Long eye relief scopes

Not a Savage, but I recently bought a Leupold IER scout for my Marlin 336. I haven't mounted it yet. Still waiting for the rings thanks to the strike going on at Canada post.
 
I have a few. Love them. Most are on my military surplus with no tap and drill mounts. They take a bit to get use to. I find them easy to use, quickly getting on target with running deer. I keep buying different ones to try. So far the Vortex is my favourite. Next I plan to try one of the Burris.
 
OP - you will discover there is IER scopes (Intermediate Eye Relief) and LER (Long Eye Relief) scopes. Not the same - IER usually used on Scout type rifles - I have a 2 3/4 power Burris IER on a Savage Scout rifle. LER usually used on a handgun - although some will say they use a "pistol" scope just fine on their Scout Rifle. IER sort of 12" eye relief - LER sort of 20" eye relief.

The IER have the advantage to keep the loading port open, if you have a rifle that loads through the top - for example, if you want a scope to see, and also want to use "chargers" (stripper clips) to load - or that rifle ejects straight up. Not sure I see much advantage to them if the rifle uses a detachable magazine that goes into the bottom of the rifle to load, and ejects more or less horizontally. For my Savage Scout rifle - it has a "clip" - seriously considering to take off all that Savage stuff on top and install regular bases and a regular scope - not sure, at all, what "Scout rifle" functionality that I would be losing on that rifle. I installed a Redfield "flip up" aperture sight to the rear of the rear Weaver scope base on another rifle - so I have "aperture" sight back up on that one once I remove the scope - no difference that I can tell versus the Savage Scout rifle. Maybe is something about carrying or balance or portability of the unit?
 
OP - up until I bought that rifle, I never owned a "Scout" type rifle - after reading the book "The Scout Rifle Study" by Richard Mann, I may still not own one. This one is chambered for 7.62x39 - I did not think the "muzzle brake" was necessary, so I lathed that down to be what I think a thread cap should look like. There was a LOT of hard carbon packed into the rifle barrel's actual "recessed" muzzle, to the point there was no "recess" when I removed that "brake". I do not think Savage hit any feature that old guy Jeff Cooper defined as needed in a "Scout", other than a scope mounting base forward of the action. So, I view it as another Savage Rifle - except I have never found replacement magazines for it, anywhere - magazines for it are not listed on the Savage website, and several stores that sold the gun new, tell me they can not get the magazines. That original three round mag fits flush to bottom of the stock - makes for very handy carry - but a really Mickey Mouse looking latch affair on the magazine - the latch is NOT part of the rifle - I am pretty certain I will break it off in the cold - I would prefer to have a spare mag or two for it - which I do not have.
 
pounder said:
SS what power is your Vortex and what Burris are you looking at ?
Click to expand...
Vortex are 2 to 7. Burris has two. I believe the fixed is 2.5 and variable is 2 to 8. Probably get one in the new year after the postal strike is over. Availability will probably solve my choice in which to buy first.
Pistol scopes also work well. I have used them on rifles, eye relief is also longer. Pistol scopes on rifles was the original start of the scout concept.
 
I have a Vortex 2-7 scout I find that the field of view is very small ( this is holding in my hand as the rifle is somewhere in the mail ) I think after I get the rifle I will try a fixed 2.5.
 
I have the Leupold IER 1.5-4, and the Burris 2-7. The Leupold has a v plex reticle and mushy turrets. Its a nice scope with great glass but I found the turrets to be a big let down. It sits on my S&W 1854. The Burris has a BDC reticle and nice crisp turrets, great glass and over all I prefer it over the Leupold. I have one on a Ruger scout and one on a R95. If I buy another one, it will probably be another Burris.
 
I'm swaying off topic a bit here but in regards to power range I use 7 power, 9 power or 12 power. I don't have any scopes above that power range. Now on the topic of eye relief in the modestly priced scopes. Bushnell is acceptable, as is Burris. I have a couple of Nikons and find the glass good - but eye relief is a bit less.
 
John_B said:
z05IAgF.jpg
I have the same. Put a peep sight on it for backup. Great combo, rarely take the scope off.
Click to expand...
 
dan belisle said:
I've built a few Scout rifles over the years, kept one of the Rem 600's. I found them to be great when used within the limits of Cooper's criteria. Did a couple on Mausers, but was a fair bit harder to make the weight limit. For an all around rifle, I think they work well. - dan
Click to expand...
After I got use to using them I enjoy them. Excellent for woods distances. Very quick to get on target. I find they just seem to point and they are on target. For me they just feel natural.
Then I found Bad Ace mounts for the military surplus. They just replace the original rear sites without tapping and drilling. Scout scopes work well on them.
 
pirate604 said:
I have the Leupold IER 1.5-4, and the Burris 2-7. The Leupold has a v plex reticle and mushy turrets. Its a nice scope with great glass but I found the turrets to be a big let down. It sits on my S&W 1854. The Burris has a BDC reticle and nice crisp turrets, great glass and over all I prefer it over the Leupold. I have one on a Ruger scout and one on a R95. If I buy another one, it will probably be another Burris.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that neither of these scopes were ever meant for 'dialing.' The turrets only exist for the purpose of zeroing, so basically set and forget.

Separate from that, I equally find adjustable magnification on a scout scope pretty pointless. The FOV is never going to be that of a LPVO and most people using scout scopes are going to end up leaving it in the +/- 2.5x power. If one can find a fixed variant, that would be the one I'd go with for less weight, smaller size and less complications, eg the Leupold FX-II 2.5 IER
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom