I have soap boxed before about poor choice of scopes, in particular making sure they can be fitted to the rifle. Thirty years ago most scopes had 32mm objectives and there was no problem fitting them to pretty much any rifle. Soon after that 40mm objectives appeared and soon became dominant. Now 44mm is common and we see even 55mm occasionally. But the nominal diameter of the objective is not the whole story. My old Nikko Stirling 3-9×40 is 48mm dia at the objective but a newer Nikko 3-9×42 is 58mm despite the objective being only 2mm bigger.

So what, you might ask ? There are two common effects. First, the scope can’t be fitted because the objective fouls the barrel or the back sight. That would be taken care of by higher rings, and I choose rings high enough for the job where I am fitting a scope from scratch. But many of the scopes I fit are upgrades from cheaper scopes so the rings are already on the rifle. As it is traditional to use the lowest possible rings they are often too low for the new scope.

The second problem can’t be solved by higher rings. Most scopes are variable. All else being equal variable scopes have shorter tubes than fixed scopes because part of the tube is occupied by the adjustment ring. The result is that many scopes barely fit between the rings. It is worse with the big objectives because the objective bell is longer and the tube shorter. It is a common problem.

Yesterday I fitted a Swarovski Habicht 3-10×42A scope to a rifle on an FN 98 action. The old scope was a Tasco 4×40 in Millet bases and rings. These are the same as Redfield, Burris and Leupold rotary locking bases and rings. The objective clears the barrel by just enough to pass a business card, but the ocular lens is so big that the bolt can’t be inserted into the action. They are low rings so the problem will be solved by higher rings at the owner’s expense. Tube length is only 138mm and the scope fits between the rings with no fore and aft movement to set proper eye relief. Extension rings will be needed to fix that.

You might say that those are easy problems to fix. Indeed, but why are owners so ignorant that they can’t figure it out when they buy the scope ? More to the point, why don’t the camera shops that sell the scopes tell the customer ? Because they don’t know, that’s why. They sell expesive scopes about which they know nothing and which they don’t know how to fit to the rifle even if they could legally have the rifle in their possession. I’m not desperate for the peanuts I earn from fitting scopes and I wouldn’t fit scopes I haven’t sold on principle. I do it because my boss says so.

That doesn’t mean I object to camera shops selling scopes. As a free marketeer I accept the right of anyone to sell what he or she likes, and the right of customers to buy from whomever they like. My point is that it makes no sense to buy expensive scopes from people who know nothing about them, then expect those with the expertise to fit them, and in many cases complain about the modest fitting charge after having given the real profit to the camera shop. It takes me at least two hours to fit a scope properly, sometimes as much as four hours if I hit glitches. We charge R300. I’m thinking we should charge R500. After all, we are doing the real work.

As a side issue I’ve said before that rings are never properly aligned unless they are worked on to make them so. In fact I’ve never found a pair that was straight before I made them so. This pair wasn’t straight either. But more interesting was that they were lined with a layer of some sort of plastic adhesive tape. Can’t imagine why unless the guy who fitted the first scope figured he needed to do that for some obscure reason. Whatever the reason, there’s no substitute for precise ring alignment and concentricity, which is itself a good reason to buy scopes from those who know what they are doing.

[Originally posted to SATalkGuns -- Admin]

Sometimes I lose track of things or don’t reply because of too much traffic to deal with. So this thread is a bit old. Chris B and Alex H’ comments about scopes came as a surprise. I knew some guys like big scopes but I thought it was mostly because that’s what’s mostly available plus the “bigger must be better” syndrome. Now I know that some actually like them, for what seem to be good reasons.

We all know that big objectives see a bit better in some conditions. But I’m surprised that a 2 - 7 x 28 Leupold was not clear at 200 yards. Admittedly I don’t hunt these days so I can’t say too much except that I found that a 4 x 32 fixed would take care of most things up to 200m and further.

It does also depend on size, age and physical condition. Alex H is not small. I’m smaller but still nearly six foot and I find the magnum action Brno rifles too big and heavy to carry in the field. But I’m 62 and might think differently if I were 25.

I would still choose the most compact rifle and scope combo that circumstances allow, and of the two, a bulky scope is a bigger liability than a big rifle. Aside from anything else, scopes are fragile and big scopes are more liable to damage from knocks. But that’s my opinion and obviously others feel differently.

Fitting is something else. I’ve lost count of how many badly fitted “professionally fitted” scopes I’ve seen. Slightly loosening the screws that secure the rings to the bases and using the scope to get them aligned, Christo, is of course the right thing to do, provided the opportunity is taken to bore sight the scope at the same time by lateral adjustment of the rings. The idea is to get the scope more or less right laterally without having to adjust it optically to the left or right extreme, ie leaving it without any further room for adjustment. If that seems obvious I’ve seen a couple in exactly that condition. Professionally fitted.

Same goes for tightening the top caps. It should be obvious that progressive tightening of alternate screws is the right way to do it, but these are simple details of correct engineering practice that apply to a lot of things besides scopes. None of this fixes the problem that afflicts all rings, namely that they are never in alignment because of tolerances in rifles, bases and rings.

Nine times out of ten you will have no trouble, but they don’t grip the scope as securely as they should, and the worst cases can and do scrape the finish off the scope as it shifts from recoil, and I’ve seen scopes that were actually dented.

So, like I said, there’s more to scope fitting than just being careful in tightening the screws. But this seems not to be understood except by those who have experienced the negative consequences mentioned above.

[Originally posted to SATalkGuns -- Admin]

Because of tolerances in rings, bases and receivers, plus slight but unavoidable errors in drilling and tapping, dovetail type rings will not be a perfect fit to both the dovetail and the scope tube. However, the dovetail of the ring will be a good fit to the grooves because one side of the ring dovetail is fixed and the other side (the clamp) is movable. Tightening the clamp pull the fixed dovetail into close engagement with the groove in the receiver or the base. Assuming of course that both are straight as they should normally be. But the rings will not closely fit both dovetail and scope tube at the same time. The trick is to tighten the rings to the dovetail then lap them, which will produce a precise fit to the scope tube.

There will then be perfect fit to both dovetail and scope, which will be repeatable if the scope and rings are removed and later refitted as a unit. Of course Weaver rings cannot be slid off the bases unless the clamp screws are completely removed because they engage in a cross groove in the base. The same principle would apply to rings which attach to Brno and similar rifles and which have a recoil stud engaging the receiver. Such rings thus cannot be used as a “poor man’s” QD mounts.

The answer is to fit a separate recoil stud outboard of the rings. As the recoil is transmitted from rifle to scope the right place for the stud would be in front of the front ring. It should then be possible to slide the rings and scope as a single item off the rifle to the rear. As I am not familiar with all the available direct mounting rings I can’t say which if any would work in that way, so the rings might be a custom proposition. With a pair of big pair of coarse knurled clamp screws that should allow fairly quick removal and replacement of the scope with no loss of zero. That’s as close as can be got to real QD capability without the cost.

But the key to precise fitting is lapping as it is with all scope rings.

[Originally posted to SATalkGuns -- Admin]

My little book about scope mounting is now complete and available. Price R 55 all inclusive. Hard copy only at this stage. Electronic publication will need some more work and will take some time. It includes scope selection, precision mounting methods, actual examples of scope fitting to demonstrate the sort of problems that can arise and how to handle them, bore sighting in the workshop, sighting in on the range, long range zeroing, and modifications for extreme long range. 35 Pages with illustrations.

I know I shouldn’t really be asking this, but advertising is expensive, prohibitively so in this case, so if anyone feels willing to field this to contacts on other chat groups I’d be grateful.

[Originally posted to SATalkGuns -- Admin]

I have just completed a little book about scope mounting. 35 Pages of A4 size 10 text with illustrations. It was prompted by my observation that scope mounting seems to be universally badly done. In particular, the two rings are never, and I mean never, either parallel to the scope or each other. There are ways of making them so, but it is seldom done, which is why so many scopes are damaged or even bent by their rings. It is also why so many scopes shift under recoil; rings that don’t grip the scope squarely won’t prevent it from shifting. The main thrust of the book is a simple method of precision ring alignment I have developed and which has been used to fit many scopes, but it also includes instructions for approximate alignment in the workshop, with or without an optical bore sighter, sighting in on the range, long range zeroing, and mount modifications for extreme long range shooting ie over 1000 metres.

The book is complete except for just two photos that didn’t come out too well but can fortunately be re shot. The draft is now being scrutinised by a few people for content, ie is it sufficiently complete and does it explain clearly how to do the job. It was also motivated by the reality that the gunsmith trade is dying fast in the wake of the FCA, and that gunsmithing will soon be a DIY proposition or nothing. Scope mounting is one of many things that can be competently done by hobbyists.

Price will be somewhere around R 60 including postage. Not dirt cheap for 35 pages but printing small volumes isn’t cheap and I believe the quality of the content is worth it. I’m also looking into the possibility of offering it electronically. Not as a full blown E Book, rather in PDF for e mailing as an attachment. Price would then be less, probably around R 35 - R 40.

I hope to complete four more in the next three or four months, each about a specific aspect of gun work. One of them will be hot blueing. All will be characterised by the sort of detail that is missing from most gunsmithing books. I have a long list of others but the time frame will be years rather than months.

Why a lot of small books rather than one big one ? With the sort of detail I have in mind a single book would run to 1500 pages, would be expensive, and will not likely get done in this life. I also think there are many people who will be happy to get info on the specific topic they need at a modest price.

If anyone wants a more detailed list of the contents of this and my next three or four books I’ll be glad to e mail it privately.

[Originally posted to SATalkGuns -- Admin]