A True Benchrest Scope

A

andyd1179

Guest
Hya Guys,
There has been an idea that has come up on what you as Benchrest shooters would want from a true Benchrest scope, so a question and answer has been started up, with the idea to put this forward to manfactures to show them what the majority of Benchrest shooters would like to see from a true Benchrest scope.

To add your views go to the link for Facebook for the Rimfire Benchrest Show Group to get involved.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_155841831148261&ap=1

Andyd
 
Andy: I don't do facebook. From my perspective a NightForce 12-42 BR is just about ideal, but would be even better if it weighed somewhat less. Its tough to make 10.5 class with that big glass on the rifle.

For 10.5 I am a fan of a frozen Leupold Comp in a Bob Brackney mount. It is very close to ideal to me. But Bob tunes em to be rifle specific so swapping between rifles is not an easy thing to do, but probably can be done. I have not (yet) purchased a March...some guys think they are the ultimate. bob
 
Hay Bob,
Weight is something I've not added and I think you are spot as it is difficult to find a scope that the weight falls into the factor on some classes, so i will add this to the list of questions.

Andyd
 
bob finger said:
Andy: I don't do facebook. From my perspective a NightForce 12-42 BR is just about ideal, but would be even better if it weighed somewhat less. Its tough to make 10.5 class with that big glass on the rifle.

For 10.5 I am a fan of a frozen Leupold Comp in a Bob Brackney mount. It is very close to ideal to me. But Bob tunes em to be rifle specific so swapping between rifles is not an easy thing to do, but probably can be done. I have not (yet) purchased a March...some guys think they are the ultimate. bob
Click to expand...

Bob, I have a 40X Frozen Brackney which was purchased used and it has visited sevral rifles. I haven't tried it on my Turbo yet but thanks for reminding me :) . There may be some magic, rifle specific thing but I don't think so anyway. Considering the adjustments are variable and without any scale, I don't see how it could make any difference what they are on. The only difficulty is the rubber mount in the front but I have been able to cope with it.

The only problem I have with the March is the 5 year warranty to the origional owner only. I find that to be a deep corner to paint one's self into.


Pete
 
Last edited:
Hi Boyd,
No I'm not I'm affraid. I think for the majority of shooters that March is well out of their price range.

Andyd
 
Hi Andyd, Here state side we must have a bit of an advantage, it is hard to beat either the Weaver or Sightron 36x scopes for the price point. The Leupold, March, and Nightforce are in a whole different ball park price wise. Personally I do not have a lot of use for a variable x rate in BR. Always looked at as more to shake loose internally.
 
Pete: Have you read the instruction sheet that Mr. Brackney sends out with his product? Since you purchased yours used perhaps you did not get the cheat sheet. He describes a process to insure that the mounting is correct, When you have one made he wants exact dimensions of your scope base blocks and mount position so he can align and tighten things up before shipping it to you. I'd guess it is a 20-30 minute process to redo his work, assuming the new rifle has different mount dimensions etc. Not insurmountable by any means. I thought it pertinent to mention it. The instructions run 3 pages, and Bob mentioned most of his "problems" come back to folks not following the instructions. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make em drink. bob
 
Andy

andyd1179 said:
Hi Boyd,
No I'm not I'm affraid. I think for the majority of shooters that March is well out of their price range.

Andyd
Click to expand...

Since you posed the question you might want to hear what Boyd has to say about March scopes and how they came about.
 
I would be interested in how March scopes started but as been said by Blades that a lot of shooters do look at the Weaver and Sigthron scopes an affordable scope. Spending a couple of thousand pound or dollars on a scope, you would really have to justify that it's going to improve your shooting. I know that the March scopes have what's been said the best lenses and let's in the best light, but we are talking shooting 25yd or max 50m and not any further than that. I have looked through a March scope but never been fortunate to meet anyone that could afford one to see it on s rifle and try it out.
The idea of the questions is to see what shooters would be willing to spend on a scope and is going to be interesting if this comes in line with the Weaver and Sigthron scopes or will they be willing to spend a lot more maybe to come in line with March scopes or not.

Andyd
 
Andy: What they are trying to tell you is the "bench rest survey" has been done before. March scopes was the result. I don't know all the details, and what I do know came third hand so for me to elaborate would not be helpful. I would love to know the "rest of the story" as the late Paul Harvey used to tell.

You have not lived until you have used a March...but the price of entry holds many back unfortunately. On the other side my home range faces almost due south and my Weaver T24 andT36's are almost useless this time of year until well after noon and its worse in winter. My NF and Leupolds are not blind during the morning hours. My at least 40 year old All American 20X (same scope Bill Calfee uses to shoot his test targets) is okay too. Perhaps shooting into the sun should be added to your list of desires. bob
 
Hi Bob,
I hear what your saying and would love to have a go with a March, but I am sure that you would agree with me that there is only a minority that could and would afford a scope of that caliber. I'm not sure how long ago the survey was done but in the last couple of years the optics have got better and it seems cheaper. With that said it's just an oputunity to see what some shooters think about not just price but design at maybe an affordable price.
As an example having the turret for the left right movement would be better on the left of the scope, I'm not sure why all scopes have them on the right as there doesn't seem to be any advantage, with the mil dot always being black, could it not be better with another colour that would be better suited and maybe better to handle with different light situations, I dnt know but these are just a couple of examples that could be looked at to make a true Benchrest scope at an affordable price.

Andyd
 
Number 1 priority is zero change in POA. This has always been the most important criteria for a benchrest scope where the outcome of a match could be determined by a thousanth of an inch at 200 yards.
 
Andy,
For a 10.5 lb class BR rifle my favorite scope is the old Leupold BRD. My wish would be that Leupold would go back to making them. I think the weight was around 16 ozs.. Most all of the big scopes are too heavy when it comes to making weight in 10.5 class, unless you use a carbon fiber stock.
Anyway, here would be my choice

1-Excellent tracking and POI capability-must be guaranteed
2-The ability to be focused, and parallex free at 60 ft. to infinity
3-42-45 MM front objective adjustable with locking ring, no use for side focus on a BR scope
4- Premium lenses, meaning the best available
5-weight of 16 to 18 ozs5- in black or silver color
6-1" or 30MM tube, 30MM would be better
Price range from $750 to 925.00 and a choice of an 1/8th minute dot or fine crosshair
 
bob finger said:
Pete: Have you read the instruction sheet that Mr. Brackney sends out with his product? Since you purchased yours used perhaps you did not get the cheat sheet. He describes a process to insure that the mounting is correct, When you have one made he wants exact dimensions of your scope base blocks and mount position so he can align and tighten things up before shipping it to you. I'd guess it is a 20-30 minute process to redo his work, assuming the new rifle has different mount dimensions etc. Not insurmountable by any means. I thought it pertinent to mention it. The instructions run 3 pages, and Bob mentioned most of his "problems" come back to folks not following the instructions. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make em drink. bob
Click to expand...

Nope, I didn't realize instructions existed. Guess I have just been lucky so far, eh? Something I discovered recently with mine: I was having issues with the tension plunger holder backing out. I got to looking it over and discovered that there was the provision for a set screw to keep the "Holder" locked in place but no set screw was present. I have installed one and the little darling locked the holder up nicely. Oversight , I am certain as it was aparent when I installed the screw there had never been one in the hole.
 
Last edited:
Bob, what I know he does is put the scope and rings in a fixture that is dead flat and aligns the cross hair verticle. Beyond that I'm not sure what he could do. The things have no click adjustments so are not calibrated for a specific between the ring centers distance like Unertl and Lyman long focus scopes. What am I missing? Tks --Greg

bob finger said:
Pete: Have you read the instruction sheet that Mr. Brackney sends out with his product? Since you purchased yours used perhaps you did not get the cheat sheet. He describes a process to insure that the mounting is correct, When you have one made he wants exact dimensions of your scope base blocks and mount position so he can align and tighten things up before shipping it to you. I'd guess it is a 20-30 minute process to redo his work, assuming the new rifle has different mount dimensions etc. Not insurmountable by any means. I thought it pertinent to mention it. The instructions run 3 pages, and Bob mentioned most of his "problems" come back to folks not following the instructions. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make em drink. bob
Click to expand...
 
Extremes?

I sort of wonder about the validity to making sure everything is perfectly level when we are aiming at round dots and round circles. We are only as good as our eyesight and the rests we shoot our rifles from. I sort of think if things look level they very well may be.
 
Don't know what you are missing Greg. Sorry, I'm just a user. bob
 
bob finger said:
Andy: What they are trying to tell you is the "bench rest survey" has been done before. March scopes was the result. I don't know all the details, and what I do know came third hand so for me to elaborate would not be helpful. I would love to know the "rest of the story" as the late Paul Harvey used to tell.

You have not lived until you have used a March...but the price of entry holds many back unfortunately. On the other side my home range faces almost due south and my Weaver T24 andT36's are almost useless this time of year until well after noon and its worse in winter. My NF and Leupolds are not blind during the morning hours. My at least 40 year old All American 20X (same scope Bill Calfee uses to shoot his test targets) is okay too. Perhaps shooting into the sun should be added to your list of desires. bob
Click to expand...

There was no survey. There was a lot of dissatisfaction, in particular with the early LCS offerings and because of his own interest, willingness, and determination, Lou Murdica arranged for Deon optics in Japan to develop the March. I believe at least for the initial units, made by one guy. It was financed by Lou and through this site [the cf side] primarily, he developed an order list for the initial run of first generation March's which sold quickly and ultimately led to Kelbly's stepping in to distribute them exclusively here in the US and we've been off to the races since although largely use in CF with now 3 fixed and 2 variable offerings suitable for bench work if I'm not mistaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top