Sorry for more rookie scope questions

[mfer]

Thanks for offer Dwight! Maybe take you up on it but it would be 2 hr drive round trip.

I ordered the QD AR PEPR. Found a deal at $85 shipped. I plan on building an AR at some point in the future so if it is overkill for the 15-22 I can move it to the AR. I do like the one piece to be easier to mount and the QD is nice if the scope fails and I still want to shoot. I'll figure out the scope in the next couple days.

Thanks again!

 

[v35]

I do use a P-Rimfire 2-7 ( old version is P-22) on my Smith's.

Bart, may I ask why you have both those Nikon mounted on the receiver? It looks like you went out of your way to do that.

The reason for asking is that I'd like to know if you think accuracy would be degraded by placing the forward mount on the handguard while the rear mount is on the receiver. It's also the reason I chose a one piece mount, to eliminate all doubt.

Perhaps it matters, perhaps not, I don't know, but I'm interested in hearing others' opinions.

 

[grampajack]

Bart, may I ask why you have both those Nikon mounted on the receiver? It looks like you went out of your way to do that.

The reason for asking is that I'd like to know if you think accuracy would be degraded by placing the forward mount on the handguard while the rear mount is on the receiver. It's also the reason I chose a one piece mount, to eliminate all doubt.

Perhaps it matters, perhaps not, I don't know, but I'm interested in hearing others' opinions.

It absolutely matters. For one thing, the chances of your handguard rail lining up with your receiver rail are pretty much non existent. If they were really close then lapping might be possible, but I think for most there would just be too much of a difference.

Another problem is that handguards flex a lot. So even if you got the rings lined up that goes out the window as soon as you rest or pull the handguard.

I will never forget this video I saw of a platoon leader once. Someone must have posted it out of revenge. This guy had about a 9 or 10x scope bridging his KAC two piece handguard and couldn't figure out why he couldn't hit anything. All I could say was Lord thank you for making me too old to get drafted. It looked like he had taken the scope off a Mk14 and mounted it on his M4.

 

[cdb1]

Forgive my ignorance but if one were to mount the front ring on the handguard then wouldn't a scout scope or a scope with eye relief much longer than normal he required?

 

[LoonWulf]

Not necessarily, with some mount especially mounts that dont have much extension, it can be hard to get a regular eye relief scope far enough forward on ARs. This is also Depending on how the shooter has his stock adjusted.

As stated i would NOT bridge the handguard/float tube/what have you, and the receiver.
I know of one guy who has a really big scope set up like that, he spent a great deal of time and money setting up his gun so that the float tubes rail matched up with his uppers rail, specifically so he could move the mount father forward.

Heres a picture of mine with non offset rings. This works for me as generally shoot with the stock full extended. If i didnt my .458 would have me wearing that scope.

 

[cdb1]

Got it.

 

[bikemutt]

It's nice to have a dissenting opinion, but I think this is where context is in order, based on his other thread he's mounting an economy scope to a .22lr plinker. Those Nikon scope mounts will be just fine for that.

Yes, until the mounts don't quite fit the rail. Been there, done that. Nikon makes great riflescopes, especially considering the price. Their AR bases are really, really bad. Avoid them.

 

[Hanzo581]

Yes, until the mounts don't quite fit the rail. Been there, done that. Nikon makes great riflescopes, especially considering the price. Their AR bases are really, really bad. Avoid them.

Exchange them for ones that do. No one is saying they are the best out there or they'd take them into battle, we're talking about mounting them on an economy plinker.

 

[cdb1]

I guess it was a twist of fate there were no issues with the Nikon mounts I installed. I do prefer the Burris PEPR though.

 

[Varminterror]

Bart, may I ask why you have both those Nikon mounted on the receiver? It looks like you went out of your way to do that.

The reason for asking is that I'd like to know if you think accuracy would be degraded by placing the forward mount on the handguard while the rear mount is on the receiver. It's also the reason I chose a one piece mount, to eliminate all doubt.

Perhaps it matters, perhaps not, I don't know, but I'm interested in hearing others' opinions.

Yes, it does matter. It's not opinion, it's physical/mechanical fact. Handguards, while relatively rigid, do flex considerably on their mount. Having a free float handguard on your barrel just to have it touch your scope is foolish - purpose defeating. Whether you believe the scope would be damaged by that flexion or not (it can be), the fact remains the deflection will cause a deviation in the optic position - effectively this changes your zero simply by putting a different pressure on your scope. A guy might as well just leave one of the rings off, or loose.

For simple math (in the end), a 10 thousandths deflection with a 3" mounting spread will yield a 12" shift in POI. 0.01/3*100*12*3=12... Think about that - 1 thousandths of deflection is more than an inch at 100yrds - can you say your handguard doesn't shift 1 thousandths relative to your receiver with changing handguard pressure? I'd rather not have my optic walking all over he11 and back as I switched from shooting from a bipod to sling to a fence post (changing forend pressure) just because I didn't want to run a cantilever mount to keep both rings on my receiver.

 

[Walkalong]

Yes, it does matter. It's not opinion, it's physical/mechanical fact.

Yep, never mount on the handguards.

 

[Hanzo581]

I may disagree with a lot in this thread, but yeah, I'd never mount the forward ring on the handguard, I have a Troy handguard that feels super rigid, but I still wouldn't trust it.

 

[Col. Harrumph]

I don't know at what range you expect to be using your rig, but if you feel you need a scope then you should worry about cant (tilting the rifle). Avoiding cant starts with leveling the rifle in your clamp VERY carefully. If you're just plinking or hunting with this rig, a decent hardware store level will do for a tool. For serious target or long range work, you really should use a precision machinist's level ($!). When mounting the scope you can buy a precision bubble level or you could sight through it at a hanging plumb bob. Good quality rings won't need lapping, cheapos will. Torquing carefully by hand is OK, just do it by stages as when mounting the Charger's cylinder head. Oh yeah: blue Loctite. If you don't have the tools already, it makes sense to farm the job out.

 

[Zerodefect]

Larue is all I use on AR's.

Assemble, level rifle as much as possible, hang a plumb bob (or anything) from a tree. I doesn't have to be perfect, just get it as correct as you can. There's only one way to get used to mounting scopes. By mounting and testing scopes.

 

[cdb1]

To the OP. The PEPR you ordered has six screws per ring. You don't need a torque screwdriver. Just snug each screw a little bit and you'll be fine.

 

[mfer]

Well I got the QD PEPR mounts yesterday. Super easy to put on and off in same position. Seems really solid mount. Glad i got it as I can see myself removing the scope for peep sights.

Guess I should just get the Nikon rimfire II 3-9x40. It is $115. I don't think the P-rimfire 2-7x32 is worth the $45 increase in price

 

[cdb1]

The only thing the P-Rimfire gains you is turrets which most people aren't going to use on a .22 anyway.

 

[mfer]

The only thing the P-Rimfire gains you is turrets which most people are going to use on a .22 anyway.

They both have turrets right? I mean the ones on the p-rimfire are just larger for gripping than the prostaff ii I thought?

 

[Hanzo581]

They both have turrets right? I mean the ones on the p-rimfire are just larger for gripping than the prostaff ii I thought?

No, the P-Rimfire has the quick adjust turrets, the other has the thing where you have to screw the caps off then turn the dial inside.

 

[cdb1]

When I say turrets I mean the exposed type that are meant to be dialed. The ProStaff has covered turrets, you have to unscrew the caps to turn them. At .22 LR ranges most people are not going to dial turrets.

 

[grampajack]

Well I got the QD PEPR mounts yesterday. Super easy to put on and off in same position. Seems really solid mount. Glad i got it as I can see myself removing the scope for peep sights.

Guess I should just get the Nikon rimfire II 3-9x40. It is $115. I don't think the P-rimfire 2-7x32 is worth the $45 increase in price

I would spring for a Leupold. Admittedly I don't have any experience with Nikon, but I do have some experience with sub $200 scopes, and in the long run they cost you more. And my experience with cheap scopes is from about fifteen years ago when $100 bucks went quite a bit further than it does today. For just slightly more you can get a high quality scope with a reliable warranty.

 

[cdb1]

I would spring for a Leupold. Admittedly I don't have any experience with Nikon, but I do have some experience with sub $200 scopes, and in the long run they cost you more. And my experience with cheap scopes is from about fifteen years ago when $100 bucks went quite a bit further than it does today. For just slightly more you can get a high quality scope with a reliable warranty.

So by your definition a Minox ZV 3 3-9x40 and a Burris Fullfield II 2-7x35 aren't good quality scopes and in the long run will cost a person more, which is totally untrue.

And the Nikon ProStaff Rimfire scopes are plenty good for a plinking Rimfire rifle. I own Leupold, Zeiss, Bushnell, Meopta, Burris and Clearidge scopes that all cost over $200.00. I also own a $120.00 Vortex Crossfire Rimfire scope that's mounted on a Marlin Model 60. It's been on there quite a while and given excellent service. My daughter's boyfriend has a Minox ZV 3 3-9x40 that I told him to buy on his 30-06. I've owned several Fullfield II's in the past. They are good scopes. I buy the nicest scopes I can afford and appreciate quality optics. I also realize their are diminishing returns as you up the cost on optics. I haven't made a shot with my VX-3 1.5-6x32 mounted on my 30-30 that I couldn't have made with the Burris Fullfield II 2-7x35 that used to be mounted on it, maybe there will be a day when I do.

 

[grampajack]

So by your definition a Minox ZV 3 3-9x40 and a Burris Fullfield II 2-7x35 aren't good quality scopes and in the long run will cost a person more, which is totally untrue.

And the Nikon ProStaff Rimfire scopes are plenty good for a plinking Rimfire rifle. I own Leupold, Zeiss, Bushnell, Meopta, Burris and Clearidge scopes that all cost over $200.00. I also own a $120.00 Vortex Crossfire Rimfire scope that's mounted on a Marlin Model 60. It's been on there quite a while and given excellent service. My daughter's boyfriend has a Minox ZV 3 3-9x40 that I told him to buy on his 30-06. I've owned several Fullfield II's in the past. They are good scopes. I buy the nicest scopes I can afford and appreciate quality optics. I also realize their are diminishing returns as you up the cost on optics. I haven't made a shot with my VX-3 1.5-6x32 mounted on my 30-30 that I couldn't have made with the Burris Fullfield II 2-7x35 that used to be mounted on it, maybe there will be a day when I do.

I don't think you can claim diminishing returns going from a Nikon to a Leupold. I'm coming at it from a perspective of build quality. The cheap scopes just don't hold up. Before you know it the adjustments are breaking. Again, I don't have any direct experience with Nikon, but I doubt they've managed to build a durable 100 dollar scope when everyone before them has failed, especially considering the value of a hundred dollar bill has not exactly increased in recent years.

 

[cdb1]

You basically stated that any sub $200.00 scope is not going to hold up which just isn't true. There are several that will on a centerfire and a number that will on a rimfire. I agree that there are no diminishing returns going from a Nikon to a Leupold. I could have explained myself better. But there is a diminishing return when going from a VX-2 to a VX-3i, though I'm willing to pay extra for a VX-3i.

I'll take a Fullfield II or a ZV 3 over a VX-1 any day.

 

[grampajack]

You basically stated that any sub $200.00 scope is not going to hold up which just isn't true. There are several that will on a centerfire and a number that will on a rimfire. I agree that there are no diminishing returns going from a Nikon to a Leupold. I could have explained myself better. But there is a diminishing return when going from a VX-2 to a VX-3i, though I'm willing to pay extra for a VX-3i.

I'll take a Fullfield II or a ZV 3 over a VX-1 any day.

I'm not talking about standing up to recoil. I'm just talking about the adjustments breaking from normal use. Every cheapie scope I've ever had the adjustments didn't last very long before something broke. I've just come to accept that there are economic limitations that make it unlikely to get a good quality product for a bargain price. I get it. I'm constantly hearing about how this or that bargain product is bullet proof, but it's never panned out for me. There's no truer statement ever uttered than You get what you pay for; buy once cry once.

I shouldn't have implied either that $200 dollars automatically buys you a good scope. I've seen scopes for 3-6 hundred that were total crap, like the cheap 1-6 and 1-8s. But in general, 2-3 hundred will buy you a decent 3-9x.