How hard is the M14 on scopes?

Grizzlypeg

Grizzlypeg

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
80   0   0
Location
Winnipeg
Is my m14 going to hammer a Bushnell 3200 3-9x40 apart?
How about a Leupold VxII 3-9x40?

I'm tossing around various optics options after buying a smith mount. I need something superior to iron sights as I feel they are a limiting factor at distances beyond 100 yards for me, and at the same time I need fast target aquisition that a low power scope will provide, and that is why I am not opting for the typical fixed power 10x option.

I'm also considering a Eotech or Bushnell Holosight, but I'm not sure if they are that good at longer distances are are more for close quarters. I'd consider an Aimpoint, but they don't seem to be available here in Canada at the two main sources, SIR and WSS. What's with that?
 
I find it a very light recoiling rifle, but some of the threads here have suggested that the semi-auto action, possibly the bolt closing, delivers some damaging vibration.

I'm also considering a Burris Fullfield II, as they are available quite cheap on ebay and seem to have decent reviews and warranty policy.
 
I've scoped dozens of M-14 rifles, with mounts that ran from cheap alloy trash, on up to the expensive brand names with " Mil Spec" bragging rights. And I've used up a few scopes, learning the hard way, that the M-14 has a well deserved reputation for being hard on optics.

The problem with the M-14, is that the scope mount acts somewhat like a tuning fork, directing the clatter and clang that comes from an M-14 gass actuated reciprocating action, into vibrations ...
and definitely not ...good - Good - GOOD vibrations either.

These vibrations can loosen up the optics inside the scope way out of proportion to the low recoil of the .308 round.

While I generally hate shok buffs, the M-14 is the one exception ...
a shock buff is cheaper than a scope, and it can soften the blow when the op rod hits the receiver, the bolt hits the back of the receiver, and the whole unit rings like a bell.

Of course,
as with any opinion expressed on the internet, your personal mileage may vary.
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
Would quick disconnect rings hold up? I'd like to be able to shed the scope at times. Where would you use locktite on the scope mount (Smith), everywhere there is a screw including the one into the receiver side?
 
Options, then...

Lazerus2000 said:
The problem with the M-14, is that the scope mount acts somewhat like a tuning fork, directing the clatter and clang that comes from an M-14 gass actuated reciprocating action, into vibrations ...
and definitely not ...good - Good - GOOD vibrations either.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the voice of experience, Laz.

If one goes with a system like the hadguard replacement mount by UltiMAK, would it mitigate the tuning-fork effect of which you speak? Is it the "springiness" of the regular scope mount that kills optics, or the clang-bash-boing of the action being transferred through the receiver (and barrel, I imagine)?

Cheers,

Dan
 
I just did a trial fitting of the Smith weaver base with Burris Signature Zee rings, and I don't like it. The screw through the base of the rings interferes with sight picture of the iron sights. Top 1/3 is squared off by the bolt that runs across the rings. What are other options?
 
i have a bushnell elite 3200 on one of my norc m14s. while it's not a range gun... i use it for hunting... it has held up just fine.... i DO have a shock buffer though.
I also use this same scope on my boss equiped 7mm mag.... she has a lot of BLAM to her, especially with that damn boss on the end.... however accurate she is, my god there is a lot of rearward concussion.... feels like a kick in the head..... really... scope has performed flawlessly
 
This is my setup. A Bushnell 3200 10X40 mildot mounted in Burris Z-rings on a ARMS18 mount. I've fired about 700 rounds through this setup without even a hint of a scope problem. She still holds a perfect zero. IMHO, Bushnell 3200 and 4200 sries scopes a great scopes for the money and hold up very well when mounted on an M14/M305 :dancingbanana:

NorincoM14b.jpg
 
I read a review recently on the .50 Barrett and they were using a Bushnell 10x and they had nothing but praise for the scope. I am assuming that if it holds up to the .50 recoil that the .308 wouldn't be all that big a deal. Assuming of course, that the Barrett doesn't generate recoil differently.
 
An M14 will eat scopes that laugh at the recoil of a .50 cal.
Heres the problem with the M14 and scopes: The reverse recoil.

Scopes are built with the lense stops in front of the lenses....this prevents the lenses from moving in the tube with the rearward motion of the recoil...this is also called "forward bracing" in a scope.

Airgun scopes, made for the big spring piston guns have "rearward bracing", due to the fact that the recoil is FORWARD, caused by the piston slamming forward.

The M14 however, produces recoil in BOTH directions. Initial "rearward" recoil from the cartridge being fired, and a secondary "forward" recoil from that big heavy bolt slamming closed (kinda like a break-barrel airgun)

The probvlem with this forward recoil is that most scopes aren't braced for it at all (with the exception of the previously mentioned airgun scopes)...so it takes very little "forward recoil" to dislodge the lenses.....so, in a nutshell, yes: M14's are scope eaters.

But a quality scope with solid construction and bracing on both sides to eliminate the risk. BTW, don't try and use an AG scope as a solution, as most arent rear braced and wont handle the initial recoil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom