Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Scope zero shift

What can I say, I'm young and dumb.

In all likelihood, the 7.5lb 280 Rem+162 A-Maxes will be my companion, but I'd sure like to have a light to mid-weight 308 to hunt with someday as well.

Fixed it for ya.

John

Interesting to me when folks want reliability, but then complain about looks.

I've always been a function man. A rifle is SIMPLY a tool. It is not art to me, etc... in fact I don't own what most would call a "pretty" rifle at all. Though I'll admit in ordeing MC stocks I sometimes lean towards funky colors because I think its fun, it certainly wouldn't be considered pretty.

Reliability is the key.

SWFA has held up on my 50 bmg now for more than a few years and probably closing in on 500 rounds shot.

Insignificant I'll grant you, but if you can't see it, you can't shoot it. Early and late is when a lot of chances arise....

But of course I can't see putting a rifle in the bed of a truck or on the floor and flying through my pasture. Both of these, no need to have the rifle uncased for that trip, and cases are cheap.

Yes they take bangs and falls and bumps etc in the field and none of mine are scratch/dent free either, but I won't purposely abuse em....

I can't see it either. Its normally a quick, smooth jaunt but hunters were downrange of our intended range (field) and we had to relocate. The rifle in the floor slipped my mind. As in hunting, shiit happens!

Interesting to me that you missed the fact that I can have both (not to mention a better scope to boot). Of course I've noticed your tendency to only see situations through your own eyes never considering your way isn't the only way, so your comment doesnt surprise me.

A 6X Leupold will get me past legal shooting light. What more do you need?

To the OP:

I'm not sure that's a scope problem. How is your B/A bedded to the stock?

Tom

Tom, You have a valid point. It is pillar bedded (built by Gradous) with large, heavy, pillars and by all indications the bedding is flawless. There is no rubbing of triggers, magazine box, etc. There appears to be no tension but I haven't dial tested it. The lug is bedded to only touch in rear, meaning you can wiggle the barreled action around before its cinched down. I often wonder if only rear contact is best? My logical thinking says I want it in there tight (but what do I know?) I torque action screws with a quality wrench at 65 in/lbs. I check the torque and all was well.

I've had a couple of 6x42 Leupolds and really like the scopes. Plenty bright, light weight, and I've not had one fail. The only thing I didn't like about them was I couldn't get the "perfect" scope. Tried the LRD reticle, but found it too fine for low light shooting. Sent it in for a change to a #4 and M1 elevation turret, but found the center wire on the #4 too coarse (1 MOA) for any kind of precision. Was no need for the center wire to be so coarse, as one could easily use the fat part of the reticle for bracketing vitals in low light at close range, say < 100 yards. Sent it down the road...

Of course no one else makes this "perfect" scope either... My latest attempt is a 3-9 Conquest I'm having a #4 and elevation turret installed in. Just talked to Zeiss and it should be back in about a week. The center wire on the 3-9 Conquest subtends .4 MOA, which will allow for finer crosshair placement than the Leupold #4, and the fat part of the reticle is close enough together for bracketing vitals in poor light at close range. The only thing not quite right is it's a variable and not a fixed 6. I wasn't too concerned with it being a variable until this thread and another in the optics section, talking about how much more reliable fixed power scopes are. The search continues...

John

Hondo, you could have the perfect scope a few years ago; back when Premier Reticles and Leupold were playing nice. Buy the Leupold from Premier and get their #4 installed. THICK outer posts and a thin center line, it was great.

Also the thin opening reticle subtension on 6X was 6" at 100 yards, something that has escaped Leupold. Made for a handy aiming point.

I still have a couple.

Too bad that relationship soured.

I don't pretend to be expert enough to offer an opinion and have it taken seriously, but ... I still have one.

I know that when the B/A can "squirm" within a not-quite-perfectly-fit bedding block, POI can shift. I've seen that with several B/A I had in one particular stock at various times. If that's the case, then a skim-bedding job can help.

I don't, personally, like anything touching the sides or back of the tang on the action, just a pad underneath. I want the cylindrical section of the action to control side to side motion and the recoil lug to control fore and aft motion. I don't want the tang acting as a secondary recoil lug.

Just one madman's opinion, though.

That is a serious bummer...

John

The thicker center for killing critters is just fine, I'm not shooting F-class with the thing

Just didn't like the reticle covering 4"+ at 400 yards. It looked like it covered even more than that.

John

I agree. I like the thicker center, its perfect in the low light of the afternoon which is about the only time deer move around here. 4" at 400 or 6" at 600 is not that big of deal. In the haste of the moment I made my longest big game kill at 600 with the scope on 2.5x, the cross hairs covered a lot! Still a clean hit.

Unless you are shooting yearling Key deer I don't see the problem.

70yr old eyes require better optics. If money were not a problem I would have either a 1x-10x or 2.5x-25x March scope. Money is a factor and I hunt with 3x9 Zeiss and Sworoskis. I do have 4 2.5x8 Leupolds that are good.
I realize that some of you can see in the dark with less than top quality optics, I can't.

I cannot imagine that there would be a significant difference in durability between the FXIII 6x42 and the SWFA 6x42.

jimmyp,

There is. Maybe not enough to tell on the average hunting rifle, but the SWFA is in the Nightforce durability league.