Scope for heavy recoil

[69mach]

Khales nf s&b vortex razor. You just have to spend the money and there are a lot of scopes that will work for you

 

[Jesswil61]

All of these comments and not any that address the concern of scope mounting, you can take the highest priced scope on the market and put it in cheap non-secured, non-robust rings and you will not obtain favorable results. vibration has strange effects on mechanical things. The scope must be held secure in preferably well fitted rings on a solid mount. I have had incredible results with less than $200.00 scopes mounted in well lapped rings on well seated bases on magnum rifles for years and actually had one scope fail, It was a tasco, the windage adjustment fell out, stuck in back in the scope and scope was still at original POI. This instance was shear luck but the point is I do not believe the recoil is as much of a concern as control of the vibrations that occur from same. Just my .10 cents worth!

 

[garandman]

My 338 Norma running 300gr Bergers @ 2700 fps pushed pretty hard. Had real good luck with the Leup MK 6 3 - 18 x taking the beating.

 

[JMA]

Thank you everyone for for your responses.
My Weatherby has Talley rings and bases so cheap ones aren't the problem.
This is strictly a hunting rifle so I do not have time for this year. I will get a Nightforce, most likely nsx 2.5-10 x42 for next year.

 

[wwbrown]

I use a Meopta Artemis 2000 1.5-6x42 on my 375 Ruger which is purposed as a bear gun for close work in the woods. I have shot probably 150 rounds with the 375 developing loads and practice and have not seen any shifts or other issues. I have about 7 Meoptas, the first I bought maybe 15 years ago, all of my hunting guns have Meoptas as I love their lowlight prefromance. Of those scopes I have only had one issue and that was a frozen vertical turret that I need to send back for warranty service, they have a lifetime guarantee.

 

[rammac]

All of these comments and not any that address the concern of scope mounting, you can take the highest priced scope on the market and put it in cheap non-secured, non-robust rings and you will not obtain favorable results. vibration has strange effects on mechanical things. The scope must be held secure in preferably well fitted rings on a solid mount. I have had incredible results with less than $200.00 scopes mounted in well lapped rings on well seated bases on magnum rifles for years and actually had one scope fail, It was a tasco, the windage adjustment fell out, stuck in back in the scope and scope was still at original POI. This instance was shear luck but the point is I do not believe the recoil is as much of a concern as control of the vibrations that occur from same. Just my .10 cents worth!

I second the idea that your mounting is suspect, it doesn't matter what rings you use or what rail, they can all be improperly mounted and movement increases momentum which can destroy a scope. You have had too many scope failures to attribute them to the scopes, it's far more likely that your problem is how the scopes are mounted or how you are sighting in the rifle.

The fit between the receiver and the mount or rings can not have any space between them, they must fit metal to metal before you tighten them. Any space will create movement. You can help ensure proper fit by bedding the mount or rings to the top of the receiver.

The rings need to be lapped, at least enough to verify proper contact area. Don't go more than 80% contact.

When you sight in are you using a lead sled? I don't use one because they tend to be hard on scopes. The lead sled, when setup according to recommended usage, doesn't take up much recoil energy so the rifle has to absorb far more energy than normal and the scope experiences more wear.

 

[Dud]

Somewhere out there is a slow motion video of a British .50 BMG firing, an Accuracy International or something and it has a pretty heavily cantilevered scope bending during firing.

It convinced me that when I mount a scope, I need as much distance between rings as possible and the front ring as close to the objective bell as possible just to control the mass of the objective lens and also try to control the ocular bell.

I would have mentioned that before but I try to treat a $125 scope mounting on a .22 the same way as a $3,000 Nightforce on a .50 BMG. Trash rings just never cross my mind.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Kahles scopes would be the best bet for mechanical reliability on the reticle holding POA under heavy recoil.

 

[Mr.Knowit all]

The NXS was built for the Barret .50 is what I was told. They are the toughest scope I have seen.

 

[sw282]

I worked for Kenny Jarrett years ago but still visit frequently. He makes some Dangerous Game rifles that are pretty heavy hitters... 460 Weatherby, 458 Lott, 505 Gibbs, and bunches of other thumpers like a 378 Weatherby and the Remington Ultra Mags.. He works up a load for each and every rifle he builds.. All his scope mounts use #8 screws to keep things together... For 20 yrs + he used a couple Leupold 6.5-20 VX 3s. l don't remember seeing either fail.. 0f late he retired one of the VX3s and replaced it with a 24x Leupold target scope. No trouble with it either.. l've seen just about every high end scope mounted, final tested, and shipped on new rifles... Rest assured that final perfect load was developed with a Leupold scope

 

[Mr.Knowit all]

MANY great scope companies now days. However, if I had to pick the toughest scope made it would be a NF(prolly an NXS model)