The ''proper'' scope for my big Brno

Gatehouse said:
I used to have the same rifle, before the 375 H&H was rendered obsolete by the 375 Ruger. Conventional wisdom at the time was that the 375 H&H was mostly closer range, big power sort of thing so I handicapped it by putting a Leupold 1.5-5 on it. It wasn't long until I figured out that the H&H was not just for shooting buffalo at close range so I replaced it with a 2.5-8x36- a much better choice.
.
Click to expand...

Your funny.
 
Gatehouse said:
before the 375 H&H was rendered obsolete by the 375 Ruger.
Click to expand...

nof60 said:
Your funny.
Click to expand...

Oh I saw that comment too, but I left it alone since I didn't want to start a p!ssing match. The Ruger is neat too, doesn't wear a cool belt like granddad though.

There's also a lot of individuals on this forum who are quite obsolete themselves... but that doesn't mean I have zero respect for my elders LOL ;)
 
You may have a problem mounting a 2.5x8 Leupold... it is a short scope although a great one...

The best thing you can do with that backward safety is never use it... then it will not matter in which direction it functions... just never use it...
 
guntech said:
The best thing you can do with that backward safety is never use it... then it will not matter in which direction it functions... just never use it...
Click to expand...

Wise words. I just finished Capstick's Death in the Long Grass, as well as Hemingway's classic Green Hills of Africa; both writers reference leaving safeties perpetually in the off position and using the bolt to determine the safeness of the rifle.
 
You might want to understand difference between "controlled round feeding" versus "push feeding" to rely on the bolt handle thing. I have not read those books, but would suspect that Capstick and Hemingway were likely using Mausers or similar - with controlled round feeding - the cartridge being held to bolt face by extractor - likely came up from the magazine below - was NOT likely a cartridge dropped into chamber, with bolt never closed onto it.
 
Potashminer said:
You might want to understand difference between "controlled round feeding" versus "push feeding" to rely on the bolt handle thing. I have not read those books, but would suspect that Capstick and Hemingway were likely using Mausers or similar - with controlled round feeding - the cartridge being held to bolt face by extractor - likely came up from the magazine below - was NOT likely a cartridge dropped into chamber, with bolt never closed onto it.
Click to expand...

A rifle (especially a dangerous game rifle) without controlled round feed is not a rifle at all.
 
SomebodyTookMyName said:
Wise words. I just finished Capstick's Death in the Long Grass, as well as Hemingway's classic Green Hills of Africa; both writers reference leaving safeties perpetually in the off position and using the bolt to determine the safeness of the rifle.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, Capstick advocated having a round in the chamber, bolt closed in the uncocked or fired position. To ready the rifle you would flip the bolt handle up to #### it. I don't recall seeing that referenced in Green Hills, but it's been awhile since I've read it.

When I first read that from Capstick, I thought it was a dangerous idea, and my opinion hasn't changed over the decades. A blow on the back of the bolt could easily fire a round, since the firing pin is resting on the primer.
 
I recently read a few books by Jim Corbett - must have made certain people out of different material back then - great big brass ones gonging along between their legs, but also rattling around between their ears. Several times he reported firing at tigers - and then having to go back home, because he had no more ammo to reload the rifle or to follow up a cat he thought he had hit. Or, was met by an acquaintance who handed him a larger bore double rifle to use on his current episode - when he went to fire, the double did contain two cartridges - but both were previously fired ones. But, he did get to write his books about those experiences, so I guess it all worked out, for him.
 
nof60 said:
A rifle (especially a dangerous game rifle) without controlled round feed is not a rifle at all.
Click to expand...

I read that several Game Departments in Africa, and several Professional Hunters in Africa use Weatherby's - they are push feed, not controlled round feed. So are Remington 700. Not sure that I have ever had a problem with my push feed Model 70's that would "disqualify" them for "dangerous game". But I do believe not knowing what that is, and why that can make a difference, is important. And most definitely, about the most dangerous thing I have ever had to deal with in the bush was a skunk that I was pretty sure had rabies.
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
You might want to understand difference between "controlled round feeding" versus "push feeding" to rely on the bolt handle thing. I have not read those books, but would suspect that Capstick and Hemingway were likely using Mausers or similar - with controlled round feeding - the cartridge being held to bolt face by extractor - likely came up from the magazine below - was NOT likely a cartridge dropped into chamber, with bolt never closed onto it.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I'm quite aware of controlled vs push feeding, as well as snap-over with CRF extractors. My Brno is a true CRF action and will snap-over feed as well.
 
2.5-8x 36 won’t fit on a 602, safety is a none issue if you want it can be converted. No one complains about cocking hammers on lever guns.
 
Last edited:
SomebodyTookMyName said:
Oh yes, I'm quite aware of controlled vs push feeding, as well as snap-over with CRF extractors. My Brno is a true CRF action and will snap-over feed as well.
Click to expand...

The external extractor does not make it controlled round feed - a No. 4 Lee Enfield is controlled round feed and does not have that big external non-rotating extractor. It is the fact that the extractor has hold of the cartridge before the cartridge is chambered - so if you pull back a partially chambered round - that one ejects and the bolt can pick up and chamber a fresh one from the magazine. Dropping a single feed round into chamber, then pulling back bolt and picking up second round from magazine - will tie up gun with two rounds trying to get into chamber. Or using a "push feed" - push cartridge into chamber but not lock down bolt - extractor does not have it - pull back on bolt and it picks up new round from mag - can not go into chamber because first cartridge still in there. Was apparently done often enough in battle - so for most military - load rifle with chargers - so all rounds went into magazine - then close bolt - can not tie it up by trying to get two cartridges into chamber. Single feeding has its place - like with P14 and M1917 - "CRF snap over the rim" - an unaltered military Mauser will not - whereas P14 and M1917 made for that - controlled round feed with cartridges in magazine - with empty magazine, can depress the "stop" on rear of follower, and can drop one more into chamber - "snap over" - to get a last shot off.

Is associated with that bolt stop on most military followers - the thing many "hunters" want ground off when making a "sporter" - prevents closing the bolt from an empty magazine, but thinking that you chambered a round, without deliberately pressing that follower down - not sure I ever followed the thinking - is kind of important to know whether or not you did chamber a round or not - whether fighting or hunting??
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
I read that several Game Departments in Africa, and several Professional Hunters in Africa use Weatherby's - they are push feed, not controlled round feed. So are Remington 700. Not sure that I have ever had a problem with my push feed Model 70's that would "disqualify" them for "dangerous game". But I do believe not knowing what that is, and why that can make a difference, is important. And most definitely, about the most dangerous thing I have ever had to deal with in the bush was a skunk that I was pretty sure had rabies.
Click to expand...

Go on over to AfricaHunting and read up on it. Most PHs wont use a push feed because of the problems if you dont fully clear the spent case. Also a PF can jam if rifle is tipped sideways while cycling. My main goto rifle is a MarkV so obviously I dont have a persuasion and as long as you fully cycle a PF and hold it verticalish then no problem. I can see if you are trying to chamber a round while climbing a tree or getting rolled around on the ground that a CRF would be advantagous. As for rabid skunk shooting I really think if you are not using some kinda semi auto .50 Cal from 2000m you are playing russian roullette ;)
 
sharp shooter said:
I find the Bausch & Lomb 1.5-6x the nicest scope for my big game hunting even though I haven't been big game hunting with a rifle for years.
Click to expand...

What’s the OD on these?

I have a B&L elite 1.75-6x32, pretty decent scope for the age.

Looks like they also made a 1.5-6x36, maybe in a different era? Those seem pretty close to both be in the catalogue
 
If its long enough for the receiver, I suggest the old Swarovski Habicht 1.5 - 4.5 X 20.
Clear, bright and sturdy. Affordable when bought used. Good warranty.
I like the 4-A reticle.

CwqXDsO.jpg

VlxPvVK.jpg
 
Last edited:
How could you think you had pushed the safety forward on your backwards safety and try to fire is my question? If you’re the forgetful type when you push it and nothing happens just keep moving your thumb forward to the top of the safety and pull it back
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom