| Ripp |
| (.577 member) |
| 12/02/18 10:59 AM |
Re: 6.5 Creedmoor Kurz Mauser
|
Quote:Quote:
In the past, when I have commented on the size of a scope overwhelming the rifle it is mounted on, you have explained that the scope was the choice of the customer, and I have had to admit that "the customer is always right". However, in this instance, the customer is you, and I can see no possible justification in mounting a totally unnecessary Swarovski Z3 3-10x42 scope with a 42mm objective on a graceful, well designed rifle. Such as scope has its use, I suppose, on a target or varmint rifle, but on a rifle intended for mountain hunting it appears entirely out of place.
This is of course only my opinion, but for me the absolute limit of magnification is 7X (preferably 6X) on such a rifle, and in no case an objective larger than 32mm, with a mount allowing the scope to be situated as low as possible.
It is interesting for me that you talk about a preference for open sights and build a rifle appropriate for snap shooting, only to mount such a monstrosity on top of it. The scope height is clearly inappropriate for a rifle designed for iron sights.
The choice of claw mounts only exacerbates the situation, since the height of front ring only adds to the overall height of the scope, which would not be the case with a pivot or tip off mount, where the front ring could be mounted on the main tube, rather than on the bell.
xausa,
I hear your criticisms and I respect them.
We have different points of view that relate to our past and the country in which we live and hunt, you in the USA, me in Europe.
First, the discussion you are referring to was about a Zeiss V8, a huge scope on 36mm tube that is not comparable with the Swarovski Z3, a very light powerful scope.
I'm sorry to tell you that, but we prefer to benefit from the excellent quality of the continental optics rather than being forced to use scopes made in the USA (or China) that we don't always appreciate the performances, even if they wear gold rings on front bell...
I loved the excellent 2-7x36 Kahles but it is no longer manufactured today and the last ones we had in stock are now allocated to running projects.
The Z3, either the 3-9x36 or the 3-10x42 is very light and corresponds well to the use that I do in stalking chamois in mountain.
On the other hand you don't imagine the complexity of making a claw mount, a purely European system that requires many hours of work but, when well done, is the most perfect quick detachable mount guaranteeing a rigorous return to zero.
I can't imagine how I could have decked out this rifle with a fixed or (excellent) Talley mount while maintaining the integrity of the action. The rear claw mount base is welded on the receiver bridge without alteration and the front base soldered on the barrel, sparing the harmful modification of the front ring.
Of course, we are able to build a rifle with a small very low scope and a modified bolt handle but in this case we will use a pre-64 W70 action that, unfortunately, does not exist in "kurz" version.
As for the "apparent" height of the assembly it is partly due to the slenderness of the scope tube but it allows keeping intact the Oberndorf bolt handle, even if it has been modified to be lower.
Finally, rest assured, the stock - it is one of our specialty - is well suited to both sighting systems and the weapon is very comfortable to shoot.
Thank you for your comments.
DORLEAC
www.dorleac-dorleac.com
--
I love the lines and beauty of the rifle by itself..incredibly beautiful rifle..however with the scope I must say I am on XAUSA's side on this one and agree with his comments above..
1. If this is a stalking rifle and your objective is to have a lightweight scope such as the Z3, why do you need fixed sights on it in the first place?? Why would I want the extra weight??
2. Secondly, again mtn stalking rifle with the scope so far above the bore is not as conducive to long range shooting, IMHO as a lowered scope would be..again, why the fixed sights..
3. In reference to the "gold ring" and their quality..while I agree to the quality of the glass on Swaro's, and I have a bunch of them, Z5's and Z'6's.. Personally no longer so sure they are that optically superior to the higher end "gold rings" you refer to..
One thing I do know is the tube of the Swaro's is not as rigid/strong as the Leupolds, if you tighten the screws to tight on the rings you can see it bending on the Swaro's, don't see that on the Leupolds..
I have sent 3 Leupolds back to the factory after 40+ years of using them through thousands of rounds of shooting..from p-dog shooting to big game...one of which I bought used so I just sent it in to have it gone over, so to be fair, two that actually needed it... I had a VX-3 in 4.5-14 mounted on my HS Precision chambered in 300 Ultra-mag--I traveled to Africa 4 times with that combo, never had to adjust that scope..in addition to using it all fall long here in Montana hunting deer and elk. I ended up putting a Swaro on it, had to send it back to the factory the first 50 rounds..had the same thing happen putting a Swaro Z5 on my 26 Nosler..also had to send it in for repairs..that was 26 rounds..optical quality is one thing, holding up and remaining functional is quite another..Again, I have both, so no axe to grind..however, the quality you speak of has a few holes in it as well based on my experience..