Jump to content


Photo

Scopes and Eye Relief


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Jonathan Waits

Jonathan Waits

    .40 S&W

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
63
  • LocationEdmond, Oklahoma

Posted 04 December 2017 - 05:11 PM

So, I recently got a browning x bolt and Talley one piece mounts, I also got a bushnell elite 4500 2.5-10. I really want to like the scope because it seems to be one of the few left that are legitimately made in japan(at least it is stamped japan)  but the eye relief is only 3.3 inches and I have it as far back as I can and I am getting the black ring in the sight picture, I have to move my cheek to almost the forward edge of the comb on the stock, not my natural cheek position. So my question would a scope with better eye relief solve this? Nikons seem to have generous eye relief, but I am unsure of their quality today. Any advice would be appreciated.



#2 dennishoddy

dennishoddy

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 10,921 posts
1,689
  • LocationPonca City, Ok

Posted 04 December 2017 - 08:01 PM

Nothing wrong with Nikon. That is my scope of choice with the Monarch model on most of my rifles. I have a bushnell elite on my .270, and its fine with the eye relief.

A lot of the one piece scope mounts move the scope forward. You may have to go with standard scope mounts on a rail and move the scope back to where its comfortable.

Do you have a pic of your setup?



#3 Jonathan Waits

Jonathan Waits

    .40 S&W

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
63
  • LocationEdmond, Oklahoma

Posted 04 December 2017 - 08:36 PM

Here is a picture, but as it sits right now, the only way to get the scope back any further is to get a one piece base that traverses the bolt opening and even then, would put the objective bell right over the barrel taper/chamber. I dont know if the LOP on that rifle is just too long for that scope or what. I can see through the scope just fine, I just cant get the entire picture so to speak.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20171204_203224.jpg


#4 Jonathan Waits

Jonathan Waits

    .40 S&W

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
63
  • LocationEdmond, Oklahoma

Posted 04 December 2017 - 08:45 PM

Here is a picture without scope, as you can see, that forward ring is as far back as any would go without a single piece base.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20171204_204209.jpg


#5 dennishoddy

dennishoddy

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 10,921 posts
1,689
  • LocationPonca City, Ok

Posted 04 December 2017 - 09:03 PM

You need different rings it appears
Here are two of my bolt guns with different ring set ups to get the eye relief correct.
Leupold rings if I remember right. If you notice, I had to hang the base over a tad on the bottom rifle front ring to get enough room to move the scope back more but it doesn’t effect function of the gun.


. 778aa90c5e5f87404bd5f5362d9458ce.jpg

#6 Jonathan Waits

Jonathan Waits

    .40 S&W

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
63
  • LocationEdmond, Oklahoma

Posted 04 December 2017 - 09:12 PM

The rings are in the same position as your bottom rifle and if i had the top rifle configuration the problem would be even worse. The only way to get my scope back further is to put the forward ring right over the bolt/ejection port.

#7 dennishoddy

dennishoddy

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 10,921 posts
1,689
  • LocationPonca City, Ok

Posted 04 December 2017 - 09:17 PM

Its hard to pick that out with the angle on your pics. Do you have a shot at a 90 degree angle?



#8 Jonathan Waits

Jonathan Waits

    .40 S&W

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
63
  • LocationEdmond, Oklahoma

Posted 05 December 2017 - 05:02 AM

Here are some. In order for me to get the full frame of the scope the bell would be about where the forward ring is. Dont know if LOP is too long but my natural cheek rest is where green boresnake is and i have to move to red to get full frame.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20171205_045047.jpg
  • 20171205_045007.jpg
  • 20171205_050018.jpg


#9 Jonathan Waits

Jonathan Waits

    .40 S&W

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
63
  • LocationEdmond, Oklahoma

Posted 05 December 2017 - 05:03 AM

Also i dont know why they are upside down

#10 dennishoddy

dennishoddy

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 10,921 posts
1,689
  • LocationPonca City, Ok

Posted 05 December 2017 - 09:32 PM

You may need to think about a new scope that's longer. If you notice in the pics I posted, there is a definite difference in the length of the tube.The lower pic with the Simmons Atec is just about too short. The longer Nikon has another inch to play with. 

Or, there may be some offset rings out there that would bring the scope back to the correct eye relief. 



#11 Jonathan Waits

Jonathan Waits

    .40 S&W

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
63
  • LocationEdmond, Oklahoma

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:30 AM

Yeah. I think I'm going to try a prostaff 5 2.5-10x40 they are listed as 15 inches and some change with 4in eye relief. Would a monarch be worth the extra money? 150 bucks is a couple boxes of ammo anf range time.

#12 dennishoddy

dennishoddy

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 10,921 posts
1,689
  • LocationPonca City, Ok

Posted 06 December 2017 - 01:14 PM

Thats a good scope. I have one. For hunting purposes, if there is any way you can afford it, go with the Monarch. The light gathering properties of the Monarch scope is noticeable When comparing the two side by side in real low light conditions.  Either will work well.



#13 Jonathan Waits

Jonathan Waits

    .40 S&W

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
63
  • LocationEdmond, Oklahoma

Posted 06 December 2017 - 03:18 PM

Is the monarch any longer? The prostaff is cutting it close.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20171206_151603.jpg


#14 dennishoddy

dennishoddy

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 10,921 posts
1,689
  • LocationPonca City, Ok

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:21 PM

Is the monarch any longer? The prostaff is cutting it close.

There are several different models/lengths in the Monarch line as well as the prostaff. 

You would have to go to the Nikon website and check the specs on the individual scopes. 



#15 Jonathan Waits

Jonathan Waits

    .40 S&W

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
63
  • LocationEdmond, Oklahoma

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:48 AM

Yeah. I wish they were as forthcoming as redfield. Nikon stats are inaccurate. They list this particular model as 15.5 inches. It barely makes 14 with the eyepiece extended and caps on and with the eyepiece collapsed is only 12.5 inches. Redfield has upper and lower eye reliefs listed and even lists available mounting space and even dimension diagrams, i just like the ergos of nikon better. I really wished that bushnell worked out. The fit and finish and mechanical parts deffinitely seemed a little nicer than the prostaff. How does the monarch compare in that regards? Is it still plastic caps and turrets?

#16 dennishoddy

dennishoddy

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 10,921 posts
1,689
  • LocationPonca City, Ok

Posted 07 December 2017 - 08:34 PM

Mine aren't plastic, but they have a few years on them. Current models? I don't know. 

Manufacturers are always looking for a way to save a buck and get a selling point. Back in the day all the tubes and caps were steel, then later on, they had steel or aluminum threads encapsulated in a plastic cover, and finally if what you're saying, they have all gone plastic. Two reasons, weight, and profit. 

The gun and accessory business is a cut throat world. Advertizing you have the lightest scope is a selling point. 

Your concern with LOP on that stock may hold some water now that you've gone through some scopes, and are still experiencing some issues. That would be the next place I'd look. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users