Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Less Scopes / More Rifles

  1. #1

    Default Less Scopes / More Rifles

    I got this idea from a post on anther thread. The member posted that he would pick a rifle for the type of hunting he was going to do, then pick a scope and mount it for the hunt. As I recall, he said that he could take a scope off and on a rifle without affecting it's POI. I thought that was very intersting and it gave me an idea.

    A person could have 2 or 3 scopes to cover all the types of hunting and shooting they did and have a collection of rifles to use them on. Or even just 1 scope if fit their needs. A scope like this would have to be reliably repeatable, such as a Nightforce or US Optics, not sure what others out there fit the bill. Reason being, POI from one mount to another would be different and the POI for a particular rifle would have to be dialed in when mounted.

    The benefits would be you could pay more for a higher quality interchangable scope...one scope for the price of 2, or 3, or more...

    And/Or... you could use the savings on other rifles.

    This sounds like an interesting idea to me and I'm going to give it a try with two or three rifles at the range sometime this summer.

    Just thinking outloud

  2. #2

    Default

    I don't see a problem with this if you have time to check the zero before you go hunting. Something you should do anyway IMO after the gun has been knocked around a bit in transit. Personally though my initiation into scoped rifles put me at the other end of the spectrum on this idea. I purchased two top of the line Weaver scopes back in 1971 and took two rifles to PA to hunt deer, just so I'd have a back up. I sure am glad I did. One of them fogged at the first drop of rain, and it rained most of the hunt. Since then I've used Weaver style qd rings and had a second scope per rifle (mid range priced) zeroed and packed just in case. The reason I think your idea would work with a scope capable of repeatable adjustments and good record keeping, is I've found that swapping scopes after both were zeroed usually meant less than a inch in impact change at 100 yards. It certainly would save some bucks if you could get repeatable adjustments from the scope.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyer55 View Post
    I don't see a problem with this if you have time to check the zero before you go hunting.
    With a scope like a Nightforce or USO this wouldn't be necessary other than initial testing. The weak link would be the rings/bases. Top quality rings are essential. In my testing I would swap it back and forth several times and if it doesn't maintain it's POI it won't work.

    Something you should do anyway IMO after the gun has been knocked around a bit in transit.
    I also plan on thumping my scope a few times with a rubber mallet at the range Nightforces are advertised to be able to drive a nail into wood and maintain their POI. If it doesn't, I'm sending it back to the factory. I want to know that I have a durable rugged scope, that's one big reason I'm getting it.

    Personally though my initiation into scoped rifles put me at the other end of the spectrum on this idea. I purchased two top of the line Weaver scopes back in 1971 and took two rifles to PA to hunt deer, just so I'd have a back up. I sure am glad I did. One of them fogged at the first drop of rain, and it rained most of the hunt.
    I've had the same experience with other *quality* scopes. This just wont happen with a NF or USO. They get some tough testing before they leave the factory. If possible, I usually take along a backup scoped rifle on my hunting trips for what ever reason. That would be my *other* scope. I'm planning on getting a 5 1/2 x 22 x 50 and a 3 1/2 x 15 x 50. I would get the 2 1/2 x 10 but it only has a 24mm objective, I may get one anyway down the line.

    Since then I've used Weaver style qd rings and had a second scope per rifle (mid range priced) zeroed and packed just in case. The reason I think your idea would work with a scope capable of repeatable adjustments and good record keeping, is I've found that swapping scopes after both were zeroed usually meant less than a inch in impact change at 100 yards. It certainly would save some bucks if you could get repeatable adjustments from the scope.
    I'm expecting/hoping there to be no change of impact. I won't do it if it's not totally consistant. Really looking forward to see if it works

  4. #4

    Default alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by MontanaRifleman View Post
    I got this idea from a post on anther thread. The member posted that he would pick a rifle for the type of hunting he was going to do, then pick a scope and mount it for the hunt. As I recall, he said that he could take a scope off and on a rifle without affecting it's POI. I thought that was very intersting and it gave me an idea.

    A person could have 2 or 3 scopes to cover all the types of hunting and shooting they did and have a collection of rifles to use them on. Or even just 1 scope if fit their needs. A scope like this would have to be reliably repeatable, such as a Nightforce or US Optics, not sure what others out there fit the bill. Reason being, POI from one mount to another would be different and the POI for a particular rifle would have to be dialed in when mounted.

    The benefits would be you could pay more for a higher quality interchangable scope...one scope for the price of 2, or 3, or more...

    And/Or... you could use the savings on other rifles.

    This sounds like an interesting idea to me and I'm going to give it a try with two or three rifles at the range sometime this summer.

    Just thinking outloud
    I've taken it a step further, though in bit different direction. More and more I'm using rifles without scopes. I quit buying scopes, and I'm buying guns instead. Course I've always prefered to get close before popping a cap, so open sights are more useful to me. Not saying I don't own and enjoy a bunch of guns with scopes too, but they've been safe queens for five seasons now.

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    43

    Default

    What is necessary for your idea...?

  6. #6

    Default scope swapping

    One thing you might consider is that the spacing for the rings is not the same for all rifles and eye relief might not be the same either. This would make it more complicated and poI would definitely change.

  7. #7
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    Your best luck would be to have all the rifles of a similar design..ie: a pack of Rugers. I'll have to look, but I wonder if the ring spacing is the same on the short action (.243) and it is on the longer one (30-06). You've got me thinking now if I could just move the scope from Ruger to Ruger..certainly would be easy to find out.

    I am also with BrownBear on unscoped rifles. I have great fun with my unscoped 45-70 and even took it deer hunting last year. It was really nice not worrying about optics in the freezing rain.

  8. #8

    Default

    I'm in the process of trying the same thing. After repeatedly removing and replacing the scope, I've found that sometimes there is no change and sometimes there is a change, but always less than an inch at 100 yards. Warne QD rings by the way.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrownBear View Post
    I've taken it a step further, though in bit different direction. More and more I'm using rifles without scopes. I quit buying scopes, and I'm buying guns instead.
    Good deal there BrownBear, Maybe someday I'll get some iron sight rifles, depending on how my eyes hold out. I can shoot pretty descent offhand with my unscoped SKS. But for hunting, I just like a scope, one reason being the possible distances I may shoot. I do like getting up close and personal and do that when bow hunting. There are many elk I could have easily popped with rifle and iron sights that just weren't quite close enough for a bow shot. Cheers

    Quote Originally Posted by Pigeon View Post
    What is necessary for your idea...?
    Not sure what yer asking?

    Quote Originally Posted by mauserboy View Post
    One thing you might consider is that the spacing for the rings is not the same for all rifles and eye relief might not be the same either. This would make it more complicated and poI would definitely change.
    I though about this, it's true, ring spacing may be different, but i think it will be close enough to work and the NF has more flexability than most scopes for mounting and it has 3.7" eye relief which is pretty good and about and inch more than I have now. Also, there will definitely be a different POI from one rifle to the other, but that can be comensated for by simply dialing the appropriate POI in when mounting. NF have precise and reliable tracking. It *shouldn't* be a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by AKDoug View Post
    It was really nice not worrying about optics in the freezing rain.
    I will use see thru flip up scope covers on my scopes, it should keeep the weather out.

    Quote Originally Posted by WIsam View Post
    I'm in the process of trying the same thing. After repeatedly removing and replacing the scope, I've found that sometimes there is no change and sometimes there is a change, but always less than an inch at 100 yards. Warne QD rings by the way.
    Cool, let me know how things go. I am hoping for a lot less than an inch change swapping out. I'll check out the Warne rings.


  10. #10

    Default

    Through the years I have spent so much money on rifles scopes sold some, traded some, given six rifles and two revolvers away to family and two friends, worked with wildcats and have had a lot of fun buying rifles and scopes. But now I have developed the attitude that I want two real good rifles that would cover most if not all of my hunting needs and scoped both with a good scope and leave it at that. Guess I am getting old or just plain tired of maintaining so many rifles, reloading and shooting that now since I like hunting so much I have just settle for a two. I still have seven rifles not counting the two I have mentioned as go to rifles. At the moment (and I did say at the moment) I will take two rifles when I travel off to hunt, my 300Wby and my .375Wby. If something happens to one the the other will handle anything I am generally going to hunt. So that said I spent the money to put a Zeiss Conquest on both and never have to worry about scope change or a bunch of rifles to choose from or a tone of different loads. I guess at this stage of my life I am truly beginning to like things simple.
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  11. #11

    Default

    Two very nice rifles beartooth, but what about the "short thumper" or is relegated to Mississippi Special status only?

  12. #12

    Default

    I hear ya Beartooth, I like the simple approach too. I've never owned more than 3 hunting rifles at any one time, although I've always wanted this caliber or that. And actually all I really need is one and all I have ever gone to is one, but having a back up is always a good idea. But on the otherhand... it would be nice to have a range of rifle rifle cartrides. Right now I have two 7mm mags and a 300 WSM. I would like to get a Copper 270 Win, a good Montana made rifle and cartridge (which would be my anteope/wolf rifle). Would also like to get a .338 RUM for long range shooting....and then, I have always wanted a .243 for plinking and varmit shooting. Who knows what I'll end up with But one thing I like about swapping scopes is the ability to go from one field condition to another, brush and forest to open plains. I could get it done with one scope, but a second would be nice. But if this idea works I can get additional rifles without having to buy a scope too. I dont see myself as ever having more than a half dozen rifles, which is more than I need. And who knows, maybe I'll cut back to one or two.

  13. #13

    Default

    Variety is the spice of life, except with wives of course!?!?

  14. #14

    Default

    The only thing I don't like about the Warne's is that they have the big levers which seem like might catch on brush and loosen up. I'd take a pretty big whack to loosen them if they are tightened properly, but it may happen sooner or later.

    The other day I saw that Thomson Center markets rings which are identical in every way other than the fact that the release lever is much smaller. In fact, I though I heard that Warne manufactures them and they are marked under the T/C name. Other than the release levers, they're identical in every way as best I can tell. If you havn't picked anything up yet, check these out.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •