.416 Rem Mag Issue

Glenn Slaven

AH enthusiast
May 27, 2018
Reaction score
Hunting reports
Member of
So I am having an issue with .416 RM Blaser R8. My scope keeps moving forward under recoil. I applied extra torque to screws, blue locktite on the screws, and added blue locktite on the inside of the rings. It still keeps moving forward. I know I can't be the only person to deal with this. Same story on .470 Capstick barrel. When scope stays put for 3 or 4 rounds, its shoots sub-MOA, but it just won't stay put.

I thought about putting latex glove piece between ring and scope.
I know is purely an European use, but in calibers over 300, I put epoxy inside the rigs and under the bases. Some old instructions on EAW mounts reccommend to do that. You just have to do it with great care, because with good epoxy (use the strogest you can) you don't have a plane B, so be very careful and do it only if yiu are pretty confident in your skill. Anyway, in such calibers I like more optics with a rail (perfect for Blasers mounts), or better yet a claw mounts if possible.
I use Talley steel QR rings on my 500 Jeffery. Over 500 full power shots through it, the scope has never moved in the rings. Scope if is fine too. Just a thought.

Last edited by a moderator:
I use Talley steel QR rings on my 500 Jeffery. Over 500 full power shots through it, the scope has never moved in the rings. Scope if is fine too. Just a thought.

View attachment 472790
I have a .500 Jeff, .450 Ackley, and .458 Lott that I have no issues with. It’s the Blaser that is giving me fits. I’m using the Blaser rings and mount. Not set up to use any regular rings at the moment. May have it drilled for a pic rail when I get back from Africa.
Last edited by a moderator:
Colorado has a good way! I would put a Nightforce rail on your gun and use a set of NF ultra light ring mounts. Problem solved!
@Glenn Slaven - Have you considered moving to a rail mounted scope?
I would stay away from any type of one piece mount - I feel that it obstructs access to the magazine.

I would lap the rings, make sure that the surfaces of the rings meet tightly and square, and, if that fails, I would be tempted to put some locktite inside the rings to hold the scope under recoil.

I am sure that a good gunsmith will have seen this problem, so the easy way out is to take to that guy.
Are your rings aluminum? Not sure if Blaser offers steel rings anymore, but if they do, you might could get them a bit tighter than aluminum. They also make some two sided tape to put inside the rings to prevent slippage, but I've never needed it before.
There is a spray able product that I think is called liquid electrical tape. Mask off outside of your rings and spray a light coating on inside of rings. Reassemble and let dry. Your problem will be solved and not terrible to work with or remove if you decide to change rings or optics later.
I considered it, but I can’t justify spending the money when there has got to be a fix.
I’m thinking about just having the thing epoxied in.
Fair enough on the rail mount option. However I'd start with lapping the rings before going to epoxy.
rail mounts are better, way better

dont drill it for a picattiny rail, you will diminish the value

no issue with access to magazine as its an R8, so mag can be removed from bottom anyway
I’ve got some good options now to try out. I knew there would be some answers to be had.
Let us know how it goes.
Not sure what the cause of the problem is but if the rings are no good there are alternatives to Blaser rings. Spuhr makes rings that fit onto Blaser mounts as does Tier One and perhaps others. Another way is a picatinny rail for Blaser, Contessa makes decent ones but others do too.
Well, maybe we should look at this differently...

By far the most reliable and full-proof way to ensure that a scope will not move in its rings on a high-recoil rifle, is to eliminate the mechanical possibility of it sliding by resting either the turrets bulge, or the ocular piece cone against the front or rear ring.

On a Blaser R8, in my experience it is most often the turret bulge against the front ring.

Before anyone jumps on the keyboard to say that this puts the scope too far forward, let me ask, and answer, a few questions:

1- Does it affect shooting if the shooter occasionally sees a thin black ghost ring shade around the scope sight picture when taking a snap shot? Answer: no, and it has no effect on sight picture, parallax, accuracy, etc.​
2- Can the shooter move the cheek 1/2" forward on the stock during a deliberate shot, to avoid seeing a thin black ghost ring? Answer: yes, and it has no effect on sight picture, parallax, accuracy, etc.​
3- Is it necessary to not see a thin black ghost ring to shoot accurately and comfortably? Answer: no, the crisp "perfect" eye relief sight picture is certainly nice but completely unnecessary.​
4- What do you prefer: risking seeing occasionally a thin ghost ring around your sight picture, that has no effect whatsoever on your shot, or risking getting kicked in the forehead or the eye by the scope during a snap shot (ask DG hunters...), or even during a deliberate shot uphill (as mountain hunters...)? Answer: I know what my answer is, I have been putting scopes as forward as mechanically possible for 40 years after early painful experiences hunting Chamois in the French Alps...​

The bottom line with modern scopes that have great eye relief, is that it strikes me as counterproductive, and quite chancy, to seek to place the scope further back on a DG rifle, in order to get a "target-rifle-on-a-benchrest type" perfect eye relief.

Scope on .458 Lott R8.jpg

Blaser R8 .458 Lott with Leica scope resting against the front ring. It is mechanically impossible for the scope to move under recoil, and virtually impossible to be kicked in the forehead or the eye by the scope under recoil, even in the most hurried snap shot or the most uphill shot, and the forward position of the scope has no downside whatsoever except possibly showing occasionally a thin black ghost ring around the sight picture that has zero effect on shooting.

My recommendation: rest the scope mechanically against the ring, it will never move and never hit you. And by the way, in most cases we are taking about moving the scope forward 1/8", 1/4" or 1/2" inch, which is essentially nothing. Try it,
Glenn Slaven, just to see how the sight picture looks, you will be happily surprised...

PS1: admittedly, this method is not always possible with all scopes and all mounts. For example older Leupold scopes could not rest the ocular piece against the rear ring, because there was no change in tube diameter before the zoom ring, and resting the zoom ring against the rear mount ring would obviously prevent it from turning.

PS2: as to ring lapping, sorry to rain on the parade, but I have seen more folks destroy their rings (over doing it) than actually fix the problem. Beside, I doubt very much that Blaser rings are not concentric...
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Latest member



Latest posts

Latest profile posts

hunt 65 wrote on DonPablo's profile.
Also, more pics of female #2(black ticked). Thanks, Neil
hunt 65 wrote on DonPablo's profile.
Could you send me some more pics of the Dam(weight?) and Sire, front rear and side pics., looking for a smaller female, with ticking. thanks Don
hunt 65 wrote on 500jeffery's profile.
Please let me know the status of the Sako 500J, thanks again
2 more jackal , one was a big male!

We had another bushfire on a neighbours place we need some summer rain!