Scope for Win70 in 375

The smallest lenses are in the erector assembly. The erector assembly can be larger in a scope with a larger tube diameter.

Go to the manufacturer data from Swaro or Ziess. Compare scopes in terms of light transmission. If you compare scopes with same diameter of objective lens but different tube diameter, the scope with the larger tube diameter generally is reported to have higher light transmission.
 
I’m just not a fan of the small objective lens scopes.

I would much rather have 40 or 50 mm objective. I also don’t believe a true 1x is a must.

If you are on a budget, leupold vx3hd 3.5-10x40 can be had for 399 at optics planet. It’s a great general purpose scope. I had an old one on a 375 for many years. Killed many lions, leopards, buff, and plains game. Another option would be the 2.5-8x36 if you are trying to stay compact.

I also really like the swaro Z5i 2.4-12x50 for a great all around scope. That’s probably what’s going on my .375. It makes a fine cat scope.
 
The little Leupold arrived today. Check of the clarity, edge to edge, in contrasty light seems ok. That's about all I can say so far. Gotta grind down a proper screwdriver tip to get the (insert expletive) little screws out of the Model 70's receiver. That'll be tomorrow so I can mount up the Talley bases and rings.

What I like about the Talley bases is the double shoulder. Seems more secure than the Weaver/Pic style attachment. And FWIW, the "QR" rings ship with the screw fastener _and_ the QR levers, so you can use either.
Here's what you need. Bought at Canadian Tire, our Harbor Freight of the Great White North.
17185125447104009804733294935012.jpg

This set of screwdrivers goes with my guns everywhere, including Africa.
 
What? A fork?
I tend to kit tools for each gun type. Rarely need em, but a Colt SAA spring went south once and was handy to have the right tips (Brownell's).
 
Well, we'll agree to disagree on the brighter part of it. Wider field is possible. Just something to ponder - if the tube were say.... 3 inches, 6 inches in diameter, with gigantic elements, yet maintain the same objective lens diameter, would it be brighter? What do the internal, often sliding elements actually do? Beside assisting in the "zoom" part of things, they correct deficiencies in the overall design that result in various aberrations, such as coma, flatness of field, spherical aberration(s). There are others.

More range of adjustment is a biggie tho
@Ruraldoc @Swamptrudger - A couple of questions for you both:
1). Does increased/wider field of view come at the expense of “decreased Eye Relief”? I’ve read that it always does and that you have to decide what is more important to You: Eye relief or field of view. Now, does a 30mm tube eliminate that tradeoff? Do you Now get “both” increased Eye relief AND wider field of view?
2). How much of “any improvement” that can be measured - actually translates into a noticeable difference in performance during a Hunt? Just because something can be “measured” does Not mean the difference can be determined by the Naked Eye AND even if it can - does that result in improved performance? (I have my doubts). How many trophies would I have “lost” if my scope was a Bushnell vs. the Swaro, Zeiss, Leupold VIII etc.. that I’ve been using? (I’m not sure but maybe 1-2 “long shots in Low last light” might have Not have been made with a very cheap glass scope…maybe Not.
Lastly, my opinion is that the Most Important thing a scope can do is HOLD ZERO therefore “ruggedness” & proven reliability rank high on my list - my 1” Leupolds‘s (considered mid-low price range) and Zeiss, Swaro ALL hold Zero.
 
@Ruraldoc @Swamptrudger - A couple of questions for you both:
1). Does increased/wider field of view come at the expense of “decreased Eye Relief”? I’ve read that it always does and that you have to decide what is more important to You: Eye relief or field of view. Now, does a 30mm tube eliminate that tradeoff? Do you Now get “both” increased Eye relief AND wider field of view?
2). How much of “any improvement” that can be measured - actually translates into a noticeable difference in performance during a Hunt? Just because something can be “measured” does Not mean the difference can be determined by the Naked Eye AND even if it can - does that result in improved performance? (I have my doubts). How many trophies would I have “lost” if my scope was a Bushnell vs. the Swaro, Zeiss, Leupold VIII etc.. that I’ve been using? (I’m not sure but maybe 1-2 “long shots in Low last light” might have Not have been made with a very cheap glass scope…maybe Not.
Lastly, my opinion is that the Most Important thing a scope can do is HOLD ZERO therefore “ruggedness” & proven reliability rank high on my list - my 1” Leupolds‘s (considered mid-low price range) and Zeiss, Swaro ALL hold Zero.
I'll have to look into the eye relief vs FOV. Interesting question.

What I want in a scope is pretty simple. Just give me some sort of crosshair. Make it reliable. Make the optical quality, lack of fringing, coma, glare reasonably corrected. The Leupolds all get the same reliability treatment. There's a few videos showing their testing machine in operation. They say all have the same ruggedness. Who's to tell?

What I've noticed with this scope, is the coatings "appear" to be what was considered top shelf for camera lenses back in say.... years up to about 1990's. The NIC, SSC and T* coatings seemed to be distinguished by lack of overall reflection, but with a slight deep, deep green reflection. But there are exceptions. The SMCT coatings were not always like that, and the lenses were very contrasty. I always favored the T* as being the best.

Got the wee little screwdriver tip modified, so hopefully I can get the grub screws out of the receiver without fanfare, get the scope mounted.....
 
:D The fork was for perspective. Otherwise it was just a screwdriver set.
I find a use for the used, empty bullet boxes.... put in a the screwdriver tips for XY&Z, and maybe extra screws, or the odd spring that'll need changing. Some kits get shortened punches too.

When I was growing up, my father had "the tool box". And in it was a jumbled up set of 1/4 and 3/8 sockets and a ratchet for each, a few extensions, and a weird set of accumulated box and open end wrenches, pliers that sort of worked, a "sheet rock knife" (called a utility knife these days), and a few light bulbs from directional and stop lights of 50's and early 60's cars, that were blown out but never somehow thrown away.

Fast forward 20 years. I got to work with a gentleman who was simply amazing in his approach to things. He owned the gun range where I set up shop. This man had correct attitude. If you needed a half inch wrench at several "stations" of the reloading line, then you bought enough to have one at each station. No looking around. Need an air nozzle or safety glasses or muffs? They were right there, along with a little rechargeable Mag-Light, and a bottle opener! He had a unique and industrious mindset, and I took to that way of doing things, for the most part at least. And even that was a long time ago, nearly 40 years.
 
@Ruraldoc @Swamptrudger - A couple of questions for you both:
1). Does increased/wider field of view come at the expense of “decreased Eye Relief”? I’ve read that it always does and that you have to decide what is more important to You: Eye relief or field of view. Now, does a 30mm tube eliminate that tradeoff? Do you Now get “both” increased Eye relief AND wider field of view?
2). How much of “any improvement” that can be measured - actually translates into a noticeable difference in performance during a Hunt? Just because something can be “measured” does Not mean the difference can be determined by the Naked Eye AND even if it can - does that result in improved performance? (I have my doubts). How many trophies would I have “lost” if my scope was a Bushnell vs. the Swaro, Zeiss, Leupold VIII etc.. that I’ve been using? (I’m not sure but maybe 1-2 “long shots in Low last light” might have Not have been made with a very cheap glass scope…maybe Not.
Lastly, my opinion is that the Most Important thing a scope can do is HOLD ZERO therefore “ruggedness” & proven reliability rank high on my list - my 1” Leupolds‘s (considered mid-low price range) and Zeiss, Swaro ALL hold Zero.
I can compare this new 1-4x 30mm Bushnell to the 1" 3x Weaver it replaced. Eye relief is much better (whew!), field of view is considerably larger (especially turned down to 1x), and clarity is also a lot better (but that's to be expected with fifty years difference in technology). I don't have a scale but suspect the Bushnell scope is slightly heavier. Not a big deal. The biggest difference is I'm looking at my Springfield's hooded front sight on low power with the Bushnell scope. Actually not a bad thing as I can instantly align the crosshairs vertically with the rifle barrel (not that parralax issues would ever make a big difference at ranges for low power scope).
 
I suspect the same will occur when I get the scope on the 375. But... I went with quick release rings for a reason. Should something get turned sideways.... I can still rely on the irons.
 
Got the wee little screwdriver tip modified, so hopefully I can get the grub screws out of the receiver without fanfare, get the scope mounted.....
Having the ability to apply a significant amount of downward pressure (with the proper bit) on screws when trying to remove them can prevent the fanfare.
 
Having the ability to apply a significant amount of downward pressure (with the proper bit) on screws when trying to remove them can prevent the fanfare.
On my Mod.70 in 30-06, they were a real Royal Fizzbin to get out, apparently affixed with thread locker. Had to use some heat to get 'em goin'.
 
On my Mod.70 in 30-06, they were a real Royal Fizzbin to get out, apparently affixed with thread locker. Had to use some heat to get 'em goin'.
You can order torques socket head screws for your base if it doesn't come with them. Slotted screws for that purpose are problematic. Toss those.
 
I think that eye relief( length of the eye box) suffers if field of view is maximized optically.

So manufacturers have to balance these two factors.

On the same way, a larger erector assembly gives you bigger, brighter images but decreases windage and elevation travel.

I am not an optics expert but think this is pretty much how these things work.
 
I think that eye relief( length of the eye box) suffers if field of view is maximized optically.

So manufacturers have to balance these two factors.
Some casual sleuthing says that you are essentially correct, with some exceptions I'm sure. Given the same objective lens, the wider FOV will have a shorter eye relief and vice versa.
 
Having the ability to apply a significant amount of downward pressure (with the proper bit) on screws when trying to remove them can prevent the fanfare.
This tool works wonders.

20240616_102359.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I've got the little grub screws out. It is obvious that BACO must outsource the screws from formerly out of work scrap metal merchants in some distant land. Folks, the slots on the screws varied by about .015, and two of the four had the slots so off center that I had to narrow down the tip to get into what was there. I generally save old screws and such like that, but not these.

Got the scope trial mounted as well. And my usual problem rears its head once and again: That is, my ostrich neck. Its quite normal for me to have to crane my neck like an Anhinga to get my eye in the right position. And what I've done in the past is move the scope further forward, which is possible on some rifles, or increase the length of pull with spacers and thicker pad. The latter is in the works for the Safari Express. I'll need to add about 3/4 inch to things. That sounds like a thicker pad, and a spacer. Also sounds like I've got to dig out my old pad fitting jig. Dunno if I've still got it, but I can make another if need be.
 
Well, I've got the little grub screws out. It is obvious that BACO must outsource the screws from formerly out of work scrap metal merchants in some distant land. Folks, the slots on the screws varied by about .015, and two of the four had the slots so off center that I had to narrow down the tip to get into what was there. I generally save old screws and such like that, but not these.

Got the scope trial mounted as well. And my usual problem rears its head once and again: That is, my ostrich neck. Its quite normal for me to have to crane my neck like an Anhinga to get my eye in the right position. And what I've done in the past is move the scope further forward, which is possible on some rifles, or increase the length of pull with spacers and thicker pad. The latter is in the works for the Safari Express. I'll need to add about 3/4 inch to things. That sounds like a thicker pad, and a spacer. Also sounds like I've got to dig out my old pad fitting jig. Dunno if I've still got it, but I can make another if need be.
Try a slip-on. I prefer Pachmayer Decelerator. Be forewarned: they are designed to slip on easily ... and they slip off easily too. I lost four in three years pheasant hunting. They now make a "Renegade" model that's essentially the same pad but with full length sleeves. I have one on my shotgun and it's hanging in there.

Adding a 3/4" chunk of wood on the end of the butt would be more unsightly in my opinion. Go with slip-on for now. Down the road you might consider restocking.
 
I have a Leupold 1.5-4.5 on lever action carbine and it works fine.

My M70 in 375 had a Meopta 1.7-10 because I wanted illumination and the increased magnification for longer shots at smaller plains game. Makes a 375 pretty versatile.
The Meopta R2 in 1.7-10x42 is a very versatile scope. I use one in a rifle. Very good glass and PoI has never shifted in 3 years.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
55,758
Messages
1,187,006
Members
97,313
Latest member
istonecare
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

I am game for a meat and eat. My attempt at humor.
rigby 416 wrote on rifletuner's profile.
Come from cz like that.
John A Flaws wrote on Horbs's profile.
500 schuler magazine.jpg
500 schuler bore.jpg
500 and 425 rifles.jpg
500 and 425 magaizne.jpg
cwpayton wrote on Goat416's profile.
Goat416 welcome to the forum ,youve got some great pics and Im sure trophy's
 
Top