Change barrel with scope on??

J

JD Mock

New member
Should one change barrels with scope on the rifle? I normally do not remove the scope to change barrels but there is quite a shock when the barrel breaks loose. My scope is a Jackie Schmidt frozen 36X-D Leupold.

Joe Krupa told me that he doesn't even transport his rifle with scope attached.

What are your thoughts on this matter? Thanks, James Mock
 
Well, I don't remove the scope if all I'm doing is changing a barrel....maybe I've been doing something wrong all this time.
 
I don't remove the scope...but I don't shoot like Joe Krupa either:eek:. I use a long cheater bar or a large T-handle wrench depending on the action, and EASE the barrel on or off the action. I do my best to make the connection without jerking anything too abruptly.
 
Think about this James, rifle scopes are engineered to take front to rear shock. Air rifle scopes are made to to take rear to front shock loads. No scope is made to take side loads of shock.

That is another reason I really like Pandas with the integrated rail. I can take a scope off by sliding the entire assembly off the rail, change barrels, slide the scope back on and still be within +/- 2" at 100 yards of the previous setup.
 
I've never removed or reinstalled a barrel with the scope on. I have a rail system built into my SS Viper that allows me to slide the scope and rings off and on as one unit. My 6XC Tactical Comp Rifle is the same way. POI has never shifted more than .250" to .500" when doing so on either rifle.
 
Not any more. The first year I shot I had changed the barrel on my gun and the next day when I went out to shoot, the crosshair had a big bow in it. It looked just like you had reached in there and gave it a twist. And no, I dont try and yank it to get it loose. Like James said, there is quite a bit of shock when it breaks loose from the action. It only takes about a minute to take the scope off anyway. That was back when I only had 1 scope so I was kinda stuck for about a week.

Joe
 
?????????

I have never taken a scope off to remove, or install a barrel. I am certainly no Joe Krupa either, (not many are), but I have been known to make two bullets touch on occasion.
I have seen the insides of just about every popular BR scope, there is nothing in there that would make me believe it would be any more subseptable to a side shock than a forward-aft shock. The erector tube assy more or less floats on one end, held secure by springs, and a gimble on the other.
On frozen scopes, especially the ones I did, the erector tube alignment rings fit pretty close inside, plus the JB Weld. I can't see that being compromised either.
But then, anything is possible. Since I usually show up at matches just in time to shoot, I would not want to have to put a scope on and spend half the first match getting on paper.........jackie
 
I was hoping you might have a comment on this Jackie, having seen the inside of more scopes than most guys here !!

Seems to me that if a scope can handle being shipped around the world by courier service just in a cardboard box and flown to matches and even just handle the jarring of the gravel road leading to the range they are probably not going to fall apart due to a small jolt that may result from the barrel popping loose.
 
Think about this James, rifle scopes are engineered to take front to rear shock. Air rifle scopes are made to to take rear to front shock loads. No scope is made to take side loads of shock.
Click to expand...

I'd never thought of it that way Jerry. Is the torque that's caused by right or left twist not a strong enough force to matter when the rifle is fired? To matter I'm assuming it would have to be so great as to actually twist the action to some degree. I was thinking of one of Varmint Al's simulations where there seemed to be significant rotation of the barrel along with the veritcal vibrations.

I sometimes take for granted how strong our actions and scopes are designed.

Tony
 
Tony C said:
I'd never thought of it that way Jerry. Is the torque that's caused by right or left twist not a strong enough force to matter when the rifle is fired?
I sometimes take for granted how strong our actions and scopes are designed.

Tony
Click to expand...
Tony, it is not the side shock of recoil because there is not much. Next time you take a barrel loose that is properly torqued, notice that it really "pops" when it breaks loose.

All those of you that want to leave scopes on, have at it. Mock ask " what are your thoughts" and you have mine. Basically I'm just doing what a fellow named Tucker suggested. No, its not Cecil.

Tucker can make two bullets touch and Tucker makes scopes.
 
I have done tons of data

collection on rifles, machine guns and grenade launchers firing with a sight on the top. Believe it or not, the levels of shock that the scope sees are almost the same vertically, laterally and longitudinal. The push that we all feel as recoil is a very low level compared to the higher frequency stuff that goes on. The recoil back is generally in the 100 g range. I have tested weapons with and without brakes and cans on them, and without a doubt the most energy is from 500 to 5000 hertz and basically the same on all of them. A 308 winchester chambered model 700 remington (m24) rifle puts out over 2000g's into a sight longitudinally and over 1500g's lateral and vertical. If scopes arent designed for all 3 input directions, they will not last. I have had scopes apart and it does not appear to me that anything inside of them is directionally dependent. Unfortunately, the way most erector tubes are mounted, they have almost no chance of holding poi.

I really cant believe that any kind of shocks removing barrels, etc can even closely match the rifle going off. We have machine gun simulators that we put sights on to test. They are basically a plate with 2 small jack hammers attached. It is so loud you have to wear earplugs when using it. The only way I can see damaging a scope worse than the shot is an actually blow to the scope or physically bending/twisting it etc.
 
Last edited:
If it is easily removed I usually remove the scope but If not easily removed I don't worry about it and change the barrel with scope still monted.

Dick
 
Thanks for the replys.

If I had an easy way to remove the scope, I would, but I have the Bukys system on a BAT. As Jackie said, I would be half the match getting on paper. Thanks again. James
 
Stiller

I have had scopes apart and it does not appear to me that anything inside of them is directionally dependent. Unfortunately, the way most erector tubes are mounted, they have almost no chance of holding poi.

Is it your belief, that the current method of
supporting the internal tube in scope is not
going to serve the benchrest shooter today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top