It is "optics ready". The receiver has cuts for proprietary Sako rings.
https://www.brownells.com/optics-mou...prod55732.aspx
Rosco
It is "optics ready". The receiver has cuts for proprietary Sako rings.
https://www.brownells.com/optics-mou...prod55732.aspx
Rosco
I love the .243 and have killed a ton of deer with it. It calls for a nice scope and while lots of folks, including me, love the various variables (is that redundant?), I think a fixed 4x or 6x might take care of your needs with less expense, weight and complexity. What a great rifle!
Regional Government Sales Manager for Aimpoint, Inc. USA
Co-owner Hardwired Tactical Shooting (HiTS)
Agree 100% with this. A 2.5x scope unnecessarily limits a rifle that can reach out several hundred yards but doesn't offer much additional speed in return.
Disagree 100% with your comment that this rifle is useless for combat. A skilled, determined shooter with a scoped 243 could make a real nuisance of himself in a guerrilla warfare setting. The trick would be to fire once from somewhere near the far end of that cartridge's effective range, then slip away. See also Hathcock, Carlos.
Okie John
“The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
"Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's
I once convinced an upper echelon boss to let me carry a lever action .357 Magnum.......... he bought off on it.
The great thing about combat is that it comes in so many forms that it can be only loosely defined. And I’ve done substantially more combat damage using my thumbs than I ever did with my trigger finger.
You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
The 4X compared to 2.5x8-36 - less weight, yes, but by only two ounces; less complexity, yes, by a lot; less expense, no, since I'd have to buy a 4x, while there's a proved, unmounted Leupold 2.5x8-36 sitting available in my closet. Funny thing, I thought I had a spare 4x in the closet, but when I went looking for it I found a Simmons air rifle scope I don't remember having. Packrats? In any case I no longer have (or can find) a 4x as cheaply as a variable.
I'm still tempted by the Leupold 2.5x20. Phil Shoemaker, noted Alaska bear guide, has had one on his 458 for 25 years or so - he finds it sturdier than his backup iron sights. They're also nearly half the weight of my variable. They are not, however, free, so the variable it is. Another oddity I just discovered is how rare it is for an optics company to offer a 4X fixed power cope; they used to be the standard.
Last edited by Jaywalker; 06-14-2018 at 09:56 AM.
A quality .243 is nothing to sneer at for work.
I've heard quite a few stories about Afghan insurgents doing some impressively terrifying work with old Mosins and Enfields. At 600+M engagements in hilly terrain I know I'd prefer a solid .243 bolt gun with a decent optic over a 14.5in select-fire 5.56.
There's a reason they dusted off M14's and figured out how to put ACOG's on them.
Last edited by JRB; 06-14-2018 at 04:54 PM.
I did find the Weaver 4X - it was in a Leupold box.
This Weaver has been a really good scope. Back when I was reloading I shot some remarkable groups with it on a Ruger 77 MkII 6.5x55 at 100 yards. One five shot group had four shots in 0.26" with the fifth shot taking it out to .75. The next group was four shots in 0.31 inches with the fifth shot also took it out to 0.75 inches. I blamed it on the primers and changed to bench rest primers after that, but it could have been me all along. I'll never know.
Here's my setup.
I have two of these useful Tipton Range Boxes for scope mounting and other light gunsmithing. Those are Leupold Ringmounts. That's a Segway Reticle Leveler, the best $10 I have spent on tools - I've had it for 15 years. If you haven't used one, you square it up on the flats of your receiver then un-focus your eyes so that you can see the reticle and the flat lines in the same image, twisting the scope until both are level. An inch-pound torque wrench lets you tighten just right, without marring or damaging the scope. Leupold says 14 inch-pounds for the mount and 15 - 17 inch-pounds for the scope screws. There's also a Leupold Bore Sighter tool in there in its bag under the grip on the table.
I didn't think to weigh the rings, but the rifle by itself is 7 pounds 2 oz. The Weaver scope is a sturdy 10 oz. Mounted, the rifle and scope weighs 8 pounds 0.1 oz. I'm pretty happy with it. Looks like I really did need Medium height rings.
Last edited by Jaywalker; 06-17-2018 at 02:56 PM.
I have several older rifles with fixed 4x scopes. Weight is a factor but the bigger issue is reliability and durability. Prior to the 1990s, fixed power scopes were significantly more reliable than variables. However, like everything else, technology Marches on. Time was 9mm hollow points sucked and you had to get tune ups and new tires on your car every 15,000 miles.
Same with the 2.5 x. It still works but it is filling a niche now dominated by RDS and 1x low power variable scopes.
I would love to have an old school Weaver 2.5 power scope which gave a wide field of view and served admirably for its intended use, short range hunting. Regardless of the rifle/scope combination that I might have had over the years, I would not shoot at deer past 150 yards. Past that distance I have small confidence in my ability to kill deer humanely. I admit it. Some don't.