More Eye Relief ALWAYS = narrower field of view….that’s the trade off UNless technology recently changed???
Mine too. There are black plastic spacers available in 1/8 thru 1/2 inch thickness. I'll use one of those, plus a thicker decellerator pad. I can "get by" with an extra 1/4 inch, so I think I'll shoot for 1/2 inch extra length. Every rifle is different. I'm the unusual shooter who can shoot a Euro style stock with a scope, no issues, so ya just work with what ya got.
Push back a 1" scope to get more eye relief, and yes field of view narrows. But changing to a 33" diameter scope compensates for the loss of field of vision at the same pushed back distance.
Decelerator are available in 1". Both Pachmayer pads on my 30-06 and 404J are 1". A slipon Decelerator would add an additional 1.25" to your Wichester pad. You might want to try that and see how it fits you.
@Ontario Hunter - I’m Not following you on this?? do you mean a 33mm objective lens or 30mm tube adds FOV or eye relief? From what I’ve noticed whenever reading the “specs” on a scope (and I’ve also read about this) the scopes with longer eye relief always have a narrower FOV….it seems to be almost an “accepted Fact“ —- and I only make that statement because I’ve read about this for so many years that I’ve Never questioned it’s accuracy. So, If 30mm Tubes eliminate that dilemma then they would seem to solve a long standing problem
Typo. 30mm tube. No objective bell. Sorry for the confusion. The field of view difference between my new 30mm Bushnell and my old 1" Weaver is quite different as is the eye relief. The old Weaver was ~3" and Bushnell gives more than an inch increased eye relief. Now, having said that I gave the Weaver to my son-in-law to use on his Ruger Scout 308 so no longer can check my casual observation for accuracy. I do know at 1x this Bushnell does have an impressive field of view. Don't the manufacturers publish the stats somewhere? I imagine all things being equal - i.e. same scope tube diameter, magnification, objective lens diameter - moving the scope further from the eye would reduce the field of view. Seems logical that increasing tube diameter and reducing magnification would compensate for field of view changes from increasing eye relief.
Off topic, but I remember watching a Larry Potterfield video about cutting a chamber in a barrel blank. I just kept thinking "sure, because what everyone has laying around at home is all this specialized machinery and tools". Like, my dude, show it to demo the process but don't act like someone watching should really be doing that work themselves.
Yeah, I watched Potterfield's video on how to put a reinforcement rod into the wrist of a stock. Okay, am I able to freehand guide a wobbly very long shaft drill into the stock and keep it from wandering? Maybe Superman could do it. I've done enough woodwork to know how risky that would be. I built a jig to guide the drill.
I was only advising slip-on recoil pad to test for LOP before committing to lengthening the stock. My shotgun wears a slipon because it provides the option to change LOP as conditions dictate. Perfect fit is very important for shooting at moving targets. Not so much for shooting at paper targets or standing animals. For those situations the shooter typically has time to make himself fit the gun. When I'm bird hunting in shirtsleeves or light jacket, my shotgun wears the slipon. Otherwise I'm looking up the barrel when the gun is mounted quickly. Then late in the season when I'm wearing three layers, I peel the slipon off to shorten LOP.
I got you. I used a stack of paper, a suitably sized notepad to gauge the minimum I would need. That minimum is one quarter inch. 1/2 in would be better. I may stop there because 3/4 in may be somewhat hard to deal with.
Okay. I presume you understand you won't be able to reuse the old recoil pad if you're adding something to the stock length. Might think about the repro Winchester pads on that sight I mentioned above. They look pretty good and prices seem okay. Pachmayer pads come with ridiculously long screws. I twisted one off installing a pad. What a hassle working around that! I strongly advise replacing their Phillips head screws with shorter torques head screws or Robertson head (square socket). Phillips head screws are worse than slotted in my book and I have no use for slotted head screws.
Everyone puts the pin in from the top. Perhaps it would weaken the stock too much to drill the wrist top to bottom. There's likely more force recoiled into the top tang as it is directly in line with receiver and barrel. Potterfield and others use 1/4" threaded rod. I was not comfortable removing that much wood so went with 3/16" stainless rod that I roughed up before gluing it in place with JB Weld.
