LVPO question for a DG rifle

[ryno111]

The ideal .375 H&H one-rifle safari scope (?)

There was a time in the 1980's when the golden rule of scope magnification was "1X per 100 yards". What that meant is that a 3x was good to shoot out to 300 yards, 4x was good to shoot out to 400 yards, etc. And it worked! In those days NATO snipers used 4x scopes, like during WWII, and these were perfectly adequate for a typical European theater mechanized warfare 400-yard sniper shot, and even out to 600 yards. I trained on these, you could not count the buttons on the bad guy's tunic, but you could perfectly deliver a centered torso hit. But you could not have hit a Taliban head in a rock crack at 800 yards.

At that time (1980's) the apogee of scope technology was the Zeiss Diavari 1.5-6x42. In those days, Swarovski glass was far from being as bright as Zeiss glass, Leica did not produce scopes, Schmidt & Bender production was very limited, etc. so Zeiss it was. The Diavari 1.5-6x42 featured a total cumulated light transmission (light going through all the lenses making up the scope) of ~80%.

This scope was considered a near ideal design for the following reasons:

1. A low magnification of 1.5x allowed for shooting animals on the run (e.g. driven wild boar);
2. A high magnification of 6x allowed, per the wisdom of the day (see above), to shoot big game out the 600 yards, which typically far exceeded the performance of commercial ammo and many rifles;
3. An objective of 42 mm allowed a light bean of 7 mm to reach the shooter's pupil at full magnification and at full pupil dilatation at dusk and dawn;
4. 80% total light transmission was sufficient for real-world application, as in low light conditions (dusk and dawn) the limiting factor is NOT the ability to shoot, but the ability to judge the quality of the game (through binoculars);
5. The scope was comparatively still light and small (although heavier and bulkier than the numerous fixed 3x or 4x of the era).

I will personally argue that the basic design perfection of the Zeiss Diavari 1.5-6x42 stands in the mid 2020's as well as it did in the 1980's. Heck, I still own one of them on my Steyr Mannlicher Luxus .270 Win Stutzen, and a similar Schmidt & Bender 1.5-6x42 on my New Haven-made Winchester 70 Stainless Classic .300 Wby, two of my favorite rifles, and they continue to perform flawlessly.

View attachment 672537
Zeiss Diavari 1.5-6x42 on Steyr Mannlicher Luxus .270 Win Stutzen. The pinnacle of European mountain rifles in the 1980's.

View attachment 672539
Schmidt & Bender 1.5-6x42 on New Haven Winchester 70 Stainless Classic .300 Wby. The epitome of American all weather elk rifle in the 2000's.

But technology advances from the 1980's to the 2020s has made perfect even better

I believe that the Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x42 with Plex or 4A illuminated reticle is probably the best (near ideal?) .375 H&H one-rifle safari scope available today:

View attachment 672540

The reasons why, are the following:

1. While not as ideal as 1x, its low magnification 1.7x is still compatible with shooting animals on the run. Sure, pure 1x magnification is better to shoot a charging buffalo or elephant with both eyes open, but the .375 H&H is NOT a good stopper. Should it wear a scope designed for a .458 Lott? And in a one-rifle safari scenario, 1.7x will do on a charging DG.
2. Its high magnification of 10x allows to shoot small game (e.g. Klipspringer) out to any ethical range. No, 10x is not needed to shoot a Kudu at 300 yards, but a Klipspringer at 400 yards is a lot smaller in the scope, and now that modern laser range finder, accurate ammo, good glass and precision barrels allow it ethically, a little more than 6x magnification comes in handy, and unless you shoot gophers at 600 yards, you really do not need 16x or 24x...
3. Its 42 mm objective allows a light bean of 7 mm to reach the shooter's pupil at 6x magnification and at full pupil dilatation at dusk and dawn. This is where it shines compared to a 1-6x24 "DG scope" format which only provides a 4 mm light beam at 6x. Will you need 6x in a leopard blind? Most of the times not, as shots as generally below 100 yards, but 6x with maximum light reaching your eye (e.g. 7 mm beam) may prove invaluable for a trophy Kudu at dusk at 300 yards.
4. 90% total light transmission is a brightly visible (pun fully intended) improvement over 80%, and if your binoculars are on par with your scope (they actually should be at least as good, and desirably better) 10% more light transmission, and a better ability to judge the quality of the game (through binoculars), then shoot it (through the scope), extend the magical dusk and dawn times when most of the big trophies are taken.
5. Its dimensions are compatible with magnum-length actions (it fits on the Mauser 98 and CZ 550 Magnum actions), which most of the 1980's 1.5-6x42 DID NOT, and which was originally the primary reason why "DG scopes" were (and have remained out of acquired habit) straight tube scopes with a main tube long enough to fit over magnum actions.
6. It is only 1 ounce heavier at 16.6 oz than the 15.5 oz straight tube Z6i 1-6x24, which means that in practical terms, weight is not a selection criteria.
7. It is still somewhat affordable, compared to the Z8 8x magnification range series.

In summary, aside from the acquired taste for what a .375 H&H "should" look like with a straight tube "DG" scope, it seems hard to impartially object to any of the Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x42 characteristics for a one-rifle safari client's .375 H&H, whose primary objective is not to be a "stopper" (the caliber is not powerful enough anyway) for which a true 1x magnification is arguably better.

Other scopes nudge the answer, like the like the Zeiss V6 2-12x50, but its magnification range is not as ideal in my view; or the Leica Fortis 1.8-12x42i, but it is really pricey; etc. but to my knowledge, but for a short time still before it disappears from the market as "ever-bigger" marketing specialists (certainly not hunting specialist!) recently killed it, the Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x42 with illuminated Plex or A4 reticle is rather unique out there.

I do not have a Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x4 on my .375 H&H, as it did not exist when I modernized my .375 H&H scope, and my Leica ERi 2.5-10x42 is close enough, that I have no reason to change it. Yes, it would have been better to have a lower end magnification, but I can live with it for one-rifle safari duties. For dedicated DG hunts, I have a .458 Lott...

So,

• Yes, there are less expensive brands.
• Yes if you look long and hard enough you can ferret out one example or two of Swarovski field failures (they are very, very, very rare though), but this is true of ALL brands.
• Yes, you will not need every hour of every day the amazing glass and coatings quality.
• Yes, lower tiers scopes have come a tremendous way and 2020's $500 scopes are light-years (pun fully intended) ahead of 1980's $1,000 scopes in terms of glass, coatings, image quality, light transmission, waterproofness, etc.
• Yes, they will outlive you, your kids, and your grandkids if they are reasonably handled and cared for (not pampered, mind you, but not thrown around on rocks or in the back of the truck or "cleaned" with your dirty shirt sleeve).

But I will stand by what I have already written elsewhere, when it comes to binoculars and scope: "you do not know what you do not know until you try", and I will continue to argue that a best-in-class pair of binoculars, and a best in class scope, while not necessary per se, are likely the only pieces of equipment that fully justify paying a few months of credit card interests.

In conclusion...

If - but only if - you can shoot a .45+ DG rifle as well, it is a much better choice than a .375 for DG, and there is a strong rationale for a straight tube scope with 1x magnification at the low end.

Conversely if .375 recoil is your threshold, it is an immensely better choice than even a .40, never mind a .45+!, but you are likely not into "dedicated stopper" territory. Your PH will handle that.

And if, like so many of us, you have a .375 H&H for a one-rifle safari, you are likely not into "dedicated DG hunt" territory, and your scope should be able to do it all, from a very, very, very (did I say very?) unlikely Buffalo charge at 25 yards, to a much, much, much (did I say much?) more likely Kudu at 250 yards or Duiker at 150 yards.

Great post...I just bought my first Blaser R8 (Ultimate in 375). It should arrive this afternoon! I'm having this same conversation in my head. I like "heavy duty" scopes, so I've been thinking about the Nightforce 1-8 (NX8). That may be sacrilege for a Blaser. Is the Swaro 1.7-10 tough? Forgive my ignorance.

 

[JG26Irish_2]

The ideal .375 H&H one-rifle safari scope (?)


Its high magnification of 10x allows to shoot small game (e.g. Klipspringer) out to any ethical range. No, 10x is not needed to shoot a Kudu at 300 yards, but a Klipspringer at 400 yards is a lot smaller in the scope, and now that modern laser range finder, accurate ammo, good glass and precision barrels allow it ethically, a little more than 6x magnification comes in handy, and
unless you shoot gophers at 600 yards, you really do not need 16x or 24x..

Great comment. My only addition is with regards to magnification requirements for shooting well at long distance (for hunting) is this. In my experience, the ability to shoot well at long distance has little to do with the magnification power of the scope an depends far more on the shooters ability to see the target well enough to aim precisely and to get into a stable supported position to send the shot. In most cases the gun can shoot better than we as the hunters can see.

The rifle does not know if you are aiming with a 1x, 3x or 24x scope and it will shoot to the same level of precision either way. But the shooter's ability to see can vary. I have shot gophers a lot at 500-600y and never needed more than 8x to do so accurately (I had an 8-32x scope). My point is that if I can shoot good with a rifle at 8x, then it will shoot nearly as well at 1x or 3x and the difference is only in my ability to see well enough to aim it at the same level of precision. As long as I can see, it does not vary significantly. I will take a 400y shot on a coyote but do not make it my practice to shoot at desirable game that far away so, for me my hunting rifles do not need high magnification and in fact I often find it to be a minor handicap for hunting.

 

[Red Leg]

The Steiner 1-4x24 is on par with what I would call the "second tier" of teutonic scopes.

Only the top of the line, first tier, teutonic scopes (e.g. 8x zoom ratio Zeiss V8, Swarovski Z8, Schmidt & Bender Exos, etc.) are manufactured in Germany or Austria, and benefit from the latest best-in-class 92% light transmission coatings.

Zeiss V4 are assembled in Asia; Swarovski Z3 are assembled in the US and Asia, Schmidt & Bender Klassic are assembled in Hungary; Leica Amplus are assembled in Portugal etc. and they generally use previous generation coatings for 90% light transmission, and generally less metal and more plastic internal components. These are what I call "second tier" teutonic scopes.

Whether modern polymers and kevlars are weaker than laser-cut brass or steel is hotly debated; whether the human eye can differentiate between 92% and 90% light transmission is highly debatable; and whether an 8x zoom ratio is absolutely needed is a matter of personal opinion, but what is for sure is that a V8 or Z8 scope cost two to three times more than a V4 or Z3. This should give serious pause to rational buyers...

(Of course scope makers get that there are still some people who think about what they need before they buy what they want, so they edge their bets with V6, Z6, etc.)

In summary, the Steiner 1-4x24 is an excellent scope, assembled in the US, that will last you a lifetime (and that of your kids and grand kids) if reasonably treated. It is robust enough and clear enough for any realistic application.

This being said.......................



I believe 375Fox is 100% right......

After many years with a West Germany era Schmidt & Bender 1.25-4x20 on my various .375, my .375 R8 barrel wears a Leica ERi 2.5-10x42, and I edged my bet by selecting the one with a BDC ring. I clocked the Barnes TSX 300 gr in my specific barrel, and had Kenton Industry cut a specific BDC ring for it. This gives me an honest 400 yard range with the .375, while keeping me legl on DG during one-rifle safaris. Additionally, Cranking the 42 mm objective Leica down to 2.5x magnification gives me so much light that I can literally shoot at night is the moon is reasonably cooperating...

View attachment 672335

Of course I still have a "true" DG scope - a Leica Magnus 1-6x24 - on my .458 Lott R8 barrel, but even though it is capable out to 200 yards, I would not take it for a one-rifle safari... Too much gun...

View attachment 672336

Exactly. Haven't had a turret made, but this specific Leica scope was an incredible bargain. I think I have one on six different rifles or barrels (R8), and have used them extensively in North America and Africa. They occasionally pop up on eBay.

The new Amplus models are at the top end of your price target. https://www.eurooptic.com/search.aspx?keyword=leica scope

 

[HookMeUpII]

The amount of info in this thread is substantial. I think to summarize, and I could be wrong:

One camp is opt for the traditional LVPO which would be a 1-5, 1-6, or potentially 1-8 in something like a 24mm objective. Drawbacks: Many are very busy tactical reticles. Longer range shots might not be feasible. Light gathering isn't as good. Strengths: Quicker target acquisition and sight picture with the lower mag. Lighter scope overall.

The other camp seems to have tried the LVPO and found that a more traditional 2-10x with something like a 40-42mm objective is better. Drawbacks: Little bit heavier scope. May not have as quick of target acquisition up close. Strengths: Better long range shots. Better light gathering. More hunting-focused reticle options.

I have plenty of time to figure this out. It may end up being something I really need to learn the hard way.

One big factor is I also have a 458WM Ruger No 1. which I am debating selling or keeping. That gun, for me, really serves no other purpose than truly DG hunting. On the flip side, I have a 300WM with a a 3-15xx44mm which I've never turned up above 4-5x.

I think unfortunately, or fortunately, this ends up being a figure it out and see. Hopefully I can go on a few more safaris to figure it out.

 

[Hunt anything]

I think I saw one of each for sale in the classified adds on here this morning. Both VX 6, a 1-6 and a 2-12, $1100 each

 

[Fatback]

The amount of info in this thread is substantial. I think to summarize, and I could be wrong:

One camp is opt for the traditional LVPO which would be a 1-5, 1-6, or potentially 1-8 in something like a 24mm objective. Drawbacks: Many are very busy tactical reticles. Longer range shots might not be feasible. Light gathering isn't as good. Strengths: Quicker target acquisition and sight picture with the lower mag. Lighter scope overall.

The other camp seems to have tried the LVPO and found that a more traditional 2-10x with something like a 40-42mm objective is better. Drawbacks: Little bit heavier scope. May not have as quick of target acquisition up close. Strengths: Better long range shots. Better light gathering. More hunting-focused reticle options.

I have plenty of time to figure this out. It may end up being something I really need to learn the hard way.

One big factor is I also have a 458WM Ruger No 1. which I am debating selling or keeping. That gun, for me, really serves no other purpose than truly DG hunting. On the flip side, I have a 300WM with a a 3-15xx44mm which I've never turned up above 4-5x.

I think unfortunately, or fortunately, this ends up being a figure it out and see. Hopefully I can go on a few more safaris to figure it out.

You could always get one of each style and mount them in QD rings and take both and see what you prefer. A bit more costly but there is no substitute for actual experience with a rifle, optic, etc….

 

[Philip Glass]

Sorry to make another one of these threads, again. This has probably been beat to death. I have a new 375HH on the way without irons. It was a special production for a specific gun shop which is interesting. Wish it had irons, but it doesn't.

There are a few things I don't understand, but what I do is: 1) Something with a 1-1.5x low end is preferred. 2) Probably around a 20-24mm objective

The usual suspects seem to be Leupold, Swaro, Leica, Meopta. On the low end maybe Vortex (although I've never been a fan). I personally love Leupold and I am currently watching a few used Vx5HD 1-5x24mm. Swaro and Leica are a bit more than I'd want to spend. Meopta seem really nice but the reticle seems really geared towards AR's.

With that being said, other than the mag/objective, it seems to just come down to the reticle and recoil resistance, correct?

It's a common gun platform so rings aren't an issue.

Are their any outside the usual recommendations worth considering? I came across a nice open box Steiner P4Xi 1-4x24mm. Any input on these scopes? I've used Steiner marine binos and they are tanks.

 

[Hunt anything]

@Philip Glass , that was outstanding, it basically followed my life’s progression on scopes for my DG hunting. I can’t afford the Swarovski but have the VX6’s. I also declined a shot at the biggest bushbuck I’ve ever seen due to the heavy crosshairs on the VX6 1-6, about 150yds is my max and he was about 225.

 

[Green Chile]

100% Philip. My learning journey has been very similar to what you shared and I settled on lighted reticles and in particular Swaro for my DG rifles. Thankfully, I have never had to turn down an opportunity in low light and that has made the difference MANY times in my hunts. I've also been able to turn up the magnification for things like crocs as you said. That discovery (and getting RF binos) has made a huge difference in my success. I returned from Argentina last week with borrowed camp rifles and I greatly missed having my usual optics in low light there. I made it work but it was much more challenging.

 

[Beck]

buy a meopta

 

[Green Chile]

One more comment on @Philip Glass's video...his comments on QD rings not being repeatable (except for Blaser systems) are spot on. I really agree with the comments on why QD is even needed to get to irons. When has a scope needed to be removed to get to the irons? People talk like that's important but who does that? Seriously. If that counters conventional wisdom, I'm not conventional either.

 

[Hunt anything]

One more comment on @Philip Glass's video...his comments on QD rings not being repeatable (except for Blaser systems) are spot on. I really agree with the comments on why QD is even needed to get to irons. When has a scope needed to be removed to get to the irons? People talk like that's important but who does that? Seriously. If that counters conventional wisdom, I'm not conventional either.

As I have aged, iron sights are next to useless. Father Time has steadily but slowly taken my ability to utilize them.
There is also a generation of riflemen that may have never used iron sights, in my early years I killed a few fur bearers with irons but never any big game.

 

[HookMeUpII]

One more comment on @Philip Glass's video...his comments on QD rings not being repeatable (except for Blaser systems) are spot on. I really agree with the comments on why QD is even needed to get to irons. When has a scope needed to be removed to get to the irons? People talk like that's important but who does that? Seriously. If that counters conventional wisdom, I'm not conventional either.

The only reason I can justify this in my mind is if the scope breaks. You have your 375HH, you're hunting all purpose (PG/buffalo) and the scope breaks. You can remove and at least salvage the hunt.

I tend to agree with you. Having the forethought to remove a scope, stash it in your pocket, mid hunt, doesn't seem feasible.

 

[Green Chile]

Scopes can surely break but you can remove rings/optic and get back into the hunt and you should have a small tool kit to do that with you. The idea of removing a scope to shoot and then putting it back on to continue isn't an issue I have encountered or know of happening to others. I would NOT remove the scope for travel except for the Blaser system.

 

[HookMeUpII]

Scopes can surely break but you can remove rings/optic and get back into the hunt and you should have a small tool kit to do that with you. The idea of removing a scope to shoot and then putting it back on to continue isn't an issue I have encountered or know of happening to others. I would NOT remove the scope for travel except for the Blaser system.

That's fair too. With the QD mounts, you can remove in the field with no tools. I personally carry the Leupold scope tool with me when hunting with their scopes.

I agree, removing the scope and then putting it back on is a bad idea.

There was an old saying with the EoTech ARMS mounts on their holo sites:

"ARMS Mounts: Helping terrorists escape since 2005"

 

[CBeck]

It’s interesting one would make the argument of having a higher magnification range being…… you don’t necessarily have to use it but at least it’s there if you need it, or it makes it more versatile.

Couldn’t you make the exact same argument for the QD rings? You may not ever need them but if you do at least they’re there and makes the rifle more versatile

Personally, I like having QD rings… I even have them on many rifles that don’t have iron sights.

I like to take my scope off when cleaning my rifle or disassembling the stock from the action or whatever other reason I may decide….. sometimes I just enjoy shooting iron sights

All that said, I’ve never had any of my rifles significantly change point of impact using warne QD rings.

 

[375Fox]

It’s interesting one would make the argument of having a higher magnification range being…… you don’t necessarily have to use it but at least it’s there if you need it, or it makes it more versatile.

Couldn’t you make the exact same argument for the QD rings? You may not ever need them but if you do at least they’re there and makes the rifle more versatile

Personally, I like having QD rings… I even have them on many rifles that don’t have iron sights.

I like to take my scope off when cleaning my rifle or disassembling the stock from the action or whatever other reason I may decide….. sometimes I just enjoy shooting iron sights

All that said, I’ve never had any of my rifles significantly change point of impact using warne QD rings.

You could but I’d ask how many people are really proficient with open sights? I’d prefer a low powered scope over iron sights given the option. For myself, I can’t see scenario where I’d prefer open sights over a scope because that’s not what I’ve grown up shooting or most comfortable with. I know they’ve become very reliable but if I have no intention of using a QD scope it’s just an item that can fail.

 

[One Day...]

Who needs QD rings? Well, maybe you?

Like so many things when it comes to "classic" safari rifles, the need to be able to detach the scope, hence quick detachable mounts, is mostly a relic from the past, although in this specific case, it may still be relevant...

Relic from the past...

Early rifle scopes were characterized among other things by:

• narrow field of view, due in part to narrow diameter tubes, but mostly due to the geometry of internal lenses;
• fixed power typically around 3x or 4x;
• poor light transmission;
• notoriously unreliable zero.

While the advantage of 3x or 4x for potential longer shoots in Kenya and Tanganyika endless plains in bright sunlight was instantly understood and appreciated, even though the scope may have needed to be re-zeroed every week after being bounced in a hunting car, or every dozen or couple dozen rounds due to recoil, what was also quickly understood was that engaging in the follow up of a wounded buffalo or lion with 4x magnification, narrow field of view, dark sight picture in the deep shade, and potentially wandering zero, was suicidal.

Hence the need to detach...

Leap forward one century of technology development and the modern best-in-class DG scope

• cranks down to 1x to allow shooting with both eyes open for those who like it (I seem to still close my left eye);
• has an extremely wide field of view compatible with any follow up scenario;
• has incredible light transmission compatible with any follow up scenario;
• is so reliable as to be near indestructible in its intended use (BEWARE the LVPO designed for 5.56 AR 15 platforms, they look the DG scope part, but DG caliber recoil will pound them to pieces).

Add one critical component: rare is the modern shooter who learns and grows up shooting iron sights (the oldest of us may be the last generation...).

The logical conclusion is that iron sights are near useless on a modern hunting rifle (and more and more even on a combat rifle), and therefore a scope, or red dot, is best permanently and securely mounted.

If you doubt this evolution, check out the percentage of hunting rifles offered without iron sights in the American market... Your guess is as good a mine: 95%? 97% 99%?

Nonetheless the "canon of beauty" for a "proper" DG rifle are very specific and very rigid: your DG canon is not Africa-ready, and you are forfeiting your life, if:

>>> it is not equipped with a straight tube scope;​

>>> it is not equipped with quick detachable mounts;​

>>> it does not have backup iron sights.​

Hence any self-conscious DG rifle proudly features a 1-6x24 straight tube scope. OK, it may be a 1-4x24 for the more experimented / older hunters because 6x is useless on DG and 1-6x DG scopes did not exist when they built their rifle at a time when real need was still relevant to product design, and they never saw the need to change. And it may be 1-8x24 for the more recent and/or younger hunters more susceptible to marketing and the vertigo of ever increasing magnification. I can understand 1-8x for a .375, but what on earth do you do with 8x on a .416 or .458?

And any self-conscious DG rifle proudly features quick detachable rings, although here too progress has intervened, and Holland & Holland or Griffin & Howe side mounts, or Suhl claw mounts, are becoming increasingly rare...

Note: interestingly, the fact that 90%+ of the backup iron sights on DG rifles have never been sighted does not seem to affect the perceived need to have them !?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

Therefore, the question is: do YOU need QD mounts?

I do not know about you, but when I swing a side x side or an over / under shotgun on quails, I do not look at the front bead. Actually, I hunted for several days one time without a front bead after it unscrewed itself and fell, and it made zero difference whatsoever. I only put one back later, for good looks. Actually, the surest way for me to miss a bird, is to aim the shotgun. This is to the point that on easy birds flushing up close, I rather wait to shoulder and swing instinctively, rather than aim and lead deliberately. Somehow, when I "think" the shot I almost systematically miss.

This is why folks talk about a shotgun or a rifle that "points" naturally, and not a shotgun or a rifle that "aims" naturally.

To each their own, and I do not know about you, but even with a lot of practice with red dots (I have a Blaser RD20 tube red dot on my wife's 9.3x62 barrel; I have a couple Eotech holographic red dots on AR 15s and AR10s; I had a Leica Tempus aspheric lens red dot on my double .470), I think, I feel, that I just do not snap a shot with a red dot or 1x optic on the barrel, as fast as I do without them.

In truth, I could as well not have iron sights on the rifle barrel because the 5 yards snap shot relies on the natural point of aim (NPA) achieved by a well-fitting rifle with a good grip angle when the rifle is instinctively shouldered and snap fired, like a shotgun.

I suspect that this is the reason why most very experienced PH backup DG rifles do not have any optical sight. Admittedly, younger PHs seem to adopt red dots or LVPO scopes, but I am not sure that they do it because of experience. I rather suspect that they just follow the flow.

Now, in truth, the chances are infinitesimally minuscule for any of us to ever take a 5 yard snap shot at a wounded lion or leopard about to jump for the bite, or a wounded buffalo or elephant about to drop its head to hook or tusk, but if YOU ever need to, will YOU be faster aiming or pointing?

Depending or your answer, you may or may not need QD mounts.

 

[375Fox]

Who needs QD rings? Well, maybe you?

Like so many things when it comes to "classic" safari rifles, the need to be able to detach the scope, hence quick detachable mounts, is mostly a relic from the past, although in this specific case, it may still be relevant...

Relic from the past...

Early rifle scopes were characterized among other things by:

• narrow field of view, due in part to narrow diameter tubes, but mostly due to the geometry of internal lenses;
• fixed power typically around 3x or 4x;
• poor light transmission;
• notoriously unreliable zero.

While the advantage of 3x or 4x for potential longer shoots in Kenya and Tanganyika endless plains in bright sunlight was instantly understood and appreciated, even though the scope may have needed to be re-zeroed every week after being bounced in a hunting car, or every dozen or couple dozen rounds due to recoil, what was also quickly understood was that engaging in the follow up of a wounded buffalo or lion with 4x magnification, narrow field of view, dark sight picture in the deep shade, and potentially wandering zero, was suicidal.

Hence the need to detach...

Leap forward one century of technology development and the modern best-in-class DG scope

• cranks down to 1x to allow shooting with both eyes open for those who like it (I seem to still close my left eye);
• has an extremely wide field of view compatible with any follow up scenario;
• has incredible light transmission compatible with any follow up scenario;
• is so reliable as to be near indestructible in its intended use (BEWARE the LVPO designed for 5.56 AR 15 platforms, they look the DG scope part, but DG caliber recoil will pound them to pieces).

Add one critical component: rare is the modern shooter who learns and grows up shooting iron sights (the oldest of us may be the last generation...).

The logical conclusion is that iron sights are near useless on a modern hunting rifle (and more and more even on a combat rifle), and therefore a scope, or red dot, is best permanently and securely mounted.

If you doubt this evolution, check out the percentage of hunting rifles offered without iron sights in the American market... Your guess is as good a mine: 95%? 97% 99%?

Nonetheless the "canon of beauty" for a "proper" DG rifle are very specific and very rigid: your DG canon is not Africa-ready, and you are forfeiting your life, if:

>>> it is not equipped with a straight tube scope;​

>>> it is not equipped with quick detachable mounts;​

>>> it does not have backup iron sights.​

Hence any self-conscious DG rifle proudly features a 1-6x24 straight tube scope. OK, it may be a 1-4x24 for the more experimented / older hunters because 6x is useless on DG and 1-6x DG scopes did not exist when they built their rifle at a time when real need was still relevant to product design, and they never saw the need to change. And it may be 1-8x24 for the more recent and/or younger hunters more susceptible to marketing and the vertigo of ever increasing magnification. I can understand 1-8x for a .375, but what on earth do you do with 8x on a .416 or .458?

And any self-conscious DG rifle proudly features quick detachable rings, although here too progress has intervened, and Holland & Holland or Griffin & Howe side mounts, or Suhl claw mounts, are becoming increasingly rare...

Note: interestingly, the fact that 90%+ of the backup iron sights on DG rifles have never been sighted does not seem to affect the perceived need to have them !?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

Therefore, the question is: do YOU need QD mounts?

I do not know about you, but when I swing a side x side or an over / under shotgun on quails, I do not look at the front bead. Actually, I hunted for several days one time without a front bead after it unscrewed itself and fell, and it made zero difference whatsoever. I only put one back later, for good looks. Actually, the surest way for me to miss a bird, is to aim the shotgun. This is to the point that on easy birds flushing up close, I rather wait to shoulder and swing instinctively, rather than aim and lead deliberately. Somehow, when I "think" the shot I almost systematically miss. This is why folks talk about a shotgun or a rifle that "points" naturally, and not a shotgun or a rifle that "aims" naturally.

To each their own, and I do not know about you, but even with a lot of practice with red dots (I have a Blaser RD20 tube red dot on my wife's 9.3x62 barrel; I have a couple Eotech holographic red dots on AR 15s and AR10s; I had a Leica Tempus aspheric lens red dot on my double .470), I think, I feel, that I just cannot snap a shot with a red dot or 1x optic on the barrel, as fast as I can without them.

In truth, I could as well not have iron sights on the rifle barrel because the 5 yards snap shot relies on the natural point of aim (NPA) achieved by a well-fitting rifle with a good grip angle when the rifle is instinctively shouldered and fired, like a shotgun.

I suspect that this is the reason why most PH backup DG rifles do not have any optical sight. Admittedly, younger PHs seem to adopt red dots or LVPO scopes, but I am not sure that they do it because of experience, and suspect that they just follow the flow.

Now, in truth, the chances are infinitesimally minuscule for any of us to ever take a 5 yard snap shot at a wounded lion or leopard about to jump for the bite, or a wounded buffalo or elephant about to drop its head to hook or tusk, but if YOU ever need to, will you be faster aiming or pointing?

I don’t think there is anything wrong in your analysis and agree with a lot of it. Something I’d add though is the chance of a charge is low, the chance of getting a snap shot on a wounded buffalo under 50 yards when running away is a lot higher. Which do you have a higher likelihood of getting a good follow up shot with? It’s difficult to predict where iron sights might be more valuable than a low power scope in advance but I think low power scope is usually more valuable. You bring up a good point with leopard though.

 

[One Day...]

I don’t think there is anything wrong in your analysis and agree with a lot of it. Something I’d add though is the chance of a charge is low, the chance of getting a snap shot on a wounded buffalo under 50 yards when running away is a lot higher. Which do you have a higher likelihood of getting a good follow up shot with? It’s difficult to predict where iron sights might be more valuable than a low power scope in advance but I think low power scope is usually more valuable. You bring up a good point with leopard though.

Very, very good point!

This also provides the perfect segue for the rest of the equation: is the follow up in open veldt or dense jesse? is the follow up in natural light or by flashlight? etc. etc.

This is really a case where personal preference is the determining factor: my own is to have QD mounts so that I have the option to take the scope off if I feel like I need to do it, but I may very well not take it off.

In addition, I agree with you that the non-dangerous 25 or 50 yard aimed follow up shot is infinitely more common than the 5 yard snapped follow up shot. In truth, I have never had one.

I remember actually regularly detaching / re-attaching the claw mounted scope on my over/under 9.3x74R double rifle when following wounded wild boars (an occurrence rather common after driven hunts in Europe, and they can kill you very nicely too), in order to adapt to the succession of dense briar patches and clearings or open fields. Taking off or putting on a claw mounted scope takes maybe something like 3 to 5 seconds, so the flexibility to go ON/OFF at will was really practical.

This is where precise QD mounts are indeed critical. I have seen plenty of "el cheapo" detachable mounts that were so detachable that they could not return a shot to the same ZIP code, never mind the same zero, but, conversely, I have also 40 years' experience with painstakingly hand-fitted (therefore frightfully expensive) Suhl claw mounts that held and still hold 1/8 MOA or less in their return to zero. I also find that modern CNC machined mounts (e.g. Talley in my experience) are just as accurate when properly installed. But not all detachable mounts are created equal, even amongst those with high reputation. For example, I ended up ditching Alaska Arms mounts from my CZ 550s because their recoil lug is on the moving clamp, as opposed to the body of the mount, and they never quite returned to exact zero. As to the Blaser saddle mounts, they are in my opinion close to perfection as they are easy to install, and it is near impossible to install them wrong for someone who knows what they are doing.

I have had neither 5 yards snap shots (Thank You Oh Lord!), nor the need to remove the scope from the Blaser .458 Lott barrel so far, but when I hunted elephant, buffalo, and lion with my Krieghoff .470 double as the primary rifle, and the Blaser scoped .458 Lott or .375 H&H as an open-conditions backup rifle, I swapped relatively regularly between the two, depending on conditions. Which ultimately led me to sell the double recently because aside from my first buffalo, hunted with only the double, I ended up systematically carrying the double and systematically shooting with the Blaser !?!?!?!!?

It certainly infers that I have personally been exposed to more situations when the shot was over 50 yards, even though I have stalked elephant to spitting distance in the dense jesse of the Hwange district, and it also infers that I am instinctively more comfortable with the scope for aimed shots past 50 yards, but swapping back the R8 for the double during follow up in dense bush also infers that I am instinctively more comfortable without optics when the shooting can get close or fast. But this is just me.

I certainly do not preclude following up with the R8 with the scope set at low magnification in open veldt, or without the scope in dense jesse, or detaching / re-attaching the scope should a lengthy follow up lead us several miles through changing conditions.