Scope Mounting S&W(Howa)1500

steveNChunter said:
I bought a .243 for my wife a few years back with one of those "horrid" Simmons 8-point 3-9x32's mounted on it. I always said I would replace it whenever I noticed it wasn't holding zero or some other problem arose. Well, I'm still waiting for it to fail. So I won't knock your scope choice if that's what you want.

I have pretty much the same rifle as you, a Howa 1500 in .25-06. I've got a two piece Weaver base and steel Weaver low rings holding a Burris FFII 3-9x40. The good ole cheap Weaver stuff has never let me down, so I continue to proudly use them, even if they are sold at Wal-Mart:eek:

As for 40 vs 50mm scopes, I have never noticed enough of a difference in brightness in low light conditions to see the advantage of a 50mm, and higher rings must be used with a 50mm, so that's another reason IMO to use a 40mm. You get a little larger field of view with a 50 but I never thought it to be worth it. But everybody has their preferences. Use what you like and don't worry about what the $1000+ scope crowd says.
Click to expand...

Well after a couple deals fell through for cheaper scopes at cut throat prices, I petitioned for an increase in budget. The treasurer gladly approved a higher tier of optics. Sooo, now I'm debating and shopping between a Sightron SI Hunter 3-9x40, Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40 with nikoplex reticle, Vortex Crossfire II 3-9x40/50 and a used Burris Full field II 3-9x40. Any insight into any of these models would be great, especially if you currently own one or have owned one.
 
I have the Nikon Prostaff on my 700 in 06, a 3-9x40 with the small circles at the 100 yard graduations and it has been a flawless scope--very clear precise field of view, totally reliable and laughs at the recoil---bought it new from the local shop about three years ago for $230---this is the one mounted on the Weaver bases in the Burris rings with the nylon inserts--it's sighted in at 100 but very easy to use at 200 -- couldn't use a big bore for deer in this state but no limitations on what was allowed for varmints, go figure---

So I've got to say go with the prostaff, this is the second one I've owned and they are tough and dependable without breaking the bank----
 
Burris Full field II 3-9x40
Click to expand...

I own one and IMO it's the brightest, and all around best scope in it's price range and slightly above its price range. The Fullfield E1 is pretty much the same scope as a FFII except it has a magnification adjustment knob instead of the whole eyepeice turning like on the FFII. If you use flip-up scope covers (I don't) this is a big deal.

If you go with Vortex, I would spend a few more dollars and get the Diamondback instead of the Crossfire. The Crossfire is the only China-made scope in Vortex's lineup, so there's a sizable difference in quality between it and the rest of Vortex's scopes.

The Nikon Prostaff is a decent scope, and while I've never had the pleasure of looking through a Sightron scope, I hear nothing but positive things about them.
 
Heres a couple of shots of what it looks like--notice relatively close to the barrel and in the close-ups, you can see the nylon inserts--
 

Attachments

  • 30-06 with Nikon Prostaff- 001.jpg
    30-06 with Nikon Prostaff- 001.jpg
    241.1 KB · Views: 48
  • 30-06 with Nikon Prostaff- 003.jpg
    30-06 with Nikon Prostaff- 003.jpg
    247.1 KB · Views: 37
  • 30-06 with Nikon Prostaff- 002.jpg
    30-06 with Nikon Prostaff- 002.jpg
    260.4 KB · Views: 39
i realize that any gun company can have problems--Remington has had it's share of bad press lately, but this is the seventh 700 I've owned and the one I'll keep [ the brown laminated with the new style factory recoil pad ], I'm older now and wiser and have finally learned to say no to the guys that want to buy my guns, about time, I've sold too many nice guns-----

Maybe I've just been lucky but all my 700's were accurate and none had to go back to Remington for any reason---but then I don't hunt a lot and I tend to baby my guns -- they don't get used hard or tossed around----
 
Reynolds is right, they will help correct any misalignment of the rings--also, they hold like crazy, I must have loosened the ring caps half a dozen times while getting the scope aligned vertically and positioned far enough back to get the correct eye relief---I've seen a scope "creep" when tightened down in steel or aluminum rings, but never in these inserts--they hold totally tight and yet leave no marks on the scope at all---I always use the three slot Weaver bases, [ sometimes they have to be special ordered ], so that you have enough mounting options to get the scope back far enough to use properly---another reason for the choice of Prostaff and the Bushnells, they have longer rear bells or eyepieces than many other scopes----

Always seems to come out about right for me when the rear of the scope is directly above the lowest point in the top of the rear section of the stock, the joining area between the pistol grip section and the start of the butt---
 
Thanks for the info. I'll definitely add the nylon lined rings to the list. And if you have anymore info on the 3 slot bases, pm me.

I actually ran across a guy selling a Sightron S1 3-9x40 for $50 and a SII 3-9x42 for $100. I think I'll grab both and slap the S1 on my 10/22. That is if they check out and are genuine.
 
I cant find anything on the Burris site about the Posi-Align inserts being made of nylon, they actually look like steel/metal inserts. Is there something i'm missing here?
 
They are called Burris Signature Zee rings, the nylon inserts are split in an upper and lower half to match the lower ring half unit and the upper ring cap--the inserts are just a tad wider than the rings so that no metal touches the scope--had to have my LGS special order them due to he usually only stocks one pair and had just sold them, also, the Weaver bases are the set with the three notches in one pad and two in the other---allows for considerably more front to rear movement to put the scope where you want it--both the rings and bases are pretty common and your local shop should have no trouble ordering them----
 
The Signature inserts are made of some non-metal material that is very hard. Nylon? Nyletron? Some kind of hard plastic type material.
 
We have three Vanguards in the family and I have Warne Bases and Rings mounted on them as we'll as all of our other rifles. They do take the Rem 700 bases.

I have two Vortex Vipers and a Crossfire that sits on a Marlin Model 60. The Vipers are great, don't purchase the Crossfire. I've owned three Fulfield II's and have an E1 2x7 on a 336W. I am a fan of them, they are my favorite scope in their price range and someplace usually has them on sale at a very good price.
 
It is also irritatating to me when you ask a question on a forum and people insist on giving advice on something else, like with your scope choice. Even after you stated that the Simmons was what you were stuck with a few people still HAD to tell you what to do with a scope instead of staying on the subject of rings and bases.
 
CDbeagle, people are just trying to help. If you are interested in having a rock solid mounting system, it would be logical to mount something in that mounting system that will perform equally well. I have a couple of 15 year old Simmons scopes that are very good scopes. They were not made in China. The new breed of Simmons is going to cause you anguish. Mounting a Simmons in a set or Warnes, Talley's, or Burris signatures, is kind of like buying a set of custom wheels for your truck and mounting dry rotted tires on them.
 
cdbeagle said:
It is also irritatating to me when you ask a question on a forum and people insist on giving advice on something else, like with your scope choice. Even after you stated that the Simmons was what you were stuck with a few people still HAD to tell you what to do with a scope instead of staying on the subject of rings and bases.
Click to expand...

Yea, I know, very annoying. But, I just keep on rolling with the topic at hand. I lucked upon a sightron s1 and s2 for $150 for both, so I will be getting better quality glass, but still saving quite a bit of cash. That extra cash is going to go to ammo and other hunting items I may need.
 
reynolds357 said:
CDbeagle, people are just trying to help. If you are interested in having a rock solid mounting system, it would be logical to mount something in that mounting system that will perform equally well. I have a couple of 15 year old Simmons scopes that are very good scopes. They were not made in China. The new breed of Simmons is going to cause you anguish. Mounting a Simmons in a set or Warnes, Talley's, or Burris signatures, is kind of like buying a set of custom wheels for your truck and mounting dry rotted tires on them.
Click to expand...

And that is your opinion. It will make sure I get the best of the scope that I do mount. This is about bases and rings, not the scope.
 
CDbeagle, people are just trying to help. If you are interested in having a rock solid mounting system, it would be logical to mount something in that mounting system that will perform equally well. I have a couple of 15 year old Simmons scopes that are very good scopes. They were not made in China. The new breed of Simmons is going to cause you anguish. Mounting a Simmons in a set or Warnes, Talley's, or Burris signatures, is kind of like buying a set of custom wheels for your truck and mounting dry rotted tires on them.[\QUOTE]


You proved my point. Very few people care to hear unsolicited advice.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top