LER Scopes for Mil-Surps

[sumpnz]

Hey all, I'm getting pretty close to buying a "no-gunsmithing" scope mount for Miss Kaysa (1896 Swede Mauser) so that I can hunt with it (yeah - I know the iron sights are fine, but my eyes even at 27 are not what they were at 8). I've looked at Leupold, Burris, and Redfield LER scopes on Ebay, but the concern I have is that I don't always know exactly what the eye relief is on most of those scopes, so it's hard to tell if they'll work on a mil-surp. I've seen the NC-Star scopes on Ebay as well, but they're so low in price that I question if they're worth getting from a quality (optics and ruggedness) perspective.

For those of you who have used LER scopes on mil-surp rifles, which of the scopes have you found to be the best (or at least acceptable) in terms having appropriate eye relief, optical quality, ruggedness, and value for the dollars spent.

Edit: Mods, if this would be better off in Rifle Country feel free to move it there.

 

[bj426]

http://www.crankyfarmer.com/pistolscope.html

I really like the 2-7x32 NcStar on my M39 GREAT quality for the price....

Check it out.

 

[sumpnz]

I really like the 2-7x32 NcStar on my M39 GREAT quality for the price....

That's kind of my point. Quality may be "great" for a <$50 scope, but how do they compare to Leupold, Nikon, Burris, Redfield, etc? I know, even used, those scopes will go for $100-300, but I'm willing to pony up $200 for a good used scope, so unless the Nc-Stars are comparable, or at least pretty close in optical quality and ruggedness I just don't know if it's worth buying (i.e. "cheapest" isn't always the least expensive). I'd rather buy one scope for $200, and have it forever with no desire to upgrade than buy a $50 scope and in a year or two be fed up and wanting to buy a $400 scope because I'd have more money by then.

If crankyfarmer had a fixed 4x Nikon scope I might well have bought it already. The price one their 2x Nikon scopes is about perfect, but I want more magnification (for deer and elk hunting 150-300 yard shots are the norm here in AZ). Actually a 1.5-4x, or 2-7x variable power seems like it would be ideal, but I'm having a hard time locating much like that (other than Nc-Star), so I figure a fixed 4x scope should do the trick.

Sorry if I seem biased against Nc-Star but their prices are so low that I have to wonder how much quality they've sacrificed in the name of cost containment. I'd really like it if someone with experience with both Nc-Star and Leupold/Nikon/Burris/Redfield/etc scopes to give a comparison and an opinion of whether or not the Nc-Stars are worth the money.

 

[444]

Obviously, I haven't tried all the scopes out there.
I have used a scout scope on a Finn M39 and on a K31. I only own one scout scope and it is a Leupold. It worked fine as I am sure you might have guessed. By the way, this is another great case for the use of rails. I had that scope scope mounted on a Marlin 444 using a AO Lever Scout rail. I have the scope mounted to the rail using Leupold quick detach rings. So, I can move the scope from the 444 to the K31 to the M39 and back at will without turning a single screw. For that matter I could put the Aimpoint from my AR15 onto the same rail.

Oh, and I have no interest or use for Chinese optics.

 

[bj426]

I was sceptical about the price as well. And pleasantly surprised. I figured that if it wasn't nice enough to keep on my m39 I'd slap it on an m44 or something in the future. turns out it takes the punishment of the m39. has real good clarity throughout the 2-7 and the LER is in a great range given the forward mounting that you have to do on an m39.

if you lived closer I'd give you the same assurance as two of my buddys.... "if you don't like it... i'll buy it from ya" hehehe.... they wouldn't let em go on a bet.

I'm not claiming that they are as nice as a leopold, but you could outfit a half dozen milsurps for the same price as a it would to do one.

IMHO...

good luck with whatever you choose.

 

[sumpnz]

444, Where would I be able to get a setup like your's? I have a Turkish 1938 mauser (made in 1941, all matching numbers) and the Swede mentioned earlier. I'd be a lot more likely to go with a single Leupold/Nikon/Burris scope if I could easily set it up to switch it between the two.

 

[Art Eatman]

Probably more info available in Rifle Country. No biggie.

, Art

 

[444]

I got the scope base from this guy: http://p077.ezboard.com/fparallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforumsfrm85

The rings are Leupold quick detachable Weaver style rings.

 

[sumpnz]

444,

Well, I think I'll have to get the mounts from these guys as Darrell doesn't appear to make mounts for the rifles I have (both are Mausers).

What was your source for the quick-detach rings? Straight from Leupold, or some other website? I have PM'd a few people with Burris and Leupold EER scopes here on THR, and the price and specs are right for at least one, maybe two of them.

Now I just need the $350-400 to do it all ($150 for the two mounts, and $100-150/scope if I go with the ones mentioned above, or 1 scope and quick-detach rings).

 

[ocabj]

I am looking to scout scope my Czech VZ24 and I'm pretty much intent on getting the Leuopold IER Scout Scope. It has a 2x magnification with a 9.25" eye relief (IIRC). All the long eye relief scopes I looked into were designed for handguns and had an eye relief of 18" and beyond. The Leupold IER (intermediate eye relief) was specifically designed for the scout rifle, which is why it has the perfect eye relief that I need. I measured from the rear sight on my VZ24 to my eye during cheekweld and it was about 12", so I need a scope with an eye relief of around 10". Burris also makes a scout scope, but the Burris and Leupold are the same price, so I'm more inclined to go with the Leupold .

 

[444]

sumpnz
It looks to me like those mounts you are looking at also have a Weaver style base, so the QD rings should work fine and allow you to move the scope from one rifle to another. Of course you know that you probably won't have the same zero. I suppose you could take note of the number of clicks needed to re-zero from one rifle to the next.
I know those rings are expensive. I personally try to buy good stuff if at all possible. I got a set of rings with my scope base and they are the cheapest pot metal. I wouldn't use them.
I have gotten into this many times before, but to me, the cost of the rifle has nothing to do with the cost of a scope or rings. IMO, my K31 is fully as good as any rifle costing 5X as much or more. Just because I only paid something like $100 for it is no reason for me to buy a piece of crap scope and rings. It sounds to me like you are taking the right approach by buying good quality mounts and optics.
This thread got me thinking about this and I am on my way out the door to shoot mine.

I found my pistol scopes to be unsuitable for this application. As was noted, the eye relief is too long. The scope would need to be mounted way out further than it is and even then when you get into a prone position (eye closer to the scope) it would be too close.

 

[roo_ster]

I mounted a NC Star scope on my M48 Mauser with the Mitchell's Mausers scout scope mount & weaver rings. Their mount requires no removal of wood.

No, the NC Star is no Leupold, but it does allow one to scope up a rifle for a reasonable amount of $$$ and get a decent level of quality...more quality than its price would indicate. I chose the Yugo for mounting, 'cause its barleycorn sights ("V" rear & "^" front) were not as good as the sights on my other milsurps.

The NC Star has stood up to quite a few rounds of Turk 8mm, HOT Turk 8mm & is still on it.

If you want a really nice IER scope, Leupold seems to be the preferred tube, tho.

Good luck.

 

[444]

A couple comments on MY use of scopes on milsurp rifles.
The reason I buy and shoot milsurp rifles is because...............they are milsurp rifles. They have a lot of history behind them. I enjoy reading about them, the variations, their use in combat etc. Like everyone else, I sort of collect them because they are very inexpensive. I like to leave them in, as issued condition and shoot them in, as issued condition. I find that I don't really enjoy shooting them with optics. If I wanted to shoot a rifle with optics, I have a safe full of modern bolt action rifles with great optics, good triggers and better than average accuracy. My K31 is one of my best shooting milsurp rifles. From a good rest, using optics, it shoots worse than my worst modern bolt action rifle. In fact, I regularly shoot much better groups using a modern rifle and iron sights.
So why would I scope one of my milsurps ?
Two reasons.
One is to see just how good the rifle will shoot. I can't see good enough at 100 yards to shoot real tight groups on paper. I feel like using a 2.5X scope will allow me to shoot tighter, more consistant groups so I can see just what the rifle is capable of. The second reason is to work up handloads. In order to see if a different bullet or a different powder or a different powder charge is more accurate you have to be able to shoot a group consistantly.
Usually, after I do all this, I remove the scope and return the issued sights to the rifle. The rifle is then enjoyed for what it is: a 60-100 year old military relic.
I may leave the scope on my K31 and maybe try it deer hunting this year if I get drawn for a tag. But, I can't see myself shooting it much with the scope. I have another K31 that I shoot a lot that is in issue condition. I do OK with the sights that came with it. I compete in a monthly match that usually has one stage where you shoot a steel plate at a reported 380 yards from prone. 10 rounds. I can hit it pretty consistantly by setting my rear sight at 300 and holding on the top of the target.

 

[sumpnz]

Why am I planning to scope my mil-surps? Well, I am planning to go hunting this year (I've applied and am waiting on the draw to see if I can go) and my only rifles are mil-surps.

I believe that as a potential hunter I owe my intended quary the best shot placement I can make, which means using a scope for anything beyond 50 yards (in AZ 150-300 yard shots are the norm). So, that means I need to put a scope on the guns. I could buy a new or at least modern rifle, but by the time I scope it I'll have spent more money and I'll have an easier time convincing my wife to spend this money. Also, as 444 said, a scope makes it possible to really determine how accurate the rifles really are. That's something that is harder to do with iron sights (not impossible, just more difficult).

Plus, the iron sights on my Turk Mauser blow goats and by the time I either fixed or replaced them I'll have spent almost as much money as putting a scope on it.

The irons on my Swede Mauser are actually very good. First time ever shooting it with cheap PMC factory FMJ ammo I put 20 rounds into 6" or so (centered on the bulls-eye) at 100 yards, and I was just trying to get used to the rifle, not going for best (or even good) groups.

If I knew the shots I was likely to take while hunting would be at less than 100 yards, I would just use it as is with the irons. But, I know I'm likely to need to be able to take much longer shots than that, so no matter how good the irons are, my eyes (and skill with irons for that matter) are just not up to that job.

The other thing is that once I do get modern rifles for hunting, I can simply take the scope mount off, put the rear sight back on, and they're back to as-issued condition.

 

[ocabj]

If you want to do it, go for it.

I don't see anything wrong with scout scoping a milsurp, myself. The mounts are no drill so you don't alter the receiver. You can always go back to the iron sights if need be.

I think the scout scope on a short Mauser or a M38 is a novel idea. It gives people an option for a cheap, fun to shoot hunting gun. Makes shooting some milsurps like the Mausers more fun because many people get tired of holding under for those 300 meter sights (of course, there's always the Mojo sights, which again, is a no drill/alter sight option).