Hey guys, I have a Remington Model 7 in 300WSM. I've had a devil of a time getting a scope that will hold zero on this thing. It does have a good wallup, so I'm assuming that's the culprit. I had a 2.5-10 Nikon Monarch on it when I first bought it, it seemed to do well, but like a fool, I removed it and went with a 6-24 Monarch. It will not hold zero for anything. Switched it over to a 22-250 and it's golden. So I'm back on the hunt for a scope in the 500-800 range that will withstand the jolt from this rifle. Hoping for some insight from this group. Thanks!!

What rings are you running? That could be the real culprit.

My first thought as well. I’ve had no problems with my 3-9x40 Leupold or my Zeiss Conquest on a .338wm. I’ve got an Athlon 2-12 BTR on a lighter weight .35Whelen but I’ve only got about 40 rounds through it thus far.

If you have multiple scopes not holding zero I’d be inclined to check the bases and rings and maybe swap them out for a different setup. Even on a lightweight .300 WSM most popular brands of scopes should hold zero.

Good luck.

Ditto on the base/ring check recommendations.

Following that, if you're still having trouble, the Nightforce 3-10 SHV is a solid scope that's worth looking at. It's not a light scope, but it has a fairly short tube and compact size so it doesn't look out of place on a M7.

Goes your rear receiver ring have 1 or 2 holes for scope mounting? Probably better to go with a one-piece base for a Model 7, as the rear of the receiver doesn't leave much room for mounting. It might stiffen up the action a bit as well.

Good post. My 338wm is 7 pounds, as is 2 of my 300WBY rifles and they are harder kickers than the 300WSM. I run weaver style mounts on all of those rifles and DD's on one 300WBY, with absolutely no issues. When I read the OP, I get a feeling he is using something like Talley lightweights or something like that. Hopefully not Leupold standards. My 1 300 Wizzum wears a cheap azzed Burris FFII 3-9x40:


That rifle is fairly lightweight. Don't know how much the OP's rifle weighs, but I'd be taking a good hard look at those scope mounts and rings, before assuming it is tearing up scopes because its a lightweight rifle, hence "heavy kicker"..

I put several hundred rounds of 300wsm through a rifle with a Leupold 6-18 with no problems at all. I'm sure one of my Burris or Trijicon scope's would do just as well

Matching mount material with ring material is beneficial. Steel preferred.

I'd recommend anything SWFA.

No zero loss so far, even with moderate to extra terrain, etc. activity.

I ran a Vari-X II on a 300 WM for decades. I have had ring issues.

And you gotta shoot from 800 yards bubba? Pardon me, but get closer, no need for a 6-24 on any big game rifle.

Nightforce SHV 3–10 X 42, SWFA 6X or 3X9, if you can find one, or a Trijicon AccuPoint or credo.

I wouldn't fhuqking linger. Hint..........

No comment on what mounts and rings you are running?

Running one piece Leupold base and rings. Rings have been lapped. I went with the 6-24 because we often get together and shoot 800-1000 yards for fun.

Hmm. That corelates to my first and second post. You may want to go back and read those. Generally when you have a rifle eating up a scope because of "recoil", or shooting like schidt, the real "culprit" can be narrowed down to the base and rings. Also, when you say "rings have been lapped", you could have also contributed to the problem. Your issue is likely in that system. It needs to be improved upon. I don't like rails on a lightweight rifle, but you could also go that route if you don't mind the one piece mount. Go with something like an EGW (make use of all your mounting screws, unlike the Leupold mount that just uses 1 in the rear) and use some good solid rings. Leupold PRW's are very robust, but something like the Burris Zee rings will suffice. Those are much lighter and svelte looking as well. You are looking for a new scope, but your foundation is flawed. Fix that and then go from there. There's also a good SWFA 3-15x42 in the classifieds right not, if you don't mind MOA. It is in your price range and those are known to be pretty tough scopes.

I’d be looking at DNZ game reaper one piece.
That’s what will go on my 9.3

Sounds like a plan. I'll change that base and rings up and go from there. I'm shy about picking up used scopes, so I'll likely research that brand and try one out. Thank you guys for the pointers, I'll follow up once the parts are replaced and see how it holds up.

I wouldn't worry about that scope one bit. SWFA has excellent warranty and CS. If anything was wrong with it, they would replace it free of charge. The chance of it being bad is pretty slim though. There will probably be some good black friday deals coming up on them though, if you want to buy new..

I’ve had a Zeiss 6.5-20x50 on my 50 BMG for years it’s never moved.

It funny back in the early 70's a 2-7 power scope was what most had on a rifle....in the 80's it changed to 3-9....now 4-12 or larger....must be animals are getting farther away to get a shot at them.....

add tract, Maven, Zeiss Trijicon 10mile

Sincere question...

WHY would the scope rings or bases be the reason for a scope to not hold zero on "heavy recoiling rifles"? Many responding to this thread refer to this, but none explain why.

What is the association?

What style of scope/base is recommended? What design feature makes it "better" for a scope to hold zero?

Any half ways decent scope should have no problem holding up in the OP's application.

For truly heavy-recoiling rifles, stick with a scope of decent quality that is lightweight, so as to keep Newton's 1st Law in check. By all means, buy the best quality glass that's in your budget. But, $3k scopes aren't necessary.

I scoped an 8 pound .375 Weatherby with a $169 Weaver V10 2-10x38 (11 ounces) 16 years ago. It's in lapped Leupold rings and bedded DD's, lapped with 8-42 screws. Hasn't moved yet.

Binding of the tube itself due to the rings/bases being a bit differently machined from one to the other is generally the culprit of killing scopes on heavy recoiling rifles. That’s one reason Burris signature rings use the the insert in them because it takes out the lapping process and doesn’t allow the rings to bind the tube. Some even go to the extent of using a bit of bedding compound on bases so everything is is in complete contact to take up the machining tolerances of receivers from factory. All this takes out variables that can cause loss of zero.

I guess I am slow. Why would a non-lapped scope ring (or a scope ring that imparts a ring mark on a scope tube) cause a scope to lose zero? I was under the impression that a scope losing zero from recoil was associated with reticle assembly springs not being strong enough to return the "reticle housing" to "zero". Why would one style of rings/bases be the reason for a scope not holding zero? "Lightweight Talleys" were suggested as being a contributing factor for losing zero. What is it about there design would cause this?

Aside from LOOSE rings and bases ( that wiggle and move, shifting bullet impact, and not holding "zero") what is the basis for scope rings or bases-being lapped or unlapped, or their design itself ( ie "light Talleys") be the reason for a scope to not hold zero? I am sincere in attempting to learn the cause and effect. None have been provided so far. What is the basis? I don't get it. Edumicate me.

No longer made but I've had nothing but positive results using Burris positive-lock optics in hard recoil situations..

Burris Posi's,are easily amongst the schittiest scopes ever fhuqking offered. Hint..................

I mounted a Trijicon 1-4 on my bud's .416 Rem, Model 70. It worked out well. He likes it, killed a 43" buff in South Africa couple years ago.

For that application the triangle reticle works great.

DF

The horror from a puny 416 Remington...

I've always liked the looks of that one, the color, the red pad, everything about it.

And, it seems to be serving you pretty well.

DF

Not for me. In fact, all Burris products I've owned have failed. ALL. Currently have a Fastfire III that is a replacement, and it works. But who knows for how long.

Not so long ago you were just bragging about a Burris Verosity model or something like that how great it was....

It worked and had nice features, until it didn't. Don't blame me, I didn't build it.

2) Why is a lapping alignment needed?
A gun is an industrial product. Scope rings, scope bases, and scopes are industrial products. Industrial products have manufacturing tolerances. Manufacturing tolerances are the tolerances that allow for a certain degree of dimensional error in the manufacture of individual parts. This ensures that the quality of each product is consistent. If it is a single machine, no problem will occur as long as it is within the tolerances. However, when a scope is mounted, a mounting base is attached to the gun, a scope ring is attached to it, and the scope is fastened to it. Multiple industrial products made in pieces are stacked on top of each other to hold the scope in place. While a single product will stay within tolerances and not cause problems, multiple products stacked on top of each other can add up to manufacturing tolerances and, in rare cases, exceed tolerances. In extreme cases, the height of the front scope ring may be different from that of the rear scope ring. If the scope is placed there and tightened and secured, the scope body will be distorted. If the body of the scope, which is an optical instrument, is distorted, the optical axis will be out of alignment. This is what we mean by the possibility of damaging the scope. Tightening the scope will apply excessive force, which will also scratch the body.