Scope Tester for HEAVY Scopes, Question???

[alinwa]

Scopes keep getting bigger, and heavier.

And I've got guns in my retinue that generate hellacious recoil......like 70ftlb.......like 96ftlb.......like 130ftlb......

I've had to epoxy rings onto scope tubes and I always JB Weld my bases onto the receivers. And weld the screws into their holes.

But here's my real problem, not only is my picatinny scope checker TOO SMALL for two huge scopes I'm more and more afraid of shearing screws when using it on a gun. So here's my question......WHY MOUNT THE SCOPE CHECKER TO THE RIFLE??

I mean this.

BIG SCOPES simply must be picatinny mounted. Davidson's aren't an option.

And picatinny rings come off the gun wikkid easy.

Why not just put a couple bases on a light AL plate and smack 'em with the gun? I'm picturing a couple barrel rings, I'll personally start with a 1.250 and a 1.350, just clamp 'em onto the shank........since most of my builds have a shank....

What am I missing??

edited to add....this statement >>>>BIG SCOPES simply must be picatinny mounted. Davidson's aren't an option.<<<<< is a little broad. Let me say, "sometimes aren't an option"

 

[Boyd Allen]

Al, Are the big recoiling rifles to be used for game or target? Will they have muzzle brakes? The reason that I ask is that the magnitude of movement that is usually seen may not matter much for any hunting application. Finally, why would you need two huge scopes, one would be your frozen test standard. I have seen large magnums that used regular bases and rings. Why are yours so different? Just trying to learn here. Boyd http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/a-new-take-on-picatinny-scope-checkers.3929786/

 

[mwezell]

Scopes keep getting bigger, and heavier.

And I've got guns in my retinue that generate hellacious recoil......like 70ftlb.......like 96ftlb.......like 130ftlb......

I've had to epoxy rings onto scope tubes and I always JB Weld my bases onto the receivers. And weld the screws into their holes.

But here's my real problem, not only is my picatinny scope checker TOO SMALL for two huge scopes I'm more and more afraid of shearing screws when using it on a gun. So here's my question......WHY MOUNT THE SCOPE CHECKER TO THE RIFLE??

I mean this.

BIG SCOPES simply must be picatinny mounted. Davidson's aren't an option.

And picatinny rings come off the gun wikkid easy.

Why not just put a couple bases on a light AL plate and smack 'em with the gun? I'm picturing a couple barrel rings, I'll personally start with a 1.250 and a 1.350, just clamp 'em onto the shank........since most of my builds have a shank....

What am I missing??

edited to add....this statement >>>>BIG SCOPES simply must be picatinny mounted. Davidson's aren't an option.<<<<< is a little broad. Let me say, "sometimes aren't an option"

Ha! Al, I was berated and ridiculed on another site, for saying almost verbatim, what you just did. I was literally cussed for refusing to offer my scope checkers in a picatinny version. I was told that the test MUST be on the rifle and under the same recoil it would be used with.

I only made them for Davidson rails so that there is much less likelihood of someone putting the checker and two 36oz nightforces on a 338 Lapua hunting rifle.
They're an exact duplicate of Charlie Hoods scope checkers.

Yes, it's mathematically possible to shear base screws off.

I am of the opinion that the rifle and a rifle rest are a very good jig to work with but that you can rap the front of the checker with a hammer and accomplish the same thing as with firing the gun.

As for width and space for two big scopes, Harrells makes Davidson style rings with .500 offset. Not sure if they or anyone offers them for a pic base.

 

[alinwa]

Al, Are the big recoiling rifles to be used for game or target? Will they have muzzle brakes? The reason that I ask is that the magnitude of movement that is usually seen may not matter much for any hunting application. Finally, why would you need two huge scopes, one would be your frozen test standard. I have seen large magnums that used regular bases and rings. Why are yours so different? Just trying to learn here. Boyd http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/a-new-take-on-picatinny-scope-checkers.3929786/

OK, so this is hard to parse clearly with the kludged up answering system but I'll try.

They're for both game and target and some have brakes, some don't. BUT, I don't see any difference, I'm not one of those who believes "it doesn't matter for hunting" as long range hits require as much or more finesse on meat as on paper. And some of my "hunting" setups have won competitions. And it takes a SERIOUSLY accurate platform to stay ahead today in many of the walk-around and belly-type venues. And egg shoots, they ain't no gimme....And braked rifles are harder on scopes than non-braked. For target work one combination that's common is a heavy scope on a 15-17lb rifle......where the SCOPE weighs 3lb or more. That's 10-12lb of gun under the heavy scope and even the single most common chambering, 300WSM gives the mounts quite a whack.

Let me digress a little. As you know, I value Vaughn's insights and one of the things I've done for 20yrs is hammer-tap the bases on my mounted scopes. This is what has led me to my current methods.....I charge 145.00 to mount a scope and have lots of takers. (and it takes me hours, so I'm not sure who's winning here LOL)..... but getting bases to hold is HARD with guns bigger than PPC. And I've dismounted many loose scopes from little cartridges too. I remember 20 yrs ago taking the scope off a PPC where the bases had been "bedded and epoxied down, so they sure ain't moving..." and after pulling the screws the bases just fell off. They WERE moving, and the scope checked out fine.

And as far as the two big scopes...... I wouldn't "need" to put two on except that I sometimes do.... two NOT frozen scopes to be able to track them out to extremes and compare them as tension changes in the drive assembly. Or out in the field. Or on the range somewhere. The checker plates go in my range bag, my little frozen 36 does not. (And it has Kelbly rings on it and I'm kinda' anal about alignment and neutral mounting....it's hard for me to just swap rings around) Of course when something moves one has to bring in ANOTHER scope to find out which one moved so it's not perfect but to me, the single best thing is to quickly be able to check in the field, like NOW and be able to say "yup, one or both of these is whacked"

For me, most of the time isolation of issues is my biggest focus. In this case "is it the bases moving? Or the scope?" And a scope checker mounted to the bases can't tell me that.


And.....this may be silly, but when I mount the little 1lb 36X above the rifle and then hang a 3+lb outrigger I think it's even harder on the bases and screws, twisting. Currently my picatinny base is centered up, cuz, recoil.

I just have a problem with believing bases aren't moving. And breaking the bond because I was checking a scope smacks of chasing my tail...


K.I.S.S.


Frankly, if I had a way to kinda' gage it even CLOSE, I'd prefer to just slap two scopes on a rigid plate and tap them this way and that with a rubber mallet. I only want to hook it to the gun so's it approximates a normal hit.




Regarding the "large magnums with regular bases and rings"....... I guess there's just a lot of ground to cover there. And my first question is, "are they legitimate 1/4moa rifles??" I submit that 1/4moa magnums are scarcer than hen's teeth and that BIG 1/4moa guns are almost non-existent. (to me "big" starts at 338)

But an accurate 338 out on the slopes will literally cut wind and groups in half on a 30.....And I just pulled a big 375 out of the lathe last nite built for an elk hunter who feels that his crappy 375 is holding with his custom 338 because it's another step up in function. We're gonna' find out.

 

[alinwa]

Ha! Al, I was berated and ridiculed on another site, for saying almost verbatim, what you just did. I was literally cussed for refusing to offer my scope checkers in a picatinny version. I was told that the test MUST be on the rifle and under the same recoil it would be used with.

I only made them for Davidson rails so that there is much less likelihood of someone putting the checker and two 36oz nightforces on a 338 Lapua hunting rifle.
They're an exact duplicate of Charlie Hoods scope checkers.

Yes, it's mathematically possible to shear base screws off.

I am of the opinion that the rifle and a rifle rest are a very good jig to work with but that you can rap the front of the checker with a hammer and accomplish the same thing as with firing the gun.

As for width and space for two big scopes, Harrells makes Davidson style rings with .500 offset. Not sure if they or anyone offers them for a pic base.

Thank you Mike You've made me feel better....

 

[Boyd Allen]

Al, For a scope checker to work the scopes only have to have a constant geometry to each other. If the base moved, as long as things did not fall off of the rifle it would not matter, because the shots are not going on a target, the rifle is only used to furnish recoil. As far as using some other type of force to simulate firing goes, there has been quite a lot of discussion about one maker who does this who claimed that issues that could be seen with a scope checker were not because of their scopes even though scope swapping and testing with a scope checker proved that they did. If you are concerned about the checker moving on the rifle, simply dedicate an old junker to the task and mount the checker any way that you like. The link at the end of my initial post was to a thread about a Picatinny checker. As you are certainly well aware there are actions with integral Picatinny rails. The Hood checker engages has continuous engagement along its length and if a Panda or Viper is used that is a lot of area. For wider scope spacing the Picatinny rails could be milled off and two rails secured with any number of screws along their length. This would be simple work with a milling machine. Certainly I agree that proper scope mounting is very important for rifles of all calibers, and that taking things to an extreme to make sure that things do not come use is no vice. Years back, when Lou Murdica tested eight new 45X Leupolds, half moved anywhere from .020 to .060 at 100 yards. At 1,000 yards that would scale up to .2 to .6 inches. More current tests have shown more movement than that with other brands of scopes. Personally I have always thought that Charlie Hood's idea was a marvelous innovation and I always welcome innovations in how this sort of testing is done. Good luck with yours. I hope that when you have some significant results that you publish your method and results so that we can all learn.

 

[alinwa]

Al, For a scope checker to work the scopes only have to have a constant geometry to each other. If the base moved, as long as things did not fall off of the rifle it would not matter, because the shots are not going on a target, the rifle is only used to furnish recoil. As far as using some other type of force to simulate firing goes, there has been quite a lot of discussion about one maker who does this who claimed that issues that could be seen with a scope checker were not because of their scopes even though scope swapping and testing with a scope checker proved that they did. If you are concerned about the checker moving on the rifle, simply dedicate an old junker to the task and mount the checker any way that you like. The link at the end of my initial post was to a thread about a Picatinny checker. As you are certainly well aware there are actions with integral Picatinny rails. The Hood checker engages has continuous engagement along its length and if a Panda or Viper is used that is a lot of area. For wider scope spacing the Picatinny rails could be milled off and two rails secured with any number of screws along their length. This would be simple work with a milling machine. Certainly I agree that proper scope mounting is very important for rifles of all calibers, and that taking things to an extreme to make sure that things do not come use is no vice. Years back, when Lou Murdica tested eight new 45X Leupolds, half moved anywhere from .020 to .060 at 100 yards. At 1,000 yards that would scale up to .2 to .6 inches. More current tests have shown more movement than that with other brands of scopes. Personally I have always thought that Charlie Hood's idea was a marvelous innovation and I always welcome innovations in how this sort of testing is done. Good luck with yours. I hope that when you have some significant results that you publish your method and results so that we can all learn.

Agreed, and I've had a Hood since the first run Charlie made....

And I'm not at all concerned with the testing plate "moving on the rifle" per se but I AM concerned with buggering up the screws/holes. And with buggering all the work I spent getting those bases down correctly. Lord Forbid I test a scope and all is good, but in the process I break my bases loose........But I DO want to be able to hit the checker with the actual rifle of choice. Actually, not just HIT it but TWIST it. And hit with the secondary reverse brake force too. Muzzle brakes are wikkid hard on scopes.

I did check out your link, I have issues with the design, 1st, 2nd and even 3rd gen. And I tried the angled pic mounts long ago, just din't like 'em.

Keep the ideas flowing

 

[Boyd Allen]

These days some of the force on one piece bases is dealt with with dowel pins used in conjunction with no. 8 screws. Speedy once told me that for blued actions that the area where the bases would contact the receiver need to be masked off and and the bluing removed so that the JB or some other epoxy will adhere properly. Assuming that preparation of both surfaces is properly done, and the area that is available for bonding a secure connection should be possible. Beyond that, multiple clamps on the base would distribute the force reducing unit loading. Carrying the same principle to the top of the plate one could build a one piece ring that had straps in the usual ring positions on a scope. Possibly multiple thin straps, three or four per "ring" would be advantageous. This sort of setup would give you a lot of contact area for screwing and gluing. The whole area of the width of the unified rings times the length which would run from out to out of the caps. Other than that, for the moment, I am fresh out of ideas. Of course you could always make an action sleeve with a built in checker, one piece except for two pairs of caps. That should keep you busy on manual machinery. As far as the quarter inch boomers go, there are numerous contests where that sort of thing would be advantageous, but I do not see them in the match results. I wonder why?