Author Topic: Bought first firearm (UPDATE: Handi Rifle .45-70...) (Read 3685 times)

evan1395 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 23, 2012, 01:51:19 PM »

So i'm gonna go with the inonsighters base and the 1" Simmons aluminum rings. Are those gonna be ok on such a big caliber being aluminum?

evan1395 · « **Reply #31 on:** August 23, 2012, 01:53:49 PM »

Quote from: quickdtoo on August 23, 2012, 01:10:19 PM

Quote from: tacklebury on August 23, 2012, 12:26:35 PM
The high rings should set that scope up high enough to miss your barrel, but I don't use 50mm objective scopes...

The interference point on a Handi isn't the barrel, most 50mm scopes will fit fine at the barrel, the problem is hammer clearance, without modifying the hammer, high or extra high rings are needed to clear the ocular bell and/or power ring on most variable scopes, fixed power scopes are less critical, specially low power scopes. The scope use choose will affect ring height regardless of objective size, the 50mm scope in the pic below is a 6.5-20x50mm with a small power ring and ocular bell, it's mounted in medium Burris rings, the hammer clears the power ring/ocular bell and just needs a hammer extension. A scope with a larger power ring/ocular bell would require high or even extra high rings, but there's plenty clearance at the barrel.

I find the Leupold Rifleman and H&R bases to be the best available, they have more slots than the Weaver #82, and are shorter with the rear slot being closer to the back of the barrel which is important on a Handi, it also costs about the same as the Weaver at $8 if you're on a budget. Most all H&R bases are shown in the FAQs.

Tim

So do you think my Pentax Gameseeker 3 9x50mm with large rings from simmons will clear the hammer? I already ordered the scope, now I just need the mount and rings. I really wanna make sure those rings are gonna withstand a .45-70 recoil.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #32 on:** August 23, 2012, 02:27:24 PM »

The Pentax scope is a poor choice for the 45-70, it weighs 18oz which is going to put a lot of stress on the rings even in trapdoor levels, a much better choice for your purposes would be a low power scope like the Simmons 4x32 shotgun scope, SG has it for a little more money, but it's available elsewhere for less. It has 4" eye relief compared to 3" on the Pentax, and is much lighter at 8.8oz, the aluminum rings would probably work, although I've never been impressed with simmons rings myself, I prefer steel Burris Zee rings.

Tim

http://www.opticsplanet.com/simmons-master-series-prodiamond-4x32mm-shotgun-scope-517793.html

tacklebury · « **Reply #33 on:** August 23, 2012, 02:34:35 PM »

Should probably listen to quick on the rings. I only have a scope on my .223, so it isn't exactly a kicker.

I am an iron sighter in all other firearms except my .22 for early squirrel season. Cannot see the little dudes without a scope in our woods when season opens. When the leaves fall off, I go for the Stevens Crackshot as it seems more sporting.

evan1395 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 23, 2012, 03:26:03 PM »

Quote from: quickdtoo on August 23, 2012, 02:27:24 PM

The Pentax scope is a poor choice for the 45-70, it weighs 18oz which is going to put a lot of stress on the rings even in trapdoor levels, a much better choice for your purposes would be a low power scope like the Simmons 4x32 shotgun scope, SG has it for a little more money, but it's available elsewhere for less. It has 4" eye relief compared to 3" on the Pentax, and is much lighter at 8.8oz, the aluminum rings would probably work, although I've never been impressed with simmons rings myself, I prefer steel Burris Zee rings.

Tim

http://www.opticsplanet.com/simmons-master-series-prodiamond-4x32mm-shotgun-scope-517793.html

This scope was suggested by a guy that had bought one for himself as a temporary scope on his .45-70 until he saved enough for a nicer one. 2 years later and he never bothered to buy another. It lasted, for it's cheap price he was rather surprised. He said it has never thrown it's zero. So I took his advice. He said his uncle had the same results on his handi rifle with this same scope for the past 6 months.

So should I think im gonna go with x-tra high rings just to be safe. What do you all think?

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/812750/weaver-1-tactical-6-hole-picatinny-style-rings-matte-extra-high

I like these!

quickdtoo · « **Reply #35 on:** August 23, 2012, 03:38:19 PM »

Extra high would provide the best chance of fitting, although not all rings are equal as far as their height rating, for example some medium rings are as high as other mfr's high rings. If the guy is offering reliable advice and is shooting factory ammo, not reduced handloads, I'd ask what rings he's using, cheap rings won't make you very happy, specially extra high cheap rings, that much weight mounted high is going to put even more stress on the rings. Here's a recoil table of comparisons, you'll note that 300gr at 1800fps(a very common factory load) has more recoil than a 30-06, the 405gr load would be comparable to a 30-06.

Tim

http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

evan1395 · « **Reply #36 on:** August 23, 2012, 03:47:56 PM »

I'm gonna be shooting 405gr from here on out I believe. So you would go with the Steel Burris rings? I didnt see them in a extra high. I can only find high ones : /

quickdtoo · « **Reply #37 on:** August 24, 2012, 05:29:47 AM »

Midway lists the actual height in the description of each ring for most rings.

Tim

http://www.midwayusa.com/find?newcategorydimensionid=11342&

evan1395 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 24, 2012, 08:03:58 AM »

Quote from: quickdtoo on August 24, 2012, 05:29:47 AM

Midway lists the actual height in the description of each ring for most rings.

Tim

http://www.midwayusa.com/find?newcategorydimensionid=11342&

Yeah I noticed that, do you think the higher priced aluminum ironsighters will do ok?

quickdtoo · « **Reply #39 on:** August 24, 2012, 08:32:16 AM »

Going by the reviews and the better clamp, I'd opt for the Weaver Tactical for a little more money, the Ironsighter reviews are for light recoil applications. The Weaver Grand Slam are real stout steel, but the reviews for the extra high are poor, I have the low version which required a lot of lapping to work without damaging the scope, but I had no problems with the clamp, so maybe the chinese build quality in later production has declined even more as far as the clamp, mine are several years old.

Since you're sticking to low recoil loads, you may be able to mount the scope further back in lower rings(high or even medium) so the hammer is ahead of the power ring since the scope only has 3" of eye relief which wouldn't be as much a problem as heavier loads. The Burris FFII pic below has a larger power ring, but can be mounted that way.

Tim

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/736215/weaver-1-tactical-4-hole-skeleton-weaver-style-rings-matte-extra-high

Empty Quiver · « **Reply #40 on:** August 24, 2012, 08:49:27 AM »

Just to be a bit contrary I'll jump in and suggest Warnes. They are very robust. I'm running three different sets both Quick release and standard. A 300Win mag topped with a 3-9X50 mediums, A 45-70 Marlin topped with a 1.5-5X20 30mm tube and QR's, and an AR with the 1.5-5X20 QR's. The 300 and 45-70 are both thumpers by any measure and have not given up a bit the scopes never needing further adj after zeroing.

Don't get so worried about slipping and over tighten the rings. Clean the surfaces well before assembly, consider blue loctite on the bases ( I did say consider ). There is no cut and dried solution to your scope mounting many good systems out there as there are many good guns but we all have different tastes.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #41 on:** August 24, 2012, 08:54:19 AM »

The Warnes are good rings, although I won't use vertical split rings because they're next to impossible to lap, but the extra high cost twice as much as the others, about as much as the scope costs, and the reason I didn't suggest them. $:-\$

Tim

evan1395 · « **Reply #42 on:** August 24, 2012, 01:37:25 PM »

Quote from: quickdtoo on August 24, 2012, 08:32:16 AM

Going by the reviews and the better clamp, I'd opt for the Weaver Tactical for a little more money, the Ironsighter reviews are for light recoil applications. The Weaver Grand Slam are real stout steel, but the reviews for the extra high are poor, I have the low version which required a lot of lapping to work without damaging the scope, but I had no problems with the clamp, so maybe the chinese build quality in later production has declined even more as far as the clamp, mine are several years old.

Since you're sticking to low recoil loads, you may be able to mount the scope further back in lower rings(high or even medium) so the hammer is ahead of the power ring since the scope only has 3" of eye relief which wouldn't be as much a problem as heavier loads. The Burris FFII pic below has a larger power ring, but can be mounted that way.

Tim

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/736215/weaver-1-tactical-4-hole-skeleton-weaver-style-rings-matte-extra-high

So those 4 hole skeleton weavers will withstand the recoil of my .45-70? Im willing to spend upto $50 on rings (shipping included). I'd love to stick with extra high rings, just to be on the safe side; and it makes it look more sniper rifle-ish with the scope sitting higher up and away from the gun

.

evan1395 · « **Reply #43 on:** August 24, 2012, 04:43:57 PM »

Quote from: quickdtoo on August 24, 2012, 08:54:19 AM

The Warnes are good rings, although I won't use vertical split rings because they're next to impossible to lap, but the extra high cost twice as much as the others, about as much as the scope costs, and the reason I didn't suggest them. $:-\$

Tim

What about these guys? They're steel, heard anything good about these on a .45-70?
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/113490/millett-1-angle-loc-windage-adjustable-weaver-style-rings-matte-extra-high

Empty Quiver · « **Reply #44 on:** August 24, 2012, 06:57:55 PM »

It is unlikely you will need the windage adjustment. They add un-necessary complication and in general are weaker. They come into their own when the holes are miss drilled in the receiver.

I have no experience with those ring though, I am speaking in general here. I would judge those things as a wreck waiting to happen, simply judging by the looks.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #45 on:** August 25, 2012, 05:05:02 AM »

What EQ said, the Angle-locs need to be aligned with an alignment tool to be sure they don't tweak the scope tube, I don't like em for that reason, it's real easy to ruin a good scope with them.

Tim

evan1395 · « **Reply #46 on:** August 25, 2012, 10:22:03 AM »

Quote from: quickdtoo on August 25, 2012, 05:05:02 AM

What EQ said, the Angle-locs need to be aligned with an alignment tool to be sure they don't tweak the scope tube, I don't like em for that reason, it's real easy to ruin a good scope with them.

Tim

What about those 4 or 6 hole skeleton style weaver rings Quick? Think those are good for my gun?

Sorry if it seems like i'm asking the EXACT same question over and over, but i just dont want to go spending more money in the future for making the wrong decision on rings right now.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #47 on:** August 25, 2012, 10:30:52 AM »

I've not used them, but they appear to be good rings for the price. For a bit more money, the high Leupold PRWs would work fine on the Ironsighter base you've been directed to, that's the combination I'm using on my 50-140 Sharps H&R, these bases are .480" tall even tho they're listed as high rings, they' almost as high the Weaver Tactical which are .520".

Tim

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/122288/leupold-1-prw-permanent-weaver-style-rings-matte-high

evan1395 · « **Reply #48 on:** August 25, 2012, 10:33:34 AM »

Those Leupolds will clear my hammer on the Handi Rifle and my scope?

quickdtoo · « **Reply #49 on:** August 25, 2012, 10:37:07 AM »

No quarantees since I don't have your scope, but there are ways to work around it if they're close, trimming the tip of the hammer spur above the extension will more than likely be all that's needs if it's too close, easily done with a dremel or file.

Tim

evan1395 · « **Reply #50 on:** August 25, 2012, 10:51:08 AM »

Quote from: quickdtoo on August 25, 2012, 10:37:07 AM

No quarantees since I don't have your scope, but there are ways to work around it if they're close, trimming the tip of the hammer spur above the extension will more than likely be all that's needs if it's too close, easily done with a dremel or file.

Tim

Will Picatinny style rings fit my ironsighter plate?

evan1395 · « **Reply #51 on:** August 25, 2012, 10:53:01 AM »

My main thing is the height, I really dont wanna bust my dremmel out on a brand new gun...atleast not yet.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #52 on:** August 25, 2012, 11:16:27 AM »

You'd have to check with Ironsighter to see if their base will work with picatinny rings, I think most picatinny rings work on weaver bases, but again, no gaurantees since I've not used them.

Tim

http://www.ironsighter.com/p-253-new-england-fire-arms-handi-rifle-tracker-base.aspx

evan1395 · « **Reply #53 on:** August 25, 2012, 11:25:23 AM »

I decided im going thise route...
Scope Plate:
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/882678/ironsighter-1-piece-weaver-style-scope-base-h-and-r-ultra-nef-handi-rifle-matte

Scope Rings:
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/612622/burris-1-signature-zee-weaver-style-rings-matte-high

I figured i'm gonna take my chances on getting the High set rings. Can't find any quality extra high ones. If it is too low, i'll end up having the guy trim my hammer when I get my barrel shortened a bit.
What do you guys think? 2-3" off the 22" barrel that comes with the handi rifle? Would 3" be too much?

quickdtoo · « **Reply #54 on:** August 25, 2012, 11:29:02 AM »

Good choice on the rings!! I've got an 18¾" barreled Talo Trapper 45-70 Handi, it works fine, lots here with even shorter barrels, they're lighter and handle very well, nothing you'll ever shoot will know the difference.

Tim

evan1395 · « **Reply #55 on:** August 25, 2012, 11:33:40 AM »

Quote from: quickdtoo on August 25, 2012, 11:29:02 AM

Good choice on the rings!! I've got an 18¾" barreled Talo Trapper 45-70 Handi, it works fine, lots here with even shorter barrels, they're lighter and handle very well, nothing you'll ever shoot will know the difference.

Tim

18" huh? I guess the only way to tell how much i want off is, wait til I get the gun and just slowly drag my hand down the end of the barrel until I like the way it looks. I'm going for manuerverability along with looks. I drive a Jeep with limited storage room. Every inch counts ! Plus I dig the short barreled look on a large caliber gun

But yeah, now that you mention it, 18" would look nice (I'm sitting here with a tape measure imagining this lol

quickdtoo · « **Reply #56 on:** August 25, 2012, 11:38:34 AM »

Lots here with 16½" barreled shortys.

For me in standard rifle calibers 20" Superlights are great, but the big bores have to go shorter to get to close to the same level of light and handy. Unfortunately, H&R doesn't make a light big bore sporter contour barrel, sure would be nice if they did, they we wouldn't have to make our own or have them made!

Tim

evan1395 · « **Reply #57 on:** August 25, 2012, 11:40:57 AM »

Quote from: quickdtoo on August 25, 2012, 11:38:34 AM

Lots here with 16½" barreled shortys. For me in standard rifle calibers 20" Superlights are great, but the big bores have to go shorter to get to close to the same level of light and handy. Unfortunately, H&R doesn't make a light big bore sporter contour barrel, sure would be nice if they did, they we wouldn't have to make our own or have them made!

Tim

What do you reckon a gunsmith is gonna charge me to trim a few inches off? If you had to guess?
What is the process of trimming a barrel, is there alot involved?

quickdtoo · « **Reply #58 on:** August 25, 2012, 11:43:44 AM »

It's easy enough to do yourself with a hack saw, I use a sawzall, cutting and crowning is well covered in the FAQs. I believe most smiths charge $25-$50.

Tim

evan1395 · « **Reply #59 on:** August 25, 2012, 11:48:38 AM »

Really? I thought they had to De-bur the inside and smooth it out and do all sorts of tricky stuff. What about the iron sight on the end of the barrel? Even though i'm getting a scope i'd still like to keep that on there if i decided in the future to go back to iron sights. How are they mounted on the end of the barrel?