Scope Rings and bases

[Dick]

Hi,

I am in the process of fitting a Swarovski Z6i gen.2 2-12x50 to a Sako .308 hunter, without picatinny rail.
I need advice with regards to rings and bases. The salesmen at the dealer contends that the Sako Optilock are not the best. I am not sure of his opinion as his recommendation do not invoke confidence. I call on the experienced to please recommend:

1. High quality durable mounts which do not need to be quick detachable. I would prefer the mounts to be adjustable for eye relief, but it is not absolutely a deal braker, if adjustable mounts are not available. Which are best for purpose among Warne, Otilock, Leupold or any other manufacture.
2. Should I opt for low mounts to fit the scope closer to the bore? I am short in stature.

Thanks, in advance

I fitted a lot of scopes, as a gunsmith not a salesman. Sadly the lack of understanding of basic principles continues to persist despite correct info being given repeatedly. Don't take too much notice of salesmen or some dealers. That said I wouldn't recommend Sako mounts - they are ridiculously over priced, damn cumbersome on the rifle and are no more secure or in any way better than many other makes.

There are not many rings available for direct mounting (no need for bases) to integral dovetails machined into Sako receivers and CZ, Ruger and Tikka that I can think of. I have a pair of Leupold that fit directly on my Sako dovetail. They are very neat, unlike the cumbersome Optilocks. The downside however is that the top caps are secured by only two screws unlike the wider Ruger rings that have four.

You are completely uninformed about low rings. One of my earliest lessons was customers "upgrading" their old 32mm scopes to scopes with huge objectives expecting them to fit the existing low rings. It was a regular occurrence that the objective rested on the barrel well before the tube was in the front ring, necessitating replacement with higher rings. Even then you may find that the iron sight if it's still on the barrel might obstruct the fitting of the lens cap.

There's another consequence of oversize objectives - I had rifles on which the scope was so far above the barrel that it couldn't be seen through unless the shooter lifted his head so high that a cheek weld was impossible. That makes proper shooting impossible unless and until some wood is added to the comb.

I consider 50mm objectives ridiculously bulky with zero benefit to compensate for the downsides I have described. In fact I see no reason for obectives bigger than 32mm in the field. "Light gathering?" No its an illusion - the utility of a scope in poor light is related to exit pupil not to objective diameter. Unless you intend to shoot at ranges further than 400m buy a fixed 6x. I recommend Leupold 6 x 33 if they are still made. I recommend that for compactness and durability in the field. I have very sound reason for "durability" but I daren't say what it is for fear of getting sued by other scope makers. I you settle for a scope of sensible size and bulk rather than a scope more suited to an artillery piece, the very neat direct mounting Leupold rings like mine will be perfect.

But if you insist on an artillery size scope, be prepared to raise the comb if you want comfortable shooting

[Againstthegrains]

Unless you intend to shoot at ranges further than 400m buy a fixed 6x. I recommend Leupold 6 x 33 if they are still made. I recommend that for compactness and durability in the field.

This is so true, as far as a sensible hunting scope goes. By doing away with the adjustable magnification (adjustable magnification requires more optical elements, which reduces light transmission and optical clarity) , you get much better optics in a fixed scope for your money.

[Heath Robinson]

If it's not too late, perhaps this could be of use to you:
https://www.gunsite.co.za/forums/sho...ne-Scope-Rings

[Dick]

I forgot to mention your comment that lack of eye relief adjustment isn't a deal breaker. Wrong!!! If you can't get eye relief right you can't get a clear view thro the scope. I fitted all scopes to my satisfaction but final fitting was with the customer in the shop, the final fitting being the eye relief. In my book, the one that doesn't sell, are two photos of the fitting of a big Swarovski scope to a Mauser 98. The first photo shows that the existing Millet rings allowed zero adjustment. The second shows that the replacement Thor rings allowed some fore - aft adjustment; not a lot but enough. Let me say again at the risk of unpopularity, that the ignorance about scope fitting and the consequences of over-size scopes continues to amaze me.

[Heath Robinson]

While I agree that mounting a scope correctly is critical to performance, I don't quite agree with your statements on big scopes.
I believe they have legitimate uses. However, I do agree that most people today are putting unnecessarily large scopes on their hunting rifles.
I have rifles with big scopes and rifles with small scopes. They serve different purposes and are not really interchangeable, even though their calibers give similar performance.