Mounting a new scope.

Discussion in 'Rifle Talk' started by elderberry99, May 17, 2004.

  1. elderberry99

    elderberry99 Well-Known Member

    105
    0
    0
    I will be mounting a new Swift 2X7X40 scope on my new Remington model 7600 pump in .308 caliber.
    I need suggestions on what mounts to use for this rifle.
    Does anyone have a 7600 with a 1" tube mounted on it and if so, what type of mount and rings do I use for this?
     
  2. wwb

    wwb Super Member

    918
    0
    0
    It's pretty hard to beat the old standard: Weaver bases and rings. Lots of other ones out there, and lots of people say they're better, but the Weaver mount has been around since Moses was a kid.

    With a 40 mm objective, you'll need slightly taller rings, I think. Not owning a 7600, I'm not sure how much taller the reciever is than the barrel.

    The rings are available in, I think, 3 different heights. Mount the bases first, then measure under a straightedge laid on the bases and see how much space there is to the barrel. Subtract that from half the objective diameter of the scope, and you have the base height at which the scope will touch the barrel. Get bases that are close to, but larger than that value in height.

    Mounting a scope with a 40mm objective on a 7600, you may want to add a comb pad, as the scope will sit pretty high. I believe the stock is proportioned for a somewhat lower scope mount, but I'm not certain.
     

  3. elderberry99

    elderberry99 Well-Known Member

    105
    0
    0
    WWB,
    Do you think a 40mm may be an overkill then?
    I was wishing to mount a Swift 2X7X40 but did not yet order the scope.
    I am only using it in close cover wooded areas. I may have a 100 yard or so shot once in a while.
    I tried a 1.5X5 on another Remington in .270 and was not that impressed with the scope at all.
    I have used Leupold, Tasco, Bushnell, Simmons, and a couple off the wall brands in my hunts and do not want to spend a bundle this time. I was told that the Swift had great optics and I had a chance to look through a couple of them and they seem to give better light then the Nikons at a lower cost.
     
  4. wwb

    wwb Super Member

    918
    0
    0
    A 40mm objective gathers more light than a smaller objective lens, like a 32mm for instance, giving you a brighter picture. You can get even bigger objective lenses than 40mm, but they're usually for benchrest shooters or prairie dog plinkers. The trade-off with any large-diameter objective is that big "bell" on the front of the scope; the scope has to be mounted high enough to clear the barrel.

    That said, pick the scope you like and loosely mount it on your gun in the store (if they'll let you do it - most good gun shops will) and check the stock fit, eye relief, etc. If all is well, plunk your money down and walk out a happy man.

    I've had a Bushnell 1.5-4.5 x 32 on my Ruger .44 Carbine for over 10 years, and have been very satisfied with it.
     
  5. j870sm

    j870sm Well-Known Member

    191
    0
    0
    i have a 40mm on an old 760 30-06. I removed the front sight but may not of had to. Ya know, that might very well be the most accurate rifle I have and it is for darn sure the hardest kicking. It is actually a 760 Carbine and not only does it kick, it is short and extremely loud. I think the gun was made in 1974, I bought it used and will not part with it. It does look like crap though. It rode on the dash of my truck most of the time and it got bounced around alot.
     
  6. CartridgeGuy

    CartridgeGuy Active Member

    31
    0
    0
    I would say that a 40mm objective is a minimum when hunting in wooded areas. It gets kinda dark in the deep woods towards the end of the days hunt.

    Here s a good rule of thumb. The human eye can transmit a maximum of 5mm of light. When determining the exit pupil of optics use this formula: Objective diameter divided by power = exit pupil. A 4x scope with a 32mm objective has an exit pupil of 8mm, more than the human eye can recieve so it is sufficent, but a 12x scope with a 40mm objective ony has an exit pupil of 3.33mm which means it will not transmit as much light as the human eye can receive, therefore a larger objective should be used if practical. A scope cannot "gather" light, it is a passive device and can only transmit light.

    The other aspect to consider is physical size and weight. A large-objective scope is longer and heavier than a smaller one and will most certainly require high mounts, which may not be practical on certain rifles.

    Consider these factors and let us know how it al turns out! :)
     
  7. elderberry99

    elderberry99 Well-Known Member

    105
    0
    0
    A 2X7X40 seems to work well with the math on the objectives.
    Is it worth getting the 2X7 instead of a 3X9?
    The 9 power does not work with the math on the optics but is close. I do not have the opportunity to use the 9 power deep in the woods any way.
    I am not looking for the "long" shots in the woods and have no desire to walk that far to drag out the deer.
    The most my shots will be is 100 yards max. The average shot should be no more then 50 or 60 yards as that is how it has been working out for me.
    I have had 3X9's before but never a 2X7, and am curious to try one on my .308 but do not want to make another mistake as I did with the 1.5X5. I did not care for the scope at all.
     
  8. elderberry99

    elderberry99 Well-Known Member

    105
    0
    0
    Are there any thoughts on the Swift 2X7X40 rifle scope?
    Again, I am using the rifle in close cover heavy woods sitting in my tree stand about 20 feet above ground.
     
  9. wwb

    wwb Super Member

    918
    0
    0
    You say that you're hunting in fairly heavy woods and that 100 yards is the longest shot you would probably take. For those conditions, I would bet that if you had a 2-7X scope, you'd seldom turn it higher than about 4X.

    I hunt in heavy woods, and leave my scope at 1.5X when I'm stillhunting, and turn it up to about 3X when I'm sitting.

    In the woods, too much magnification is a real drawback; 9X may be great for an orange bullseye on a paper target on an open rifle range from a bench. Set it up in heavy cover and shoot it offhand or from a semi-awkward position; you'll find that 4X or so is the upper practical limit.
     
  10. elderberry99

    elderberry99 Well-Known Member

    105
    0
    0
    I guess a 2 X 7 X 40 should fill the bill for everything I can handle in and out of the woods then.
    I can keep it at the 2X for sitting in the treestand and if the long shot should come along, I can always flip it to the 7X and reach out.
    Or do you feel I should keep to a 1.5 X 5?
    I had a Tasco and did not like it at all but it may have been the scope itself. I would try the same magnafication again in another brand if it would give me better light.
    I did consider the Weaver for a short time until I saw the price as high as it is, but then again I want a scope that will last me for some time so I guess if it comes down to spending a little more now, I will have a better scope for years to come.
    Have you any opinions on the Swift scope?
    I can get it for a much cheaper price then say the Weaver.
    The optics look clear and they offer the lifetime warranty.
    My dealer tells me that if anything goes wrong with the Swift, I am to bring it back to him and he will give me a new one off the shelf and Swift will take care of him later. This means no four to six week down time waiting for my scope to be repaired.
    I am not that familiar with the Swift other then reading about them. My dealer sells all brands but tells me many hunters are buying the Swift with great results.
    I would still like to hear from anyone that has had experience good or bad with Swift.
     
  11. wwb

    wwb Super Member

    918
    0
    0
    The only scopes I have any experience with are Bushnell and Redfield. I have a 30 year old 2.5X Bushnell, a 30 year old 1.75-5X Redfield, and a 10 year old 1.5-4.5X Bushnell. Never a problem with any of them.
     
  12. elderberry99

    elderberry99 Well-Known Member

    105
    0
    0
    I talked to my gun dealer last night about the Swift Scopes and he advised me that if I cannot make up my mind between the 1.5-4.5 or the 2X7, I should go with the 2X7. I can leave it on the 2X and sit in my stand and I still have the 7X if I get a chance for a longer shot in an open area. The scope will mount low on my Remington 7600 and it comes with the lifetime warranty. The difference in price is only about 5 or 10 dollars between them.
    I committed and told him as soon as the 2X7X40 comes in to put my name on it.
    I will know how satisfied I am in about two weeks now.
    Once it is mounted and I zero the gun in, I will post again under "Swift Scope".
    Thanks for all the time and advise from all.
     
  13. luv2safari

    luv2safari Moderator

    1,875
    0
    0
    Leave the open sights on the rifle and mount the scope with the Leupold Weaver type steel bases and Leupold QD leaver release rings. It will allow you to have the best of both worlds on a rock solid mount. If the scope is damaged or you have to kick a wounded deer out of dense cover in close, it sure is nice to have the open sight option. :idea:

    You picked the right choice for power ranges. The 1.5x5 to 2x7 are the most useful hunting rifle scope powers...IMHO
     
  14. JDS

    JDS Member

    11
    0
    0
    I just purchased a few weeks ago a 7600 Weathermaster and currently shopping scopes and mounts. I want to leave the iron sights on the gun and possibly thinking Millet see through mounts. Any opinions fellows..? I've used see through mounts in the past and they seemed to work very well although some of my friends don’t like them. They say they are too prone to bending or not holding the scope true.
     
  15. slugmensch

    slugmensch Active Member

    33
    0
    0
    elderberry,
    The Swift scopes are well-made, with excellent optics (much better than one would think, given the low price). I have used them for years...and never experienced any problems. I think that you will be pleased with a Swift - about that, I wouldn't worry, if I were you.
    As to the type of scope, I agree with others here. A 2 - 7 x 40 is a bit large for heavy brush hunting. As another poster said, you should consider Exit Pupil very closely, especially for this application. A 32mm objective would likely be easier to mount low on the rifle, but you do lose a lot of Exit Pupil with a 32mm scope, ABOVE 4X magnification. You are on the right track, though, when you said that you could use just 2X or so, in the woods....and turn up the magnification in open country, or when target shooting. That strategy will certainly work. At 2 - 4X, the Swift scope that you are considering will provide lots of light and field of view, so that the scope will not hamper your shooting in low light levels. I think that you should go with the Swift, as long as you are able to mount it low enough to be comfortable to use. If not, I would suggest either of the Swift models 665 or 648. These are 1.5 - 4.5 X 32mm scopes. The 648 is from the Swift Premier line... and a bit more expensive than the 665 (but still cheap, by Leupold standards). Even at 4.5X, you will still have more light than you can use...and the 32mm objectives will allow a lower mounting on the gun. You don't need more than 4X, really, for accurate shooting out to 100-150 yds. Just a thought.
    In summary, I would say go with the Swift you chose - if there are no mounting problems. I have a feeling, though I can't prove it, that you can mount the 2-7 X 40 scope with MEDIUM rings. This would likely allow a good cheek weld on the stock when shooting. I used a Swift 6 X 40 on one of my rifles for years (a Rem. 700) and medium rings were as high as required, even with the long bolt throw. With a 7600, you have no bolt to operate manually (thus, no scope interference issue) - so, I think most medium rings should work.
     
  16. slugmensch

    slugmensch Active Member

    33
    0
    0
    JDS,
    I don't know about the Millet see-thru mounts. If they are made as well as Millet's angle-loc rings, though, then I think they would be plenty strong. When I used see-thru mounts, I always used the ones by Kwik-Site. They are 1 pc. (that is, the base and lower part of the ring is 1 pc.)... and have wide rings, using 4 screws (2 on each side) to secure the upper portion of the ring. They are aluminum, so they are light, but very strong and stable. I NEVER once had any problems with them, through some very hard use. I used them for many years, until my eyesight made it impossible to use iron sights any longer.
    Whatever brand you choose, I would recommend that they be 1 pc., like the ones I mentioned above. A separate base (and ring that clamps to it) - as tall as see-thru mounts need to be - is NOT the most stable design. It is OK for low rings, but not so good when the scope must be mounted high.
     
  17. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Different strokes for different folks... I tried the see-through mounts once, briefly. The scope ends up being way too high, and in an unnatural position, and the scope and mounts destroy the full-field view that you normally get when using open sights.

    I'd say stay away from high-magnification scopes and mount the scope where it's supposed to be. A low-power variable, like a 1.5-5X, on its lowest setting, can be used with both eyes open - just as good as, or maybe even better than, open sights.