Whats the story on the 9.3X62 in Canada?

Baribal said:
I didn't bed the wood stock, but I carefully checked the fitting and the fancy wood of the Lux model tends to split, as you experienced. I did epoxy bed me synthetic one, though. Numrich still had synthetic stocks last time I checked, but they went up in price A LOT lately..
Incredible shooters these rifles, aren't they :)
Click to expand...

I shot a group around 6" at 880 yards with a SHR970 in 300WM in tactical trim. But we're talking about the 9.3 here. I digress.
 
What do you guys think about putting a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 on top of the Zastava? Too much? I will be mainly hunting in Southern Alberta. I took the same scope off my T3 6.5x55 and put it roughly beside it for a visual:

photo.jpg


Too much? My other idea was a Vx-3 2.5-8x36.
 
CheeseBurger said:
What do you guys think about putting a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 on top of the Zastava? Too much? I will be mainly hunting in Southern Alberta. I took the same scope off my T3 6.5x55 and put it roughly beside it for a visual:

photo.jpg


Too much? My other idea was a Vx-3 2.5-8x36.
Click to expand...

Both are great scopes so use which ever you prefer. I might go with the one that offers the most eye relief. I must be a Fudd as I'm just planning to mount an old Leopold 3x on my Husky 9.3. My only experience with Zeiss is binoculars and they are fantastic however I have found the Leopold 2.5-8 to be a fantastic scope on several rifles.
 
Nothing wrong with that scope. Personally I hate 40mm objectives but apparently I'm in the minority judging by the number of 40's on the market. For that reason alone I would go with the 2.5-8x, but they are much of a muchness.
 
BigUglyMan said:
Nothing wrong with that scope. Personally I hate 40mm objectives but apparently I'm in the minority judging by the number of 40's on the market. For that reason alone I would go with the 2.5-8x, but they are much of a muchness.
Click to expand...

You're not alone. For most hunting applications guys use way more scope than needed. I'm in the camp of trim 2.5-8x30's or less too, fixed 4's and 6's work fine too, they have everything you need and nothing you don't.
 
What is your guys reasoning for hating 40mm objectives? Just the fact that you guys feel it's too much? I have thought about the Vx-3 1.75-6 as well, my only concern is you start loosing a bit of eye relief and I wear glasses so I can use all I can get. The only reason I thought of the 3-9 was that I already have one and love it, love the fixed eye relief and they are cheaper than the Vx-3's.
 
CheeseBurger said:
What is your guys reasoning for hating 40mm objectives? Just the fact that you guys feel it's too much? I have thought about the Vx-3 1.75-6 as well, my only concern is you start loosing a bit of eye relief and I wear glasses so I can use all I can get. The only reason I thought of the 3-9 was that I already have one and love it, love the fixed eye relief and they are cheaper than the Vx-3's.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with them at all and if you have it I would try it out and see how it works for you. You can always take it off and put another one on later if you want. I just prefer lighter, trimmer and lower mounted scopes. My absolute favourite variable power general hunting scope is the VX3 1.5-5x. I have one on my 416 Rigby and another on my 257 Weatherby (I know...probably the only 257 Weatherby in the world that hasn't got at least a 3-9x on it). They're light weight, ultra trim and plenty bright thanks to the relatively low magnification.

When I was in Zimbabwe and about to shoot my Cape Buffalo I settled onto the sticks and, liking at the buff through the bottom end of the 3-9x scope I decided to crank up the power. I twisted the ring while looking through the scope until I felt comfortable with the shot (a bit over 100 yards). I squeezed off the shot and, by the time that I had cleared the subsequent misfeed out of the magazine, the bullet had hit perfectly on the shoulder and the buff fell over within 10 yards. After we walked up on the buff and were satisfied that he was dead I looked down at the power ring. It was set half-way between 4 and 5x. Despite having all that magnification available to me I felt comfortable with the shot at less than half of the power available to me. I could have sworn that I gave that dial a mighty twist but I barely moved it 30 degrees. So in the end, 5x is plenty for me for general purpose hunting. I wouldn't turn down more (I have a 2-7x and a couple of 3-9x on other hunting rifles and higher power scopes make load development more precise - I've got a 6.5-20x Leupold that gets called into service for that from time to time) but I'm more likely to opt for a 4x Leupold or 1.5-5x Leupold for a hunting rifle.
 
So in the end, 5x is plenty for me for general purpose hunting.
Click to expand...

That's a fact BUM,
The older (pre Bushnell) B&L 1.5/6X, it too is the cat's meow. Fast as spit at 1.5X right off the muzzle, and plenty precise at 6X, should the shot you happen to get be a longer one.
Mine have withstood the recoil of thousands of .375H&H and lesser cal. reloads, and never ever budged from zero.
 
CheeseBurger said:
What do you guys think about putting a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 on top of the Zastava? Too much? I will be mainly hunting in Southern Alberta. I took the same scope off my T3 6.5x55 and put it roughly beside it for a visual:

photo.jpg


Too much? My other idea was a Vx-3 2.5-8x36.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong for sure.

if you use quick detack rings then your open sights make sense. my 9,3x62 has an old Alaskan 3x from Leupold and a Sightron SI 3-9X40 with a german 4 and never able to decide which one to take ...

all the best and good choice a fixed 3 or 4 is a good choice. there is some short lenght scope that cant be mounted directly on a Zastava bolt M70 just FYI.

all the best.
 
I agree that you do not need high magnification for hunting. I shot my deer this year with my scope on three power. I'm leaning towards the 2.5-8x36 as it has excellent eye relief and still has plenty of magnification if I ever wanted it. For those of you who use a fixed 6x - do you ever find that in close it is too much? This is more out of curiousity as I think if I was to go with a fixed scope it would be a 4x. I will certainly be using quick detach Weaver rings for the scope.

medvedqc- Thanks for the heads up on the shorter scopes not mounting easily on the Zastava.
 
CheeseBurger said:
I agree that you do not need high magnification for hunting. I shot my deer this year with my scope on three power. I'm leaning towards the 2.5-8x36 as it has excellent eye relief and still has plenty of magnification if I ever wanted it. For those of you who use a fixed 6x - do you ever find that in close it is too much? This is more out of curiousity as I think if I was to go with a fixed scope it would be a 4x. I will certainly be using quick detach Weaver rings for the scope.
Click to expand...

But will you be able to use the stock without the monte carlo trying to chop your cheekbones off your face?
 
CheeseBurger said:
With a scope on it, I will not have any problems with the monte carlo. I think if I shorten the stock about 1/2-3/4 inch I will be able to use the iron sights.
Click to expand...

Can you unscrew the recoil pad or did the Serbs glue it on? If you can, pull the pad off and see how things line up for you. If it seems good (try it with a jacket on) then you know how much to prune off. Make sure you fire a few shots to be certain of the length befor eyou go to the fuss of cutting the stock and reinstallign the pad.

















I kid, I kid!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom