• Hey All! Lately there has been more and more scammers on the forum board. They register and replies to members requests for guns and/or parts or other things. The reply contains a gmail or hotmail address or similar ”anonymous” email addresses which they want you to reply to. DO NOT ANSWER ANY STRANGE MESSAGES! They often state something like this: ”Hello! Saw your post about purchasing a stock for a Safari. KnuckleheadBob has one. Email him at: [email protected]” If you receive any strange messages: Check the status of whoever message you. If they have no posts and signed up the same day or very recently, stay away. Same goes for other members they might refer to. Check them too and if they are long standing members, PM them and ask if the message is legit. Most likely it’s not. Then use the report function in each message or post so I can kick them out! Beware of anything that might seem fishy! And again, for all of you who registered your personal name as username, please contact me so I can change it to a more anonymous username. You’d be surprised of how much one can find out about a person from just a username on a forum such ad our! All the best! And be safe! Jim

Newbie seeks advice on scopes

Sako Collectors Club Discussion Forum

paprpnchr

Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
18
Location
Upstate New York
Longtime skeet and trap shooter new to the world of sako rifles. Have an 85 Hunter in Rem 260 and am looking at scopes for the first time in a long time... believe me I'm no spring chicken.
I'm looking at Zeiss and Meopta and at present I'm leaning to the Meopta Meostar R1 3-10x50 v. the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x50. I realize that beauty is often in the eye of the beholder (or owner) so I thought I'd ask those having these two scopes for their experience and satisfaction with them. My use will be for upland hunting (deer etc. in the mostly wooded environments) so high mags aren't a necessity, while my old eyes need all the help they can get as far as brightness and light transmission goes, hence the 50mm. Frankly I think a smaller size looks better from a balance POV. I've handled a lot of scopes narrowing it down to these two and the Meoptas have a nice quality feel about them. Don't get me wrong, the Conquest is a beautifully finished scope but frankly the plastic knobs are a bit of a turnoff.
Also, I've never used the Sako mounting system before and after reading prior posts and looking over the engineering of the system (which I think is excellent) and have opted for them. But I do have a question. While I have read all I could find I cant recall having seen anything on boresighting a scope without using the scope adjustments. Is one supposed to shim...I also haven't seen comments on that so I don't know. I would rather not use up the scope windage adjustments and would like to get sighted in and retain as much scope adjustment as possible.
 
pap...Welcome to the forums, Both brands are highly regarded optics...Meopta is gaining quite a following it seems...as far as sighting in your scope to the rifle using sako rings...the vintage rings are adjustable for windage, some use a 1" wooden dowel to adjust the rings to the center of the bore...then, I center the scopes turrets by counting total clicks from stop to stop, per turret, then turning back half of the number...I have never used shims but I don't have the need yet to do so for the ranges I'm shooting...If your a 1000 yd. shooter it may be needed.....someone else here will chime in soon, with more on your situation....Happy shooting and welcome back to the world of center fire rifles!- Bloorooster
 
You can adjust for windage by the position of the ringmounts on the tapered dovetails, but it is a tedious task. If you are within 8" inches @ 50 yards after mounting, you will never have a situation where you will run out of adjustment if you start with a centered reticle. Mounting the scope as low as possible will give you the maximum amount of elevation available in relation to windage. Think of your reticle adjustment like a clock. If your windage is centered the elevation adjustment is from 6 to 12 o'clock. if your windage is off center the elevation adjustment available will be less, say from 4 to 2 o'clock. Your concerns can come into play with the older scopes with a front pivot erector system. The newer scopes with a rear pivot system have over twice as much adjustment travel, as much as 50 to 60 minutes, so I can't imagine a situation where one can run out of adjustment on a deer rifle unless your mounting system is severely out a alignment with the bore. A perfectly center windage adjustment would be critical if shooting at extremely long range (800 yards +) where all your elevation adjustment is needed.
 
Thanks, I really appreciate the advice. Seems a lot like teaching an old dog new tricks. I realize the integral machined rails should be virtually perfectly centered (if the cnc programmers did their job) to the bore, but that error would come into play with the mounts and bases. Good to know that my concerns aren't that significant.
Now if someone can opine on the scopes with their experiences, it would be great!
 
For whatever it is worth, I would encourage you to purchase a scope /ring alignment kit. They are easy to use, not over expensive and solve scope deflection by aligning the rings with one another. Lapping the rings is valuable, especially if using a base with windage adjustment or if any pressure is required to set the scope tube into the ring. If you decide not to lap your rings, consider using Burris Signature Rings as their insert design can correct much of the scope deflection problem. Be sure and level the scope. It is sad but true, that we often overlook the importance of proper scope mounting and as a result may mar or damage a good scope, or never realize the true potential of our rifle. It is an easy task to do it correctly.
I have no experience with Meopta, but own several Zeiss Conquest scopes as do several friends. So far no complaints. I know too well about aging eyes, but I have found little help in this area from the 50mm 's.
They shine only after legal shooting time in Pa. and for the rest of the day I feel like I have a six cell flashlight mounted to my rifle. Below are some sites you may find interesting concerning your scope and mounting questions. Most importantly. Enjoy the rifle. Good Luck, hope you are happy with your choice of optics.






https://www.opticstalk.com/rifle-scopes_forum2.html




https://www.burrisoptics.com/sigrings.html




https://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=227261
 
paprpnchr said:
my old eyes need all the help they can get as far as brightness and light transmission goes, hence the 50mm. Frankly I think a smaller size looks better from a balance POV.
The 50mm objective won't help your "older eyes". This is because all the 50mm objective will do for you is increase the size of the exit pupil, and the problem with older eyes is that their pupils will no longer dialate as large as they once would. Older guys are lucky to get 5mm of dialtion in very low light, whereas a young squirt might get as much as 7mm (kinda reminds you of the functional deterioration of other body parts, doesn't it?)
Since you don't need high magnification for your hunting situation, I would advise getting something in the 2-7 or 8X range with a 33-36mm objective. This will offer you close to the maximum usable 5mm exit pupil and will also give you a much lighter and compact scope that most importantly will mount lower where you can acquire the sight picture better. Even a 40mm objective will be much better than the huge 50mm, and will provide you with all of the exit pupil you can use when cranked up near its maximum. At the lower powers, any scope will give you far more exit pupil than you can use.

50mm objectives are for specialized uses and because of their bulk, weight, and highn mounting position don't really have a place on most hunting rifles.
 
paprpncher:
You don't have your location entered on your profile. You do it by entering it in the signature box, not the location box. If you are from the USA, you should consider a Leupold scope. They are first class & their customer service, relations & warranty are absolutely the BEST. Look at the new VariX-R scopes. They have just introduced them & they have an illuminated reticle that just might be the ticket for older eyes in poor light conditions. Check out their web site to get the details.
 
I asked for help and I got it! Thanks to all. I think I'll take a fresh look at scopes before I select one. As I said earlier, I prefer a smaller more balanced scope than a 50 mm and if the larger size really does nothing for me it makes no sense to go with one. As far a low mounting though, I had intended to use X Low Sako rings which will handle a 59 mm objective O/D, so the Sako mount seems as if it would be somewhat high for a scope of lesser O/D such as a 40 or 42 mm objective size. Perhaps I should reconsider the mounts as well, though I do like the Sako design.
Went to the Minox web site and downloaded their brochure. Hadn't looked at them, but that 2-10x 40 looks intriguing as it would handle both the field and target shooting at the ranges I'm likely to be involved with. Have one of their mini cameras from long ago and loved it. A quality piece. If their scopes are as good they deserve consideration.
I'll take a look at the Leupolds as well, really hadn't looked at their 40 mm scopes before narrowing down to Meopta and Zeiss.

I reset my location into the sig box, I hope it takes. Again, thanks. I'm looking forward to enjoying my new Sako, and the right scope will be a big help. I'll let you know what I decide, but it seems pretty certain it won't be a 50 mm.
 
As you've found, the currently-produced Sako mounts are very tall (even the lowest ones). They are also very expensive, and are the heaviest and bulkiest on the market.

For a light, trim rifle, I like the Leupold ringmounts. The "medium" height is adequate for a 40mm objective.
 
Great thread! Found the information about "old eyes" timely as I was considering a 50 mm for light gathering. My eyes are 76 years old and benefitting from cataract surgery.
Have recently used Leupold, Burris, and Talley mounts and rings. Really liked the Talley one piece.
Will now invest in a mounting kit. Any prefrences?
 
I'm learning that there's a h_ll of a lot I don't know about scopes, appropriate mounts. etc. Never too old to learn.
The engineering on the Sako mounts is impeccable, which in large part is why I like them. Opposing tapered dovetails lend themselves to the strongest scope recoil control system I can imagine, where the recoil energy can only tighten the scope base on the dovetail. The weak link is obviously the fact that it's a 2 piece system (base/ring) with a single set screw into the dovetail for both position and retention for the front mount. I have read where some complaints have been made about the softness of the screws and assume this is intentionally done by Sako so as to deform the contact point by tightening, in essence setting up a locking wedge in the screw hole between the base and dovetail. Combined with loctite it should serve the purpose very well.

Normally steel screws are heat treated for hardness as they most often are made from leaded steel by companies specializing in their manufacture. So I assume the hardness level desired by Sako was specified on the part design drawing. Can't believe Sako makes their own screws as it just isn't cost effective.
No scope mounting system that relies only on screws without the mechanical advantage of the dovetails can hope to approach either Sako's strength or recoil control. Sorry to proselytize but I love good engineering. Being steel they are heavy, but then steel is stronger than aluminum and it all depends on the original design goal which (I realize Sakos are Finnish) is classic germanic. But why the heck are they so high?
Spdr, similar eye problems and eye surgeries (3) and identical age, so I'm sure you know the problem.
Were the Talley rings on a Sako. If so how did you like them?
Spoke with my gunsmith today about Minox. He is impressed with what he has seem and encouraged me to investigate them further. Still intrigued by the Minox ZA 5 2-10x40. Read a thread on another site where Minox earned some high praise in comparison to the Zeiss Conquest series, both in glass quality and performance. Looking forward to being touchie feelie with one of their scopes soon.
Good thing we're a ways away from the fall hunting season so there's no rush to sort out the scope mount issues and I can concentrate on scope selection for now. Ah the joy of retirement.
 
Pap: You are correct that the tapered dovetails create a dynamic in which the recoil of each shot serves to tighten the scope base on the receiver. However, I think that latter-day Sako engineers have forgotten the concept of what their predecessors designed: There should be no set screw involved in a proper Sako mount system.

If you'll look at the Redfield Sako bases you'll find that early ones used a superfluous set screw which could only serve to scar the checkering of the dovetail surfaces. The dynamic that holds the Redfield bases in place is not the piddly little set screw, but the enormous grip of the mated surfaces of the male dovetails of the receiver on the female dovetails of the bases. Redfield eventually realized this and did away with the set screws entirely.

The original Sako ringmounts used tapered clamps to secure the rings -- not set screws. In addition, the rear ring had a small lug which fit into a lug recess on the rear dovetail, meaning that there was no way for that ring to move even if the clamps were not tightly secured. The Leupold ringmounts work in this same fashion, but do not utilize the little rear lug since it is really a "belt and suspenders" approach that is not truly necessary.

Millett utilizes something of the same approach as the old Sako ringmounts by using a tiny adapter base on the front dovetail which has a small downward-facing lip that utilizes the rear face of the receiver ring in much the same way that the original Sako ringmount utilizes the lug recess of the rear dovetail. The Millett system keeps the front ring from being able to move forward under recoil with the little adapter base.

But the bottom line is that even the crudest, weakest, and poorest ring adaptation for the Sako dovetails (probably being the aluminum Weavers) is, when properly installed, among the strongest, most drift-resistant mounts that can be found on any rifle.
 
Hey Stone-
Is the Millet system a ring mount, or a weaver type (angle-loc) ring with a separate weaver type base that is adapted to the Sako dovetails?
 
While Millett makes a Redfield-type ring, they do not make bases for the Sako for the Redfield-type rings.

The Millett-Sako mount I'm speaking of is based on their Angle Loc rings, however, the standard Angle Loc ring has had its claws replaced with different claws adapted specifically to grasp the front and rear Sako dovetails. A very small adapter base sits under each of the Angle Loc rings to allow them to sit atop the receiver dovetails. The system is surprisingly clean, compact, and attractive. I have them on several Sakos and have had no problems with them.

Millett used to manufacture this mount for Sako and they were sold in blue packages with the Sako logo on them. Those haven't been available for quite some time, but the identical rings are now sold under the Millett name in their regular orange package and labeled simply "Sako Angle Loc".

Several years ago I had a regular set of Angle Loc rings and wrote Millett asking if replacement claws and adapter bases were available to convert them to fit a Sako. They simply sent me the parts free of charge. I'm not sure they'll do that every time, but I was pretty tickled at their customer service.
 
If you're really having trouble with the eyes you may want to consider a fixed power scope. The variable scopes contain more lenses which lessen the light allowed through.
I have no experience with either of the scopes you mentioned since, with one exception, I've put Leupold scopes on all of my rifles and now won't consider anything else. I've experienced their customer care and it's exceptional and their products are impeccable.
As for shimming I would use it as a last resort but with a modern high quality scope with plenty of room for adjustment I doubt that shimming would be necessary.
 
Thanks Steve. I've dealt with Millet on Angle Loc's for Anschutz and I found their customer service to be superb. However, I was not aware of their Sako Angle Loc's. Maybe you can answer a question I've always had about windage adjustments with Angle Locs. How is it possible to use the rings windage adjustment without bending the scope tube?
 
Theoretically, it's not possible. In practice, the tolerances in the mounts allow them to "swivel" just a tad. But adjusting each mount to its opposite extreme would undoubtedly put stress on the scope tube that you wouldn't want -- possibly to the extent of crimping the tube slightly if it is an aluminum tube.

In mounting the Angle Locs on a Sako, I always carefully start out with the claws tightened so that each claw is equal distance from center of the ring. The Sako receiver-to-barrel alignment is usually so good that no windage adjustment of the rings is needed in order to properly zero.

I have a friend who has a 1960's commercial German Mauser marketed by Herters. Its mounting holes are drilled off-center so that you can visibly see that the front Weaver-style base sits at an angle to the rear one. When the rifle was new he shimmed some old Weaver-type mounts to the point that they would allow an el-cheapo Japanese scope to zero. Recently, he wanted to upgrade the scope and I advised him to toss the old shimming job and replace the rings with Millett Angle Locs. They worked just fine for him in mounting a new Redfield, and without any apparent stress on the scope's tube.
 
Just a few links to common tools used for correct scope mounting.
More expensive lapping tools will have shallow rings cut into the shaft to help hold the compound.This is nice but not needed unless you are a gunsmith. A torque wrench [in. lbs.] is a valuable tool to set actions evenly, avoid over torque of scope rings, etc. The scope leveling tool is just a no brainer and too inexpensive not to own. Keep your powder dry
https://www.opticsplanet.net/wheeler-scope-ring-alignment-lapping-kit.html



https://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=718023



https://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=529349
 
Paprpnchr, (paper puncher?)
The Talley one piece mounts replaced the factory rings on aTikka T3. The included rings have a pin in the front ring that mates to a hole in the receiver. They mount in the double dove tails. Couldn't keep the Redfield 2x7, 33 mm scope from walking through the front ring and dragging the rear ring with it.
The Talley rings were recommended in an on line forum and mount to tapped holes in the T3.
I tried Burris rings on a previous rifle that had barrel to receiver misalignment issues. Special ring inserts can correct for that. I find those rings large and bulky looking, especially compared to Talley. For a normal situation, I'd rather lap the rings.
I used Leupold bases and rings recently and liked the quality and the windage adjustment on the rear ring. They would be my second choice for my next rifle.
Having seen what an entry level Sako produced rifle can do I planned on replacing it with an A7 which is similar but with a better receiver, bolt, and magazine system. Then I got advice from this forum that I ought to look for a used 85 for the same money. Plan on doing that.
Wouldn't the Beretta marketeers love that I'm planning to upgrade to the "real" Sako.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top