Print Page | Close Window

AH

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=9049
Printed Date: March/29/2024 at 04:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: AH
Posted By: jackG
Subject: AH
Date Posted: December/19/2007 at 12:32

I currently have mounted on my Tikka T3 lite 270 wsm a Sightron Sll, 3-9X42.   It's a pretty good scope and I've pretty much killed everything I've shot at with it, out to, in excess of 300 yards.  However, good is never good enough, and in keeping with that notion I'm talking myself into an upgrade.

I favor a simple plex reticle, of course very good glass, as well as perhaps a step up in power.  The Kahles seem to be getting some pretty good reviews by the users.   I've got a couple of questions.   Has anyone used the AH scopes and if so, what say you?  I could also go to the 3.5-10X50, a minor power upgrade, or I could go with the 4-12X52 CL.   It is evident I'm shopping off the SWFA sample list.  
 
I am concerned about mounting a 50 or 52 mm objective  on that rifle.  Is that going to be obstrusive and in the way?  It's about 20 % larger in diameter to the 42 mm I'm currently using.   For those using those scopes, is the larger objective a problemK?



Replies:
Posted By: ND2000
Date Posted: December/19/2007 at 12:37
JackG -
 
I have both a Kahles AH and a Kahles CL.  The CL is better from a resolution standpoint.  Both are really good in lowlight conditions.
 
I would avoid a 50-52mm objective on that gun.  They will be too heavy and sit too high on the rifle, leading to discomfort and throwing off the balance of the gun.  Stick with 42mm...it's plenty.
 
ND2000


-------------
You either get what you pay for or what you deserve.


Posted By: TheDrakeTaker
Date Posted: December/19/2007 at 13:03
I'm going to disagree with ND on this one, I have the same gun as you in a .300 win mag.  I have a Kahles C 3-12X56 sitting on top of it and it's a pefect fit for me.  Looks and feel great, and the optics are first rate.  Plus you have more usable magnification with the larger objective.  You are already used to having a 3-9X42 so you may want to stay with that look and fit for you, but don't count out the larger objective it won't bother you.  Either way you can't go wrong with Kahles.

-------------
Robert


Posted By: RONK
Date Posted: December/19/2007 at 17:53

 

 I'll adress only the mounting height issue.  Personally I prefer low mounted scopes on my hunting rifles for the low profile and quick handling attributes, but a high mounted scope isn't bad at all IF the rifle has a properly fitted stock with a high comb or a lace-on cheekpiece. All that really matters is that your head is in a comfortable position when the rifle is shouldered, and your dominant eye is looking through the tube when your cheek is resting snugly on the comb. Once you achieve that, with enough length of pull to prevent your thumb from bumping your nose, you should have a very shooter-friendly rig.  Adjust the scope fore and aft for correct eye relief after modifying the stock as neccesary.

 If the balance needs a little tweaking, a few ounces of lead inletted into the barrel channel can work wonders if you're not trying to build a featherweight mountain rifle.


Posted By: jackG
Date Posted: December/21/2007 at 21:03
Thanks for the information.  I'm a novice and have mounted nothing other than a 42 mm objective scope.   The larger objective bell is going to sit higher.  My brother described having to use a different base when mounting his 52 mm  Leupold.   That suggests to me that the Leupold may manufacture a single height ring.   Assuming that is correct, do other manufacturers provide rings the accomodate scopes that sit higher on the rifle?


Posted By: ND2000
Date Posted: December/21/2007 at 21:20
JackG -
 
I think what your brother described was a bit confusing.  The choice of what base to use is a function of what gun you have, not the scope.  The base mounts directly to the rifle.  The choice of rings, which attach to the base, is driven by the scope choice.  You will either need rings that accomodate 1" or 30mm tube diameter scopes (both the AH and CL are 1", the C is 30mm).  Ring height is the final consideration.  You'll want it as low as possible, taking into consideration a) what gives you enough clearance for the scope's objective lens diameter and b) does it give you enough clearance at the ocular end to clear the bolt...lots of guys miss the last part.
 
ND2000


-------------
You either get what you pay for or what you deserve.


Posted By: ND2000
Date Posted: December/21/2007 at 21:24
JackG -
 
Sorry, to more specifically answer your question, plenty of manufacturers, including Leupold, make rings of varying heights, from low to extra high.  SWFA has a very large selection of them. 
 
ND2000


-------------
You either get what you pay for or what you deserve.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net