|
Post by Dave W on Aug 19, 2010 14:52:54 GMT -5
What Scope brands were you using? Bushnell 4200 twice and a VX III. The 4th was a Sightron SII BS, it was on the .45 though when it puked.
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Aug 19, 2010 22:58:53 GMT -5
Darn Dave! you don't mess around ;D
When you step up the recoil not only does the scope have to be right but the mounting also. One of my favorite clips is when they fire the Barrett (or is it a AS-50) in slo-mo and you can watch the S&B mounted on it wave to you like a limp wristed Kansas City fagot. The big elephant guns never had scopes on them, you didn't want the scope to fail at the wrong moment. If we didn't have to worry about recoil we could just run down to Walmart and buy us a $39.99 scope.
You will have scope failures regardless of the brand. But how many are directly caused by improper mounting on a hard kicker? I would pretty much guess over a third, maybe even a half. Mounts not pushed forward is the biggest mistake and then the scope in a bind the second. Maybe scopes coming loose and not caught early the third. Of course some guys will say "I didn't have to do it on my .223" or "I didn't do that on my other rifle". Few guys have dealt with scope mounting on a rifle with a recoil level of the 10ML and even then some guys get lucky.
You have catastrophic failure, lenses falling out, rattles and reticles shifted or gone. And then the minor or the pre- catastrophic failures, fogging, focus problems, POI shift or erratic groups. And it is hard to diagnose POI shift or erratic groups as a scope problem.
I remember one guy was wanting to get into F class/Tactical and I told him about a sweet pre-64 model 70 in .308 with a fairly new Krieger barrel, synthetic tactical stock (McMillan maybe) and a Near mount. The guy let him shoot it and He flat jumped on it and put the money down. A month or so later he sees me at a range and tells me the rifle that I told him to buy (now it is all my fault) will not shoot, 2"+ groups. I said now wait a minute, the guy told me you ran a box of Federal Gold Medal thru it and every shot was less then MOA. He said that was true and I asked him what he did to it after he got it. He said he didn't do anything to it, he just took the scope off his AR, put it on and came to the range. So I'm like OK you shot less then MOA groups with his IOR and you put your Leupy on it and it will not shoot, maybe your scope is bad. I get the "Made in USA" "toughest scope made" "never goes bad" rant for 10 minutes. So we get the rifle on the bench, everything looks good he tries three shots and I try three, 2"+ groups. I see someone I shot with before and ask to borrow one of his scopes. He lets us borrow a SII off of one of his rifles that is set up for picatinny as long as we did not change the zero. So we put the SII on the M70 and I shoot a .5 group and he shoots one probly just as good. I just looked at him and said "I guess it isn't the rifle then" The guy still didn't believe it was the scope and changed rings later thinking it was the rings instead of his scope before finally caving in and shipping his scope off.
|
|
|
Post by swampman on Aug 20, 2010 6:19:20 GMT -5
So no matter what kind of scope or mounts you use on a Savage 10ML-II you'll have scope failures? I guess I should have done more research into these rifles before I bought one. I see comments all over the web about how much less they recoil than muzzleloaders using black powder or one of the subs. I will mention that I've seen the Nikon Prostaff 2-7X32s hold up on guns (.500S&W Handi Rifles) that ate Leupolds and Burris scopes in less than 30 shots. I think short scopes are less prone to failure.
|
|
|
Post by mike3132 on Aug 20, 2010 6:33:50 GMT -5
Ive never had a scope failure on a Savage 10ML and some of the early loads I use were ridiculously over charged it to the point of being dangerous. All the scopes Ive used have been Leupold Vari-X II in 3x9 and one Bushnell Elite 3200 3X9. All are mounted in steel rings on steel bases and lapped. Mike
|
|
|
Post by swampman on Aug 20, 2010 6:51:23 GMT -5
The only other rings that "might" work with this scope are the Burris Zee rings. If the steel Millett rings fail I'll try the Burris rings. The scope has a lifetime warranty.
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Aug 20, 2010 7:25:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by swampman on Aug 20, 2010 8:04:35 GMT -5
It won't fit.
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Aug 20, 2010 8:57:24 GMT -5
It is not so much "You will have" but more like "You can" have a scope failure. Improper mounting just multiples the odds. We have seen just about every scope brand have a failure, even Shooter had two Zeiss bite the bullet. Now how many failures are a result of a flaw in the scope or because of a mounting problem we do not know.
As far as rings I have used Leupold QRWs, Weaver Grand Slams and Burris Signature Zees on my 10ML.
As far as a heavy duty set for a picatinny, the new Weaver Tacticals are even better then the Burris XTRs and $20 cheaper a set
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Aug 20, 2010 9:17:43 GMT -5
ross,not doubting you but is there any other benefits except price& tact light top option on the weaver tact'd,tia
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Aug 20, 2010 15:13:06 GMT -5
the Weaver Tacticals are a true picatinny ring with a crossbolt that fits the slot. The Burris XTRs even though they say picatinny has a crossbolt that fits in a weaver slot. One thing I have to say is when Weaver brought these out last year they listened and brought out more heights and changed the crossbolt to more fill the picatinny slot this year. Both companies offer the rail on the top cap and I often wonder if the same company is making them. You have to make sure your getting the newer Weavers (look for a PN starting with 99). I have heard that the Weaver Grand Slam mounts are actually made by Warne.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2010 16:26:09 GMT -5
swampman I have a set of steel bases you might be interested in, if so pm me
|
|
|
Post by Dave W on Aug 20, 2010 17:33:39 GMT -5
I have never checked it but there has to be something out of whack on my gun.
I loaned my 3200 to a member with the Burris Zee's still attached. He could not come close to sliding the scope and rings on his bases but maybe that is normal.
Like the others have said, lapping the rings, bedding the bases, ring and base and scope selection, etc. are all insurance against failure, but it does not mean it won't, but it increases your odds against failure and may just prevent a failure at the worst possible time.
|
|
|
Post by shivesy on Aug 20, 2010 18:38:49 GMT -5
I just purchased a set of the Weaver tactical 30mm rings and there's one thing I don't like about them. Once your scope is installed in the rings and mounted to the tactical base and you go to remove your scope and rings together as a unit the cross bolt and nut fall out of the bottom of the ring when lifted from the tactical rail. Not really a good design but they are cheaper than the Burris rings so thats why I bought them. As the old saying goes you get what you pay for. I'm sure they would be fine for folks that don't remove there scope that often but if you like the option of removing your scope be careful buying the Weaver tactical rings because the cross bolt pieces are not held on by anything and do fall apart. $34.95 swfa.com/Weaver-Tactical-6-Hole-Pictainny-30mm-Rings-P46491.aspx$54.95 swfa.com/Burris-Xtreme-Tactical-30mm-Rings-P3674.aspx
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Aug 20, 2010 18:58:02 GMT -5
in laymans terms-think of this,#1-,some say savage receivers are not perfect(dont doubt it)#2-you add a base & if the above is true you are in some kind of a bind already(torque,stress etc),#3 add rings to the equation with existing problems below it,mis-alignment in the "thousand's",even with lapping(worse without lapping) your scope is already under stress than if every componet is set & locked down stress free so to speak,#4 upon explosion some bending of action,barrel harmonix etc,i think some can get the picture. build from the receiver base up in an according manner & it will be easier on the attached componets(scope etc) theres no doubt in my findings a proper set-up like rossman exhibits in post above makes for better performance & a more likely the scope will perform correctly,however there will be failures' among every brand of scopes at times but imo not as often. a long range shooter must do this to succeed & this will apply's to short range also since that's where you build from.
|
|
|
Post by swampman on Aug 20, 2010 19:26:32 GMT -5
The design of the Angle Lock cannot induce stress.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2010 19:58:44 GMT -5
the design of the savage is why I went with a Farrel base and bedded it. just to satisfy my curiosity before I bedded I put the base on the reciever and tightened one screw on the front and it lifted the back of the base up. about .009 checked with plastiguage. then checked with a machinest square and sure enough it is off. so keep this in mind when mounting a scope......Bill
|
|
|
Post by Al on Aug 21, 2010 2:38:22 GMT -5
Bill, was the reciever out of whack, of did the base a some warpage in it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2010 12:00:19 GMT -5
the recievers on these guns are not very true. the farrel base is probably as straight as any you will find. here is a pic of the base and Farrel rings[email email]
|
|
|
Post by Al on Aug 21, 2010 13:49:57 GMT -5
Bill, who's rings you have there?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2010 15:58:08 GMT -5
Farrell, they are a little heavy but built like a tank
|
|