Hey for you guys that have these, does anyone scope them? It says not to scope it when using with 20 ga, but of course you can, with a good eye relief scope.
Question #1, for *anyone* that has a rifle/shotgun combo:
Which of the following best describes your sighting setup?
1. Regular (non-see-through) mount, ESD, 1x, or very low-powered scope, zeroed for shotgun. Rifle is not exactly on, but I don't care because I use the shotgun only. I consider this a good wing-shooting or snap-shooting setup on game when using the shotgun, due to a combination of good eye relief, 1x or low power, and a large or heavy reticle.
2. Regular (non-see-through) mount, ESD, 1x, or very low-powered scope, zeroed for both in this way: I know exactly how many clicks of windage and elevation to use to go back and forth regularly and successfully. I consider this a good wing-shooting or snap-shooting setup on game when using the shotgun, due to a combination of good eye relief, 1x or low power, and a large or heavy reticle.
2.5 Regular (non-see-through) mount, mid- to higher-powered scope, zeroed for both in this way: I know exactly how many clicks of windage and elevation to use to go back and forth regularly and successfully. I like the higher powered scope because it's a turkey/coyote gun, not a wing-shooter or snap-shooter.
3. Regular (non-see-through) mount, ESD, 1x, or very low-powered scope, zeroed for shotgun & rifle both, which happen to be dead-on, or very close - close enough that it doesn't matter. Game is dead either way. I consider this a good wing-shooting or snap-shooting setup on game when using the shotgun, due to a combination of good eye relief, 1x or low power, and a large or heavy reticle.
3.5 Regular (non-see-through) mount, mid- to higher-powered scope, zeroed for shotgun & rifle both, which happen to be dead-on, or very close - close enough that it doesn't matter. Game is dead either way. I like the higher powered scope because it's a turkey/coyote gun, not a wing-shooter or snap-shooter.
4. See-through mount, ESD, 1x, or very low-powered scope, zeroed for shotgun & rifle both, which happen to be dead-on, or very close - close enough that it doesn't matter. But I like having the see-through irons as backup or for snap shots. I consider this a good wing-shooting or snap-shooting setup on game when using the shotgun, due to a combination of good eye relief, 1x or low power, and a large or heavy reticle.
4.5 See-through mount, mid- to higher-powered scope, zeroed for shotgun & rifle both, which happen to be dead-on, or very close - close enough that it doesn't matter. Game is dead either way. But I like having the see-through irons as backup or for snap shots
5. See-through mount, irons for shotgun, mid- to higher-powered scope for rifle.
6. Irons only, keep it zeroed for rifle, shotgun is not exactly on, but don't care; use rifle only.
7. Irons only, keep it zeroed for rifle, shotgun is on or very close.
8. Irons only, keep it zeroed for shotgun, rifle is not exactly on, but don't care; use shotgun only.
For purposes of this question, a "mid- to higher-powered scope" means a 2-7, fixed 4, or higher. "ESD" means electronic dot sight.
On my Savage 24 in .22lr/20 gauge, I have gone back and forth between #5 and #3. Currently it's in
#3 setup with a 1-4x32mm.
On my Baikal 12 ga / .223, I use
#5 setup with a 2-7x32mm.
On the Springfield M6 scout, it's irons only, but it's a flip rear, one specifically for each barrel, peep sight for .22 and leaf rear for .410, so I guess the M6 is "none of the above".
Question #2
I'm actually considering sacrilege / heresy, to-wit: Taking the Savage .22lr/20 ga combo, which currently has 24" bbls, and cutting both barrels to 18.25", and re-setting the front sight back, to approximate a 24c. Should I?
(
Note - before you answer: this one is already jacked up a bit from collector grade, since I previously sawed off the stock to reduce the ungawdly long LOP [was 14.5"+], and the set-forward didn't come out 100%, in terms of the plastic buttp late not matching just right and some evident stock-sanding). I'm pretty sure I'm going to do this.