Scope

[fpjeepy05]

Has anyone ever had a problem busting scopes with a whisper? I know rimfires require a special scope because of the vibrations could it be possible i need the same for my whisper?

I've currently killed 2. Granted neither was a good scope. Barska 3-9x42 IR Compact ($59) and Gear Guide 3-9x56mm ($89) The Barska wouldn't hold a Zero. And the Gear Guide after 15 shots went blurry and wouldnt focus.

Gun is a Thomposon Center Contender with a 25" Extra Bull Barrel. Load is 240gr smk over 6 grains of No. 5.

As of now I'm looking at the following two scopes:
http://www.simmonsoptics.com/riflescopes/aetec.cfm (Simmons Aetec 4-14x44 Mil Dot)

http://swfa.com/Weaver-4-12x44-4044-Rifle-Scope-P40594.aspx (Weaver 40/44 4-12x44 Ballistic X)

If anyone knows a lot about scopes can you explain me this? Field of View is based on two things? Eye relief and Magnification? So since these scope have the same magnification (at the low end) so shouldn't the scope with teh closer eye relief have the greater field of view, but with these scopes it does not hold true cause the Weaver has a closer eye relief and the Simmons has the greater field of view. :mad:

[sha-ul]

I have heard about air rifles affecting some scopes, but it is because the inertia of the spring loaded piston traveling on way& stopping, so almost a reverse recoil,I hadn't heard about rimfires doing that...

You might try a better grade of scope& see how they hold up.

[i8asquirrel]

I fired 120 rounds sunday through my bolt action Whisper under a BSA 8x18 sweet 22. no problems at all.....good luck

[martineta]

I have a Leupold VX II on mine. Have shot it 300-500 times in the last 4-5 years. Only time the zero changes is when I change bullet weights and go between super sonic and subsonic. Good luck,

[LouBoyd]

Has anyone ever had a problem busting scopes with a whisper? I know rimfires require a special scope because of the vibrations could it be possible i need the same for my whisper?

If anyone knows a lot about scopes can you explain me this? Field of View is based on two things? Eye relief and Magnification? So since these scope have the same magnification (at the low end) so shouldn't the scope with teh closer eye relief have the greater field of view, but with these scopes it does not hold true cause the Weaver has a closer eye relief and the Simmons has the greater field of view. :mad:

It's peak acceleration which breaks scope. The duration of the acceleration is not very important. Firearms which produce the highest peak acceleration are those which have the largets bullet weight to rifle weight ratio with the fastest burning powders. In that respect a 300 Whipser produces higher >peak< rifle acceleration and a 223 Rem or 17 Rem but not as much as an AR-15 shooting 45 ACP or 50 Beowulf. That has little to do with felt recoil. Longer duration causes more felt recoil, but less peak recoil so scope damage isn't directly comparable to felt recoil.

The most likely cause of scope damage on any rifle is from dropping it. Dropping a rifle six inches with the scope landing on a rock produces far high peak acceleration than firing a 50 Beowulf. Scope damage from dropping the scope usually isn't noticed until subsequent shots are fired and it's discovered the scope has lost it's ability to hold zero. That gets incorrectly blamed on recoil from those last few shots.

Field of view does not directly depend on magnification or eye relief. It depends directly on the focal length of the objective lenses and the diameter of the field stop which is usually (but not necessarily) the physical clear diameter of reticle assembly. There are two "fields of few" One is the actual field of view which is the apparent angle that the view of the target covers to the target and the area around it, and the apparent field of view which is the angle the field appears to be as seen by the eye though the eyepeice. Those are related by the magnification, (apparent filed of view = (actual filed of view * magnification) expressed as an angle, usually degrees.

To acheve a wider actual AND apparent field of view for a given magnification and eye relief the field stop (usually the aperture of the reticle) must be made larger diameter , and it's necessary to also have larger diameter lenses in the eyepiece which usually means a larger diameter eyepiece end bell. Expense goes up rapidly with larger eyepieces which require more complex designs, and the weight goes up rapidly too. It's rare to find riflescopes with eyepiece lenses much over an inch diameter though some exist.
There are many low power pistol scopes with eyepiece assemblies much larger then the objective lens. That is to achieve an acceptable apparent filed of view and very long eye relief. At low power a larger objective lens does not give a
brighter image and actually makes parallax error (for a non AO scope) worse.

Is a scope with a wider field of view "better". Maybe if you need a wider field of view, but it will probably be heavier, larger and cost more or have shorter eye relief. Scope designers offer many choices and buyers get to choose.

[glocker17]

I am using the new Mil/Mil Bushnell 3200 10X, has worked great. This scope also makes it easier to get on steel at extended ranges. If you can spot your hits in the reticle, then the adjustment is fairly simple to get on target with the 2nd shot.

[mstarling]

Currently using a 3-9x40 Pentax Pioneer on the Whisper. Has been fine.

I set up my rifles with mounts on centers compatible with Picatinny rails ... even though that requires milling custom mounts on my Mausers. So I have seven bolt rifles and all of the ARs amongst which I can swap scopes.

The most violent chambering that i have used these cheap scopes (same as the Burris Full Field II) is the .264 Win Mag which is much more violent that the 30 Whisper of 6.8 SPC II they are usually mated to.

I tend to use either Leupold (2.5x Compact, 1.5-5x, 1.5-6x) or Zeiss Conquest 1.8-5.5 or 3-9x42 for heavier rifles such as 9,3x62, .376 Steyr, .375 H&H, two .416s, and a .458 AR.

[srm109]

I used a Nikon ProStaff 3x9x40 with BDC reticle for HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of shots with no problems. Before it went on my AR-15 in 300 Whisper, it was on a TC Contender in 375 Winchester! If that can't shake it to pieces, I don't know what can! Not an expensive scope either. I think Midway recently sold them for about $120.00 or so. They are good scopes for the money. However....

.....I'm a firm believer in good optics, and that you get what you pay for. I'll go for a good fixed power scope over a cheap variable power if I need to save money. I also believe you reach a point of diminishing returns somewhere around $400.00 - $500.00 point. Above that you get might get more features and the glass may be better, but the advantages are marginal. You end up spending a lot more money for a very small gain.

I now have a Burris 3.5x10x50 on my AR. It's a $400.00 scope, but well worth the money. Bagged a nice buck with this setup the other day!

[amafrank]

Your post pretty much says it all.....Barska and gear guide. Neither of them are very high quality scopes and the prices reflect that. I've had customers who've broken those brand names on all manner of rifles.....22LR included. .22's normally require special scopes because of the smaller rails, not the special vibration characteristics. I've used a Leupold VXIII on a number of whispers and never had any drift issues. I had a cheap tasco on one and it dropped the reticle. I know a guy who put an ATN scope on his .50 cal and broke a number of reticles going through about 6 scopes before he found one that would last more than 5 rds. The cheaper scopes are that way for a reason. They have lower grade components, less complex and durable design and little in the way of QC. If you don't want to spend a lot on cheap scopes buy a good one to start with. The amount of money spent is usually equivalent in the end and the headache of dealing with drifting or disappearing zero's is reduced too.


Frank

[fpjeepy05]

I used a Nikon ProStaff 3x9x40 with BDC reticle for HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of shots with no problems. Before it went on my AR-15 in 300 Whisper, it was on a TC Contender in 375 Winchester! If that can't shake it to pieces, I don't know what can! Not an expensive scope either. I think Midway recently sold them for about $120.00 or so. They are good scopes for the money. However....

.....I'm a firm believer in good optics, and that you get what you pay for. I'll go for a good fixed power scope over a cheap variable power if I need to save money. I also believe you reach a point of diminishing returns somewhere around $400.00 - $500.00 point. Above that you get might get more features and the glass may be better, but the advantages are marginal. You end up spending a lot more money for a very small gain.

I now have a Burris 3.5x10x50 on my AR. It's a $400.00 scope, but well worth the money. Bagged a nice buck with this setup the other day!

Took your advise... I will be ordering a Millet Tactical 10x50mm. (http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productnumber=341927)I've Read some reviews and everything sounds good. 18ft field of view which is more than most 2-7x's and can even match some 1.5-5x's at max power. I've always like the idea of a fixed power scope. Less things to go wrong/less things to have to change. I've hunted with a 3-9x last few years and walking through the woods I "always" drop the power to 3 or 4x encase I jump something. But it I can't tell you how many times I've jumped one at 9x or how many times I've had to rush crank up the power from 3 to 9x while in the tree in order to get a shot off. Fixed power means I always know what I'm going to see when I pick up the rifle. I only wish that season wasn't about to be over.