Iron Sights Realization... and faulty scope.

S

Sweet Shooter

New member
I'll be the first to admit, I am not a marksman especially with irons. But today after I punched myself in the face several times with the recoil, I realized that my margin of error in group size is coming from being too far up on the rear sight. Backing off, my groups shrank width-wise to less than an inch at 100 yards. I'm getting some vertical stringing but this is Wolf 7.62 x 39. I got this rifle—my CZ527 well sighted in with the irons and locked up with thread lock and a couple of punch stakes.

I moved on to mount the scope and zero that but didn't even get past bore sighting because the Leupold Ultraslam 2-7x33 was showing me 2 red target centers. I got a second opinion which confirmed a faulty scope. I took the scope back and swapped for a Ultraslam 3-9x40...(pictured below) a little bit bigger than I wanted but still doable. The eye piece is the same—so clears the bolt and the objective lens tucks in right behind the rear sight. This one looks better/clearer. I will do a report next time out with some photos.
-SS-
 
Last edited:
Here are some pics with the scope mounted. It fits fine with the leuplod medium height rings. There's just a tad too much space between the scope
and the action for my aesthetic taste but it make loading the mag from the top very easy. (I don't single load the chamber with CRF, I push the round
into the mag and slide it back... so the bolt can pick it up). I want to eventually fit the mag to the well better (right now it's a bit rattly) but I'm not sure
yet how to do that. There's little chance of a lower mount with this bolt handle... and I don't like the look of modified bolt handles I've seen.

bd37ef63.jpg


b94c890d.jpg


You can see the punch stakes I made to keep that zero on the rear iron sight. I have a bluing pen that I will use to touch these up.
You can see also how well the barrel is floated on this rifle... that space is the same on both sides...
I have bedded the recoil lug and up to an inch and a half of the barrel to make sure it stays symetrical.
6f921a4e.jpg


As you can see the bold handle just passes the eyepiece with these medium rings. It misses by about a 16th at six o'clock but has a fair space to the right.
f807f289.jpg

-SS-
 
"thread lock and a couple punch stakes"..were the sights loose or not locking? Sounds kind of drastic for first time out with only one brand of ammo tested..what if you need to adjust for another more accurate brand? Hope the punch marks don't show too bad.:eek:
 
@Ideal Tool... I've shot about 300 rounds of mixed brands over the last couple of weeks... I could shoot small groups but could not center them for windage.

I had to remove the rear sight and slim it down so that I could drift it without hurting the bedding, and so that I could get it to stop where I needed it to be.

It's still fair tight but it took so long to get it right that I don't want it to move. All the brands I shot shoot to the same place... height on a couple of older Wolf boxes was perhaps a little higher by about an inch at 100 yards but these sights are not adjustable for elevation anyways. The rear sight was staked by the factory... but was off center visibly on the gun, borne out by where the groups were on the target. It was so tight it might as well have been welded. All I have done is loosen it a bit to drift it and re-punch it... with a bit of threadlock. I have never had a problem moving threadlock that I have use on many guns... a couple of clean 40 watt soldering iron destroys that stuff... even the red.
-SS-
 
So it appears your bolt just clears the eye piece. I would get a different scope for your rifle, remove the rear sight, and get lower rings. Getting a one inch group with wolf is pretty darn good. It should do much better with hand loads, or premium stuff.
 
@coyota1—So it appears your bolt just clears the eye piece. I would get a different scope for your rifle, remove the rear sight, and get lower rings. Getting a one inch group with wolf is pretty darn good. It should do much better with hand loads, or premium stuff.
Click to expand...
Find me a scope with a smaller ocular lens... I'll buy it. And the whole point is that I want those irons on there—forever.
-SS-
 
Two questions:

One:

With the 7.62x39 being an intermediate round with an relatively short effective range (due to a moderate muzzle velocity and less than stellar ballistic coefficients of the stumpy .311 122-125 gr bullets), why do you need that gaint moonscope on there?


Two:

With those very tall rings putting the line of sight through the scope at least an inch above that which the stock was designed for, how is it you get a good cheek weld on the stock and still get a good sight picture through the scope?

They make smaller scopes.

Comb raising kits are also availabe.
 
jimbob86 One:

With the 7.62x39 being an intermediate round with an relatively short effective range (due to a moderate muzzle velocity and less than stellar ballistic coefficients of the stumpy .311 122-125 gr bullets), why do you need that gaint moonscope on there?


Two:

With those very tall rings putting the line of sight through the scope at least an inch above that which the stock was designed for, how is it you get a good cheek weld on the stock and still get a good sight picture through the scope?

They make smaller scopes.

Comb raising kits are also availabe.
Click to expand...

It's only a 40 mm objective lens... hardly a "moon scope". Even if I put a smaller scope on it I still can't get any lower because of the bolt. i did have the 33mm 2-7x on there as I said (the ocular was the same size exactly as the 3-9 and is the same as on my Nikons). Those are medium rings... again as low as I can get them. The cheek weld feels okay so far... I don't have a very fat face and it feels about right... I've never been sure what the "cheek weld" thing is all about I'm not sleeping on it, just snuggling up. So far I figure I have a medium sized scope on a slightly smaller rifle/carbine... it handles no different to my 1022 with a 3-9x40... range is about the same but packs a whole lot more horse power. I do like the idea that it's only wearing the scope... if push comes to shove and I lose the scope that's why I have the irons set up so nice now.
-SS-
 
I've never been sure what the "cheek weld" thing is all about
Click to expand...

Seems everybody knows how to shoot yet most know nothing of fundamentals..... sigh.

Consistant accuracy requires consistant, repeatable hold and sight alignment- by firmly placing your cheek in the same place on the stock every time, you promote that consistancy. If you have to bring your face up off the stock in order to see through the scope, you lose that consistant hold. Also, with your face on the stock, your head will recoil with the rifle and your shoulder as a unit, rather than hanging on the end of your neck until the neck pulls it back and down when the rifle pushes the shoulder rearwards.....

Try this: Close your eyes, and mount the gun. Now open your eyes. Can you see through the scope without moving your head? If not, your stock does not have enough comb height.
 
jimbob86
Quote:
I've never been sure what the "cheek weld" thing is all about
Seems everybody knows how to shoot yet most know nothing of fundamentals..... sigh.

Consistant accuracy requires consistant...
Click to expand...

Yup I know that. I've been shooting rifles a long time. Everything lines up fine... and consistently. I don't think it's that big of a scope. It's a brush gun with a bit more scope than it really needs. But I can walk with it on 3.
-SS-
 
Find me a scope with a smaller ocular lens... I'll buy it. And the whole point is that I want those irons on there—forever.
Click to expand...

Why not tap out the iron sight? Do you plan on taking off the scope? If you do that you will need to sight it in again if you plan on using the scope. You can put the rear sight in a safe place, and it will be there when you need it.
 
Everything lines up fine... and consistently. I don't think it's that big of a scope.
Click to expand...

You have a very long face, then ......

I think this is less an issue of how big the scope is than how the stock was designed ...... if you look at stocks on guns that were designed to use scopes (Monte Carlo style was an early version) , or have a high sight line (AR-15), the stock comb is even wit, or even above the bore line.

Your stocks comb is not only below the bore line, the objective lens, even though it is pretty big for a short range cartridge, is still pretty high off the barrel.

Your gun was not designed for a large scope ....... but if you say it fits, and are happy with it, great.
 
Consistant accuracy requires consistant, repeatable hold and sight alignment- by firmly placing your cheek in the same place on the stock every time, you promote that consistancy. If you have to bring your face up off the stock in order to see through the scope, you lose that consistant hold. Also, with your face on the stock, your head will recoil with the rifle and your shoulder as a unit, rather than hanging on the end of your neck until the neck pulls it back and down when the rifle pushes the shoulder rearwards.....

Try this: Close your eyes, and mount the gun. Now open your eyes. Can you see through the scope without moving your head? If not, your stock does not have enough comb height.
Click to expand...
__________________

Well said.

I can only add, Keep your head straight up. Bring the rifle up to the head, not the head down to the rifle.

You face should provide a "chipmunk" look with proper contact with the stock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top