felt so short because of the idiotic way he's got the scope mounted.

JO - a man you know, who's an experienced shooter, has been through the Thunder Ranch rifle class, and who's actually held your rifle is telling you the scope is mounted wrong. That right there is called a clue.

I've no idea on the name of the lake, or if it even has a name. It's pretty small, but there's gotta be a few cutts in it. It's been a few years since I've been up there as well....hope I can find it!!!

Off to crack a few backs to make the world a better place......Jeff, maybe you should check into getting a few neck adjustments if you've got problems like you've stated. I'd help you out, but it's a bit of a drive from Montana

It sounds like you didn't hold the rifle with the proper ear lobe weld BMT. Did you get to see the black ring of parallax adjustment?

Jeez . . . .

Personally, I think the problem is the Brick of a scope that Zeiss built.

A 1.5 power should be a LOT more compact.

The Leupies on Jeff's Rifles are mounted a LOT more forward.

If anything, holding that rifle, (snd shooting some of Jeff's other rifles) confirmed for me the Superiority of the Leupold design (giving up a litle optically in order to reduce weight and increase the eyebox)

BMT

So . . . . . . I'm sayin' the problem is that Leupold is better than ZEISS.

(that should be good for 5 more pages)

Now you've done it. E will be along in a few minutes to join the fray in your support.

Yeah...., This was our Montana fishing thread after all

Just go ahead and hi-jack it

And well he should.

Ear lobe weld...........now that's friggin funny. I think even Jeff would get a laugh out of that.

That being said....I'm happy that however Jeff wants to set up his rigs, and I do believe he's said they work for him, it's his call and he's the only one that has to live with it.

Also, I'll take a leupy any day of the week, because I like 'em just fine. Are there better out there? Sure, but with 30 years or so of using leupy's with zero failures and a hundred plus BG kills, I'm sticking with what works for me.

Now, back to the fly fishing...........

Amen.

BMT

7mm-08 beats the .308 every way.

End of discussion.

Feel free to agree with me or be wrong.

I LIKE that...request permission to use it sometime...
Ingwe

Number of main battle rifles chambered in 7-08 please?

BMT

You know, I've got a few rifles in the safe. Being a considerate father, and having some credit at a local rifle shop, one day I asked about 7-08's for the boy and ended up going home with a Kimber 84. I wanted his first rifle to be one he would always be proud of, take good care of, and have for the rest of his days, and as he got older and appreciated it more, he would look at his poor old decrepit dad and congratulate me on my good taste and wisdom in firearms.

My son is now 4 1/2, so there's a few years left before he'll actually be able to use it and appreciate it........but, with all the other choices available to me, I find it challenging to avoid grabbing the lil' 7-08 when I'm stepping out into the mountains. With a 120 tsx it's done well this past year, accounting for a few deer and one moose. I'm a big fan of the 270 Win, but this super cartridge is so close in performance as to make no practical difference that I can notice in the field.

And while I do not feel qualified to answer the "which is better" question, I can tell you that I like the 7-08 a lot. My son's rifle will likely have a scratch or two on it from dear old dad when he gets it, as I just enjoy carrying and shooting the little Kimber. And maybe, after I get one just like it for his younger brother, I'll get myself one as well.

I like 7-08, a lot, but my preference for 7-08 (over .308) myself has to do with .308 being a wannabe 30-06, while 7mm-08 is just plain neat-o and stands on it's own two feet without having to pretend to be something else.

That said, duckear, a good case can be made that the two are pretty damn equivelant. Fair warning!

As to scope mounting this and that, I'm simply gonna repeat that mounting a constant-eye-relief scope (especially) so that it suits a guy ain't rocket science, and leave it at that. My scope isn't mounted there by accident.

And for castandblast I'll add that I am 100% technically correct in my statement that the "black around the image" provides a useful means to reduce parallax when shooting long range. And I can prove it, easily and quickly, though I know you to be as chickensh!t as Sitka Deer when it comes to backing up the little potshots you like to take, so I won't expect the satisfaction of whuppin' on you. So there!

From the "Leupold Riflescope Owner's Handbook", (the little booklet that comes in the same box as the scope and has instructions for mounting same):

Page 5: "Because of the safety considerations associated with proper eye relief, Leupold strongly recommends that you mount your scope as far foward as possible."


Page 6: "------------WARNING------------- If a scope is mounted too far to the rear, the eyepiece can injure the shooter's brow. Shooting at an uphill angle also increased this hazard because it shortens the distance between the brow and the rear of the scope. For this reason, Leupold scopes are engineered to provide generous eye relief. Therefore, when mounting your scope, we recommend positioning it as far forward in the mounts as possible to take full advantage of this generous eye relief.

Castandbals.

I shot the pictured Montans. That scope is mounted OK. A little back, but not bad.

The general rule is that the ocular lens (not the end of the scope, but the lens) be located in line with back of the trigger guard.

In the photo above, the lens is less than an inch further back.

If you'll look at the talleys, there is not a lot of room to move it forward.

Mine is positioned similarly:



In handling these rifles, I have concluded that the odd mounting is based upon a flawed analysis.

That analysis began with the assumption that the 1.5-5 CONQUEST was worth having.

That's a pretty stinging condemnation of the Conquest.

Your mileage, of course, may vary . . . . .
BMT

BMT
"The general rule is that the ocular lens (not the end of the scope, but the lens) be located in line with back of the trigger guard."

A "rule" I have not heard before...

As the Bard might have said "Surely you jest". The Conquest is claimed to have 4" of eye relief. If that is where the scope need be to "fit" then adjustments must be made elsewhere for a hunting rifle.

The noted fact another shooter was bitten by said sad mounting should trump any weak argument about the user's needs. That mainly attributable to the lack of knowledge and experience displayed by said mounter. The Risk:Reward ratio is sadly skewed under the circumstances of a potential injury of extreme consequence and the absolute and utter lack of compelling argument for the positioning. Having seen bad results from poor mounting (lack of options rather than poor choices) it is obvious only the uninformed could weigh in for the mounting.

And clearly the scope manufacturers do not want their scopes mouonted that far back...
art