Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Eye relief too short on V7

Just got a new Weaver V7 in the mail. Dropped it into Talleys on my new Vanguard and... disappointment: I have to crane my neck forward quite a bit to get a full field of view. Objective lens is not very large (I only saw them large on Conquest and Nikons), so FOV seems limited. I am a tall guy and plan to add a stock spacer, too, which will call for even longer eye relief...
Bummer. I really liked V7 in the store - super light, very bright, shorter than most. It tells you that the way they will feel on a particular rifle will be different, even if you try it on a scope-fitting stock. If it was anything other than a 300 Wby, I'd mount it... but pushing my face forward towards that scope rim on this rifle? I don't know... Maybe I should rather get a bit heavier scope but keep my eye brows intact?
-P

I would just get extension rings, or a one piece weaver style base that gives you several mounting options. I love the V's, but they do not have a lot of eye relief compare to Zeiss or Leupold. The price cannot be beat for a jap scope either. The other light option that has good eye relief is the Nikon Monarch, and they make it in a 2x7 too.

Shortmags.org is recommending 3.5" or more in min eye relief for magnum rifles. The Burris ffII 3x9 is 3.3" and the Weavers are about 3.25"

Zeiss conquest 3X9 has a contant 4 inch eye relief. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I did not water my money tree enough for it to sprout enough cash for a Conquest. A good scope priced at less than a half of a Zeiss will do for me.
-P

Paul there is nothing wrong with the V series. I really like those scopes and currently own a 3x9, and a 2x7. The Burris fullfield may be a good scope, but you have to turn the whole eye piece to change power which will keep me from buying another one.

The Leupold VX-II 2-7x33 has a ton of eye relief. The difference in cost might be absorbed by avoiding the bill for a set of stitches. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Dogcatcher, thanks! I brought the V7 with me to work today to look through during daylight (something I can't do after work - no daylight left) and my hunting buddies all like it a lot. I think I will try it on the Vanguard, and I hope it will work just fine. Extended rings I already have and in fact without them it would not mount at all - its tube is 5.25" long so I have about 0.5" to play with. The Vanguard has a long action.
Buying a Buckmasters or Monarch for another $30-$70 will always be an option if the Weaver does not work out, I suppose. I really liked the Nikons' pupil size and eye relief, but they are a almost 4 ounces heavier and 2" longer! The VX-II 2x7 is probably nice but is 75% more expensive than the Weaver. If I move into that price range, there are lots of options, but I am trying to save money for other projects, like a new 338-06.
-P

You could see if Ken Farrell makes a base for your gun. The base weighs more, but it is a picatinny (weaver) rail and there are a ton of slots for various ring mounting positions. I imagine you will find a spot on there to make the Weaver work. I have one on my 30'06 Savage long action. The Savage actions are really l-o-n-g so I had to get the one piece base to make it work. There are probably other brands of one piece picatinny bases that might be lighter than a Farrell.

I tried not to cover up the ejection port. The Talleys are right on the edges of it, and the scope actually fits Ok. I am not really looking to push it back too much, because it would not even hit the forehead on recoil - its smaller ocular would probably end up right in the eyeball <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
-P

I own a 300 Weatherby and I'm familiar with its recoil. When I'm concentrating on a clean trigger squeeze, the last thing I want to be thinking about is whether the excitement brought on by igniting 86 grains of IMR-7828 under a 180 grain Partition will include being whacked in the head or worse, in the eye, by the back end of a scope. If I were in your situation, I'd let a future project 338-06 wait just a little longer and trim out the 300 in hand with a Leupy.

BTW, I'm not in a war against Weavers, I've got one on a 22-250 where it does just fine.

I understand that you don't know me from Adam, so to you my opinion may be worth exactly what you paid for it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

mathman

I have a couple Conquests, a couple Nikons, and several Leupold 2x7's. My favorite is the Leupold. The VXI has the same coatings as the VII, and there is not a scope made that has the eye relief of the Leo 2x7. I can shoot my 2x7 rifles at arms length if I want to, there is that much eye relief on 2x. You can buy them anywhere for $199, and if you can't afford that much, you can buy pretty much the same thing in the Rifleman for $179.

Mathman, I sincerely appreciate your advice! Your opinion is worth to me a whole lot more than I paid for it. I am not in a hurry to outfit the 300 with a scope, and will take my time - perhaps, I will get a different scope for it, there's almost a year before the next season. I like the Weaver for its brightness and light weight, and plan to try it on the rifle - it might be just fine. It is not even the cost so much for the Leupold as that I would hate to spend another $150 on it and find out that there is no substantial difference from the scope I already have - this is the impression I got from comparing it previously to the Weaver side by side.
I think part of my discomfort is that I have to bend forward, but that is not a scope issue: I would probably have to do this with any scope because of my height.
-P

An experienced friend of mine suggested that my problem with fitting the Weaver may be not that of the eye relief but of ring height. He suggested to pad the rings to bring the scope up, tie the scope with rubber rings, and see if this helps. I will be trying that tonight and will post a report.
-P