I need some advice. I am in my lat 40's with eyesight to match. I havve tried open sights and I can get by for now. I primarily use my Sharps for hunting and need to see what advice others can give me with the possibility of putting a scope on top. I have also tried a tang sight and again I can get by. How rugged are the RHO and MVA scopes? Does anyone make a scabbard that would handle a scoped Sharps? Would anyone think twice about carrying one on horse back?
Thanks for any advice.
To scope or not to scope
-
Gunny
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2002 5:41 pm
- Location: California
The scopes are really tirning into a boom in the competition world. almost all of the state shoots now have a scope match to go along with the irons. At the Nationals at Raton this year we are having a scope National Championships. The scopes are here to stay I think.
Now none of that answers your questions about hunting with a scope. Since you do not intend to shoot competition with this new scope you certainly are not limited by any rules. You don't "HAVE" to shoot a scope with a 3/4 " tube. For you the hunter there are a lot of options. But if you want to keep that Shiloh looking period correct you have some choices. There are basicially (4) four scopes out there that would be correct on your Shiloh. Navy Arms has I believe a few of the 4 power long all brass scopes available still. These are OK and nothing more just OK. Parsons makes a fine scope and it will serve you well, these are 6 power and pretty tough. The RHO scope is also a good choice it is a good tough 6 power scope and is the only true long eye relief scope of the 4. Then you have the MVA these are great scopes they also are 6 power with some of the clearest optics you ever saw. they also have windage adjustments on the back mount, the only one of the 4 that does. The MVA is also fully adjustable for Paralex (sp) and this can be a big deal.
The three best of this bunch are the RHO, Parsons and way out in front is the MVA any of these three should be plenty tough for hunting. The scabbard could not be that big of a deal, hell have one made if need be.
Good Luck with your choice.
Gunny
Now none of that answers your questions about hunting with a scope. Since you do not intend to shoot competition with this new scope you certainly are not limited by any rules. You don't "HAVE" to shoot a scope with a 3/4 " tube. For you the hunter there are a lot of options. But if you want to keep that Shiloh looking period correct you have some choices. There are basicially (4) four scopes out there that would be correct on your Shiloh. Navy Arms has I believe a few of the 4 power long all brass scopes available still. These are OK and nothing more just OK. Parsons makes a fine scope and it will serve you well, these are 6 power and pretty tough. The RHO scope is also a good choice it is a good tough 6 power scope and is the only true long eye relief scope of the 4. Then you have the MVA these are great scopes they also are 6 power with some of the clearest optics you ever saw. they also have windage adjustments on the back mount, the only one of the 4 that does. The MVA is also fully adjustable for Paralex (sp) and this can be a big deal.
The three best of this bunch are the RHO, Parsons and way out in front is the MVA any of these three should be plenty tough for hunting. The scabbard could not be that big of a deal, hell have one made if need be.
Good Luck with your choice.
Gunny
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in one pretty and well preserved piece, but to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out and defiantly shouting "WOW, what a ride!"
-
Ray Newman
- Posts: 3817
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 1:22 pm
- Location: between No Where & No Place, WA
Gunny is right.
Based on my experience w/ towning a RHO & Parsons 'scopes, I would not go w/ a RHO. RHO may have changed the mounts by now, but I have a few other issues w/ the company.
Am well-satisfied w/ my 2 Parsons 'scopes.
For BPCR, I think it is really only a toss up between the Parsons & MVA. Both will give you sticker shock though. You pay for quality optics & construction.
The biggest problem for hunting is that the tubes are only 3/4"; therefore, the field of view is limited.
Something tells me that neither the MVA or the Parsons are waterproof & can/will fog in/under wet conditions.
If field of view & waterproofing are a concern, I'd look into a modern day 'scope.
In any case, if you go w/ a MVA, Parson or a modern 'scope, you'll need to drill & tap the barrel for the mounting blocks which maybe objectionable to you.
As for horse back, I have come to conclusion (after working w/ draft horses as a youngster) that the longer you work/ride a horse, sooner or later, you’ll get bit, kicked, or he/she going to fall. I think you’ll need a custom scabbard made up as I never seen one offered.
Based on my experience w/ towning a RHO & Parsons 'scopes, I would not go w/ a RHO. RHO may have changed the mounts by now, but I have a few other issues w/ the company.
Am well-satisfied w/ my 2 Parsons 'scopes.
For BPCR, I think it is really only a toss up between the Parsons & MVA. Both will give you sticker shock though. You pay for quality optics & construction.
The biggest problem for hunting is that the tubes are only 3/4"; therefore, the field of view is limited.
Something tells me that neither the MVA or the Parsons are waterproof & can/will fog in/under wet conditions.
If field of view & waterproofing are a concern, I'd look into a modern day 'scope.
In any case, if you go w/ a MVA, Parson or a modern 'scope, you'll need to drill & tap the barrel for the mounting blocks which maybe objectionable to you.
As for horse back, I have come to conclusion (after working w/ draft horses as a youngster) that the longer you work/ride a horse, sooner or later, you’ll get bit, kicked, or he/she going to fall. I think you’ll need a custom scabbard made up as I never seen one offered.
-
deerhuntsheatmeup
- Posts: 2253
- Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:36 pm
- Location: Mississippi
for the record
I saw Jose Wales yesterday (again) and it was cool looking to see him pull out that scoped sharps from off of his horse. (Missouri boat ride)
Like Gunny said, have one made.
Later
Like Gunny said, have one made.
Later
-
Joe Burr
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 7:33 pm
Although I don't have a scope on my .44/77, I think it is a good way to go. I will be getting one that I can use between my Shiloh .45-70 (when it arrives) and the .44. I intend to hunt primarily with my rifles, so i think the scope is the way to go. I have a hell of a time seeing the balde front sight of my .44 in poor light. And my eyesight isn't all that bad as of yet. I have handled and looked through the RHO scopes and was pretty impressed. I'm not sure if they have a mount yet that is windage adjustable as the MVA scopes are. The scope would serve the function for hunting and competition if you so choosed.
I haven't seen the Parson's scopes as of yet. If anyone has a direct link the can share that would be great.
I lean towards the RHO as they appear more 'period correct' than the MVA. No offence to the MVA scope, I am sure they are very good. They also use the existing dovetails for the mounts. Where the MVA I believe requires to be drilled and tapped. The full length RHO is more pleasing to the eye than a short tube on a long barreled Sharps or Rolling Block. But Hey, all IMHO. I'm sure there are those that will disagree!
I haven't seen the Parson's scopes as of yet. If anyone has a direct link the can share that would be great.
I lean towards the RHO as they appear more 'period correct' than the MVA. No offence to the MVA scope, I am sure they are very good. They also use the existing dovetails for the mounts. Where the MVA I believe requires to be drilled and tapped. The full length RHO is more pleasing to the eye than a short tube on a long barreled Sharps or Rolling Block. But Hey, all IMHO. I'm sure there are those that will disagree!
-
Ray Newman
- Posts: 3817
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 1:22 pm
- Location: between No Where & No Place, WA
I've seen several posters--who are hunters--comment that under dim light or poor conditions the visibility of the front sight can be greatly increased by replacing the OEM silver blade w/ a piece of a copper penny cut to the appropriate size.
I was once talking to a now deceased professional photographer whose hobby was fabricating telescopes--inc. grinding the lenses-- for muzzleloaders & BPCRs.
It was his opinion that the return to battery ‘scopes (MVA, Parons, Unertl, Lyman) are far superior to those that are fixed to barrel dovetails. He claimed the return to battery scope will recoil w/ the rifle & the spring will lessen/reduce the ill effects of recoil upon the ‘scope. This is opposed to the long scope that mounts to the barrel dovetails. He opined that this type of ’scope --by design-- must absorb the full effects of recoil & vibration from the barrel, which will eventually cause the lenses to loosen. He claimed that this one of the reasons why there are so few surviving ‘scopes of this design.
I don’t know how true this is, but it does make some sense to me, esp w/ a heavily recoiling rifle &/or one that is shot a great deal.
Does anyone else know anything about this?
I was once talking to a now deceased professional photographer whose hobby was fabricating telescopes--inc. grinding the lenses-- for muzzleloaders & BPCRs.
It was his opinion that the return to battery ‘scopes (MVA, Parons, Unertl, Lyman) are far superior to those that are fixed to barrel dovetails. He claimed the return to battery scope will recoil w/ the rifle & the spring will lessen/reduce the ill effects of recoil upon the ‘scope. This is opposed to the long scope that mounts to the barrel dovetails. He opined that this type of ’scope --by design-- must absorb the full effects of recoil & vibration from the barrel, which will eventually cause the lenses to loosen. He claimed that this one of the reasons why there are so few surviving ‘scopes of this design.
I don’t know how true this is, but it does make some sense to me, esp w/ a heavily recoiling rifle &/or one that is shot a great deal.
Does anyone else know anything about this?
-
Ray Newman
- Posts: 3817
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 1:22 pm
- Location: between No Where & No Place, WA
Joe: from what I can tell & have read, it appears that the MVA is a "clone" of the Parsons. I haven't seen a MVA.
The only link for Parson that I can find is:
http://www.parsonsscopeservice.com/
The only link for Parson that I can find is:
http://www.parsonsscopeservice.com/
-
RMulhern
- Posts: 7682
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:41 pm
- Location: North Louisiana
Scope or not?
My thinking FWIW....is that IF.....I were going to install a scope that I would not have anything but a mounting system akin to the Unertl whereby the scope...due to recoil....slides within the mounting system. I have two Unertl's which I shot HP LR match events with for many years and there's no telling just how many rounds have been fired using them and NEVER....one problem with either scope. And recoil from a heavily loaded .300 Win Mag with 200 gr. Sierra MatchKing delivers some recoil!
While I still have good vision...even at 64...there may come a time when I have to install a scope!
I'm hoping by that time....that if there are any "bugs" that need to be "stomped out" of the current makers models....it will have taken place by that time! 
While I still have good vision...even at 64...there may come a time when I have to install a scope!
I'm hoping by that time....that if there are any "bugs" that need to be "stomped out" of the current makers models....it will have taken place by that time! -
Gunny
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2002 5:41 pm
- Location: California
I think that the recoil from a BPCR rifle damaging the scope is a concern. I also like the "Pope" style rail idea and the scope freely recoiling during recoil. However there is another factor here, and that is "Eye Relief". Both of the scopes with the Pope Style Rail such as Parsons and MVA are short eye relief scopes, there for your eye is very close to the eye piece when you are ready to break the shot. The fact that these scopes do recoil freely does not keep them from striking the eye brow and even the eye itself. One of the very best scope class competitors is a fellew by the name of Michael Jackson, No relationship to the singer, I have watched Micheal shoot many times and have also watched him come off of the line with blood running down his face from his bleeding eye brow, and that is with an MVA scope that freely recoils. The RHO scope is a long eye relief scope and this is not a problem, you are far enough away that no matter the recoil it will not hit you. I due to an combat injury only have one eye that I can actually see out of, I have had to train myself to shoot left handed becuase of this injury. The long eye relief scope is my only option, I will not take a chance with the one remaining eye I have.
RHO tested there scope mounted on a 45-90. I am told that they fired 5,000 full house shots. The scope then was disassembled and tested to see if there was any damage. The results where good enough that they feel that there scope can deal with the recoil. I have mine mounted on a 40-65 and the recoil is very mild I think. And besides if I shoot the thing apart i willl go and get another one.
I want to preface this paragraph with this. MVA is the best of the four scopes Hands Down. Now with that said they are also difference in appearence than the other scopes. The MVA comes in two lengths a 23" and a longer 28" both of these are short, and DO NOT have the appearence of the long scopes most have seen. As an example the RHO Long Eye Relief scope I have on my rifle is 34" long and when mounted on this 40-65 with a 32" barrel comes almost to the end of the barrel. So if looks are what you are after the MVA is short. Now with that short thing said, there is something good about the MVA being short. That is the front lens is some distance behind the end of the muzzle, therefor the MVA's do not get there objective lens fouled. With my RHO which is less than an inch from the muzzle I must be aware that the objective lens needs to be cleaned before the next bank of animals, that is if I want to be able to actually see the animals.
I believe that these scopes where developed with competition in mind. For competition they are fine as they are, However when it comes to "Hunting" with one of these period correct scopes I think most are going to find them a real comprimise. The very small objective lens that must be used with a 3/4" scope allows very little light to be transmitted to the shooter. Shooting in low light conditions like early and late are going to be a real problem for the Hunter. Can these problems be dealt with, Hell yes!! But there are going to be some problems.
These scopes no matter the brand you choose are not cheap by any means. They are going to set you back around a $1,000 or so no matter which one you choose. There are some minus's with the scopes, there are also some big pluse's. For one the sight challanged shooter is actually going to be able to see the targets better, much better. And anything that allows more folks to get out and shoot has got to be a great idea.
Gunny
RHO tested there scope mounted on a 45-90. I am told that they fired 5,000 full house shots. The scope then was disassembled and tested to see if there was any damage. The results where good enough that they feel that there scope can deal with the recoil. I have mine mounted on a 40-65 and the recoil is very mild I think. And besides if I shoot the thing apart i willl go and get another one.
I want to preface this paragraph with this. MVA is the best of the four scopes Hands Down. Now with that said they are also difference in appearence than the other scopes. The MVA comes in two lengths a 23" and a longer 28" both of these are short, and DO NOT have the appearence of the long scopes most have seen. As an example the RHO Long Eye Relief scope I have on my rifle is 34" long and when mounted on this 40-65 with a 32" barrel comes almost to the end of the barrel. So if looks are what you are after the MVA is short. Now with that short thing said, there is something good about the MVA being short. That is the front lens is some distance behind the end of the muzzle, therefor the MVA's do not get there objective lens fouled. With my RHO which is less than an inch from the muzzle I must be aware that the objective lens needs to be cleaned before the next bank of animals, that is if I want to be able to actually see the animals.
I believe that these scopes where developed with competition in mind. For competition they are fine as they are, However when it comes to "Hunting" with one of these period correct scopes I think most are going to find them a real comprimise. The very small objective lens that must be used with a 3/4" scope allows very little light to be transmitted to the shooter. Shooting in low light conditions like early and late are going to be a real problem for the Hunter. Can these problems be dealt with, Hell yes!! But there are going to be some problems.
These scopes no matter the brand you choose are not cheap by any means. They are going to set you back around a $1,000 or so no matter which one you choose. There are some minus's with the scopes, there are also some big pluse's. For one the sight challanged shooter is actually going to be able to see the targets better, much better. And anything that allows more folks to get out and shoot has got to be a great idea.
Gunny
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in one pretty and well preserved piece, but to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out and defiantly shouting "WOW, what a ride!"
-
Ray Newman
- Posts: 3817
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 1:22 pm
- Location: between No Where & No Place, WA
Gunny thanks for the info & well thought out post.
I wonder if the scope' "bite" is caused by climbing too far forward on the stock to get a better sight picture like when the Shooter uses a tang sight?
I can't recall having either of my 2 'scoped rifles (.45-2.1 & .45-2.4 even coming close to my face when I touch one off.
I wonder if the scope' "bite" is caused by climbing too far forward on the stock to get a better sight picture like when the Shooter uses a tang sight?
I can't recall having either of my 2 'scoped rifles (.45-2.1 & .45-2.4 even coming close to my face when I touch one off.
-
RMulhern
- Posts: 7682
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:41 pm
- Location: North Louisiana
To scope...or not?
Gunny
What about the "return to zero factor" of any scope you've dealt with that has adjustable elevation/windage?
Thanks!
What about the "return to zero factor" of any scope you've dealt with that has adjustable elevation/windage?
Thanks!
-
Gunny
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2002 5:41 pm
- Location: California
Rick,
Now this is a sticky wicket, return to zero???
I can only speak to what I have experianced and observed. The RHO scope as well as the Parsons while one (Parsons) has the Pope Style rib and recoils and the other (RHO) is a fixed scope mount. Both of these scopes have all of the windage adjustments on the front mount. With the RHO scope there is really no problem as there is nothing up there to move, other than the adjusting screw. The Parsons does recoil and slide on the Pope Rail, there also is a need for this type of mount to swivel to some degree. Without this swiveling aspect you could not make elevation changes. There is a problem on both the MVA and the Parsons with this swiveling feature. The rings move some and in this moving elevation changes some as well. How much? Not too much but you need to remember we are talking in thousandths of an inch. As in .010 is somewhere about 1 MOA, and that ain't much. If with the MVA and Parsons the shooter needs to be aware of this and be sure the floating type of ring is back into battery and squared. This is not really that big of a deal, it takes longer to explain than to do. But have seen this cost a shooter an animal or two in Silhouette, at Long Range it "COULD" be more problematicial I guess.
That also brings up another thought. The windage adjustment on the RHO and the Prsons scope mounts is on the front, MVA has there's on the rear something like a soule type of sight. When I first got this scope I thought that the windage was going to be a real problem. What with having to take the rifle off of the sticks and pull it back to me and then make the adjustment and return the rifle back to the sticks. Just didn't seem as if there would be enough time to do all of this and use the blow tube and all. Turns out this is not a problem at all, after the shooter aquires a little trigger time with the scope it all comes together. No big deal at all.
Rick, the scopes are a new thing in competition. I know you don't have the time to compete right now, but in time maybe--Huh? A lot of folks thought that shooting the scope was going to be a lot easier than the Irons. While I will never give up the Irons it is a lot of fun to play with this scope thing. Almost all of the states at there shoots are going to a add on scope match the day before the iron site match. Shooting the scope is in no way easier than the Irons. Spotting for a scope shooter is a hell of a challange, and has to be done a little different. As a matter of fact spotting in the scope class is more than 50 % of the shooters score possibilties. You must have a spotter that is aware of the differences, and calls your shots and corrections a little different. The scopes do allow shooters to see the target in a way that is simply not possible whith Iron sights no matter how good your eyes are.
Gunny
Now this is a sticky wicket, return to zero???
I can only speak to what I have experianced and observed. The RHO scope as well as the Parsons while one (Parsons) has the Pope Style rib and recoils and the other (RHO) is a fixed scope mount. Both of these scopes have all of the windage adjustments on the front mount. With the RHO scope there is really no problem as there is nothing up there to move, other than the adjusting screw. The Parsons does recoil and slide on the Pope Rail, there also is a need for this type of mount to swivel to some degree. Without this swiveling aspect you could not make elevation changes. There is a problem on both the MVA and the Parsons with this swiveling feature. The rings move some and in this moving elevation changes some as well. How much? Not too much but you need to remember we are talking in thousandths of an inch. As in .010 is somewhere about 1 MOA, and that ain't much. If with the MVA and Parsons the shooter needs to be aware of this and be sure the floating type of ring is back into battery and squared. This is not really that big of a deal, it takes longer to explain than to do. But have seen this cost a shooter an animal or two in Silhouette, at Long Range it "COULD" be more problematicial I guess.
That also brings up another thought. The windage adjustment on the RHO and the Prsons scope mounts is on the front, MVA has there's on the rear something like a soule type of sight. When I first got this scope I thought that the windage was going to be a real problem. What with having to take the rifle off of the sticks and pull it back to me and then make the adjustment and return the rifle back to the sticks. Just didn't seem as if there would be enough time to do all of this and use the blow tube and all. Turns out this is not a problem at all, after the shooter aquires a little trigger time with the scope it all comes together. No big deal at all.
Rick, the scopes are a new thing in competition. I know you don't have the time to compete right now, but in time maybe--Huh? A lot of folks thought that shooting the scope was going to be a lot easier than the Irons. While I will never give up the Irons it is a lot of fun to play with this scope thing. Almost all of the states at there shoots are going to a add on scope match the day before the iron site match. Shooting the scope is in no way easier than the Irons. Spotting for a scope shooter is a hell of a challange, and has to be done a little different. As a matter of fact spotting in the scope class is more than 50 % of the shooters score possibilties. You must have a spotter that is aware of the differences, and calls your shots and corrections a little different. The scopes do allow shooters to see the target in a way that is simply not possible whith Iron sights no matter how good your eyes are.
Gunny
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in one pretty and well preserved piece, but to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out and defiantly shouting "WOW, what a ride!"
-
TJW
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: So. WI
Period type scopes on Sharps are interesting but I suspect they may be better suited for target work than hunting. Most likely the originals were intended for longer range shooting. The comments here have been focused on the durability of the scopes, but I'm wondering how practical such a scope is under real field conditions.
For those of you that are planning on using them for hunting, what ranges and cover conditions are you expecting to use them in? I suspect that at closer ranges and in timber these scopes may be an expensive headache.
They are not the Weaver or Leupold many of us have a lot of experience with - they won't give any where near the performance we have come to expect. First of all, consider the low light gathering capability, people especially mention they have trouble with iron sights in low light conditions - the very time game is most active - but it's likely the period scopes with their long tubes and small objective lens won't be much better than the irons in when the shadows get long. What about the magnification being 6x with a field of view of only 10 ft at 100 yd? Modern 6x scopes are 16ft or more, and a 4x, which may be a better choice for a 150yd hunting rifle, has a field of view of around 24ft.
The question I'm puting out there is how well do these scopes actually work in most hunting condions? I know we really WANT them to answer our prayers, but..... Can those of you that have experience give some more feedback.
Yes, these scopes sure have the cool factor, and there isn't much else out there to pick from if you want to stay traditional. However, what really may be needed to answer our dreams (or meet our expectations) may be a new scope - a traditional style scope the better meets hunters needs. Sure there are a bundle of tech limitations, for sure. But maybe just a ruggid 3-4 power scope would be a place to start. Wouldn't a lower power work better at hunting ranges, give a wider field of view, and more light --- and maybe, just maybe, cost less? Your thoughts???
TJW
For those of you that are planning on using them for hunting, what ranges and cover conditions are you expecting to use them in? I suspect that at closer ranges and in timber these scopes may be an expensive headache.
They are not the Weaver or Leupold many of us have a lot of experience with - they won't give any where near the performance we have come to expect. First of all, consider the low light gathering capability, people especially mention they have trouble with iron sights in low light conditions - the very time game is most active - but it's likely the period scopes with their long tubes and small objective lens won't be much better than the irons in when the shadows get long. What about the magnification being 6x with a field of view of only 10 ft at 100 yd? Modern 6x scopes are 16ft or more, and a 4x, which may be a better choice for a 150yd hunting rifle, has a field of view of around 24ft.
The question I'm puting out there is how well do these scopes actually work in most hunting condions? I know we really WANT them to answer our prayers, but..... Can those of you that have experience give some more feedback.
Yes, these scopes sure have the cool factor, and there isn't much else out there to pick from if you want to stay traditional. However, what really may be needed to answer our dreams (or meet our expectations) may be a new scope - a traditional style scope the better meets hunters needs. Sure there are a bundle of tech limitations, for sure. But maybe just a ruggid 3-4 power scope would be a place to start. Wouldn't a lower power work better at hunting ranges, give a wider field of view, and more light --- and maybe, just maybe, cost less? Your thoughts???
TJW
-
RMulhern
- Posts: 7682
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:41 pm
- Location: North Louisiana
To scope or....??
Gunny
<<there also is a need for this type of mount to swivel to some degree. Without this swiveling aspect you could not make elevation changes.>>
When you say "swivel"....do you mean "to rotate" up and down within the mount?
Thanks for your thoughts regarding this issue! 
<<there also is a need for this type of mount to swivel to some degree. Without this swiveling aspect you could not make elevation changes.>>
When you say "swivel"....do you mean "to rotate" up and down within the mount?
Thanks for your thoughts regarding this issue!
-
Gunny
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2002 5:41 pm
- Location: California
Rick,
I think swivel is the correct word, or at least the best I can come up with. Think about it this way. You put in your chicken setting for me and my scope that is 9 pts on the scale, Pig setting is about 15 MOA higher, distance to the Turkeys is another 15 MOA or so, to get to the Rams from the Turkeys is 20 MOA more. That is a total of 50 MOA from lowest to highest, something has gotta move or as I call it swivel or everything is in a hell of a bind. Now take into consideration that on the Pope Rail type of mount on the MVA and Parsons they have a ring that the scope slides thru on the rear this ring also swivels some. It is like having a bigger ring over a smaller tube --Right? If in returning the scope back to battery you let that ring get cocked on the tube it will raise the elevation slightly, and I do mean slightly. Now think about how little movement it takes to shoot over a Ram. The shooter just needs to be aware of this.
Gunny
I think swivel is the correct word, or at least the best I can come up with. Think about it this way. You put in your chicken setting for me and my scope that is 9 pts on the scale, Pig setting is about 15 MOA higher, distance to the Turkeys is another 15 MOA or so, to get to the Rams from the Turkeys is 20 MOA more. That is a total of 50 MOA from lowest to highest, something has gotta move or as I call it swivel or everything is in a hell of a bind. Now take into consideration that on the Pope Rail type of mount on the MVA and Parsons they have a ring that the scope slides thru on the rear this ring also swivels some. It is like having a bigger ring over a smaller tube --Right? If in returning the scope back to battery you let that ring get cocked on the tube it will raise the elevation slightly, and I do mean slightly. Now think about how little movement it takes to shoot over a Ram. The shooter just needs to be aware of this.
Gunny
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in one pretty and well preserved piece, but to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out and defiantly shouting "WOW, what a ride!"