Scope weight question

[Voodooracer]

Hi everyone, I just picked up a trijicon accupoint 4-16x50mm for a great deal. A little background on my thought process and question. I have a Remington 700 AWR in 300 Ultra Mag that has been an outstanding rifle and exceptionally accurate. I put a sig whiskey 3 4-12x50 on it and it’s been a nice, reliable scope so far for the price. I also have an identical Rem 700 AWR in 300 win mag I got a while ago on a whim (I like my .30 calibers haha). I’m considering putting the sig scope on the 300 win mag and putting the trijicon on the 300 Ultra Mag figuring the extra power would be a good compliment to the extended capabilities of the cartridge. Here in lies my conundrum. The trijicon weight about 24oz +/-, given that the 300RUM has pretty substantial recoil in a rifle that weighs a shade under 8lbs, do you think the scope weight would wear excessively on the bases/rings/screws in the bases? I’m using Warne steel rings and bases for both. I appreciate any input or experiences!

Thanks,
Voodoo

 

[Newboomer]

I'd say put the heavier scope on the lighter rifle (300RUM). The extra weight will mitigate some of the recoil. Warne steel rings should handle the recoil no problem.

 

[Voodooracer]

I'd say put the heavier scope on the lighter rifle (300RUM). The extra weight will mitigate some of the recoil. Warne steel rings should handle the recoil no problem.

Thanks Newboomer, the recoil doesn’t bother me too much but I’ll take every advantage I can get! The weight would definitely help settle it down some. That makes sense, it’s not like I’m shooting it exclusively in a lead sled loaded up with weight.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

You could have the bases and receiver holes opened up and re tapped to as size larger screw. I believe the next size is 8-40. That should make the base to receiver joint much stronger. I agree with newboomer the warne steel rings/bases should take it.
I will have it done soon to my Winchester 375.

 

[Voodooracer]

You could have the bases and receiver holes opened up and re tapped to as size larger screw. I believe the next size is 8-40. That should make the base to receiver joint much stronger. I agree with newboomer the warne steel rings/bases should take it.
I will have it done soon to my Winchester 375.

That’s a good consideration too, thanks!

 

[meigsbucks]

I'd say put the heavier scope on the lighter rifle (300RUM). The extra weight will mitigate some of the recoil. Warne steel rings should handle the recoil no problem.

+1

 

[Tokoloshe Safaris]

At the moment having some work done on a .375 H&H Whitworth Mauser, this will be a client rifle and may end up with a heavy scope. It will have been drilled, tapped and fitted with #8 screws. Bases will be Warn. We cannot afford a rifle mechanical failure, small price to pay to assure 100% reliability. Other work will be glass bedded action and a second cross bolt and two recoil pads (limbsaver) 1" & 1 1/2" with the addition of a slip over pad we can accommodate most needed LOP.

 

[BeeMaa]

I'd say put the heavier scope on the lighter rifle (300RUM). The extra weight will mitigate some of the recoil. Warne steel rings should handle the recoil no problem.

From a physics standpoint this is a little off.
An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by another force.
Likewise, an object at rest tends to stay at rest until acted upon by another force.

What you need to know is which rifle has more actual measured (or at least calculated) recoil.
The one with less recoil should get the heavier scope, the one with more goes lighter.

Reason being is that as the rifle recoils, the scope wants to stay stationary as the rifle torques the rings to get it to move.
The lighter the scope, the easier it is for the rings/mounts to keep the scope secure.
This is also why you see the long range guys with smaller calibers shooting with a 56mm+ objective lens.
Heavier calibers need a lighter scope.

That being said - I don't think you will have a problem either way with the calibers you have.
They are both mild enough to handle the larger Trijicon in Warne rings.

 

[Voodooracer]

From a physics standpoint this is a little off.
An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by another force.
Likewise, an object at rest tends to stay at rest until acted upon by another force.

What you need to know is which rifle has more actual measured (or at least calculated) recoil.
The one with less recoil should get the heavier scope, the one with more goes lighter.

Reason being is that as the rifle recoils, the scope wants to stay stationary as the rifle torques the rings to get it to move.
The lighter the scope, the easier it is for the rings/mounts to keep the scope secure.
This is also why you see the long range guys with smaller calibers shooting with a 56mm+ objective lens.
Heavier calibers need a lighter scope.

That being said - I don't think you will have a problem either way with the calibers you have.
They are both mild enough to handle the larger Trijicon in Warne rings.

That’s kind of what I thought, I appreciate the input. I figured my body would absorb and cushion the recoil. I’d be more concerned if I were only going to target shoot out of a lead sled, I’m sure that would wreak havoc on the bases and rings. I’m looking at booking an audad hunt with @gizmo once I finish pt from a recent surgery and those are the two rifles I’m debating between taking haha.

 

[BeeMaa]

Good luck with your recovery and the upcoming hunt.
You can't make a wrong decision between those two rifles and scopes for hunting with @gizmo

 

[gizmo]

Well my uneducated opinion is in reality I don’t think it will matter one bit but that’s just me. I think both options would be more than adequate for Aoudad and I’m super excited to get the opportunity to hunt with you.
I know very little about the 300 Ultra’s other than it’s a whopper of a 30 cal! If you shoot it well I can think of little else better to put the smack down on a big ole sheep. Aoudad tend to be tough as nails like most African critters. We’ve killed them with just about every reasonable caliber but having a big belted magnum sure does the job superb. I have and love my 300 win Mag and it is a fantastic Aoudad caliber. I’d imagine the RUM would be a great one too!

 

[johnnyblues]

I have a trijicon 2.5x10x56 on my Winchester model 70 in 300WSM. Never had any issue at all. Not sure which bases on on it though...

 

[Hogpatrol]

Different strokes but I've done away with solid metal rings and went to all Burris Signature rings with the inserts. My heaviest recoiling rifle is a smokeless muzzleloader and it holds a Leupold 30mm tube scope solidly and has never moved. I use my lead sled for holding stocks to do glass bedding and scope mounting. There's nothing that will ruin a scope faster than a lead sled. I've heard the argument "I've been using one for years with a 100 lbs. of weight and never had a problem" but someday you will.

 

[MS 9x56]

That’s a good consideration too, thanks!

Also I highly recommend using loctite on the screws.

 

[Bonk]

My rings/bases of choice are DNZ one piece units machined from one piece of billet. They're light, strong and relatively inexpensive. About $50-60 depending on your rifle make/model. The beauty of them is there's at least 4 screws attaching the base to the receiver. You'd have to have all four fail to lose your scope. You also don't have to lap the rings because they're perfectly aligned during the machining process. The only downside is they don't make a one piece for my favorite rifles (CZ550) but all my Brownings and Winchesters wear them. Highly recommend.

 

[postoak]

I may be thinking backward but it seems to me a led sled would result in less of a tendency for a scope to slip in the rings because there is less movement of the rifle under the scope.