Elevation issue with VX3 3.5x10

[SJB358]

I have a quick question, I have Talley QRW's Mediums

Well, I had a Minox 2-10 and a M8 4X on it. Had no issues with getting it zeroed. Well, I put a VX3 3.5x10 on it, shooting the same load of 210 PT's at 3050 and have just about maxed out my elevation. Kinda concerned me?

Can you put a shim under the rear base? Just wondering.

 

[OU812]

Scotty a shim may work but I can't help but think there are better options to explore first.

 

[sask boy]

I have used a cut up bicycle inner tube

Blessings,
Dan

 

[SJB358]

Scotty a shim may work but I can't help but think there are better options to explore first.

What are you thinking Bill? I am not sure what to do. I just can't believe the Leupold is so short of travel compared to the older M8 and the Minox ZA5? Just seems odd?

 

[OU812]

Scotty a shim may work but I can't help but think there are better options to explore first.

What are you thinking Bill? I am not sure what to do. I just can't believe the Leupold is so short of travel compared to the older M8 and the Minox ZA5? Just seems odd?

According to a scope spec search the Minox has 72 moa, M8 has 80 moa and the VX3 has 57moa.

My idea of better options include either getting different mounts or scope. I could not trust any thing else.

Bill

 

[SJB358]

Scotty a shim may work but I can't help but think there are better options to explore first.

What are you thinking Bill? I am not sure what to do. I just can't believe the Leupold is so short of travel compared to the older M8 and the Minox ZA5? Just seems odd?

According to a scope spec search the Minox has 72 moa, M8 has 80 moa and the VX3 has 57moa.

My idea of better options include either getting different mounts or scope. I could not trust any thing else.

Bill

Awesome, I don't know why I didn't think of that. So I guess the Leupold is very limited in travel.

Since I don't plan on changing mounts, as I like the Talley's, looks like I need to find a new scope!

Thanks Bill. I was wondering why the other two worked fine and the VX3 went TU on it.

 

[OU812]

For what ever reason the VX3 is very limited, 28.5 moa either direction. I'm sure someone on here may have a better idea on what you can try. A little search time should yield a scope with moa adjustments you need. Sounds like a scope change might be in order. That being said a Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42 has 70 moa.


http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-monar ... copes.html

 

[IdahoCTD]

If you do shim it use a steel shim so it doesn't give. You might even shim it around the screw holes and bed the rest. Then you should lap the rings afterwards so it doesn't bend the scope tube. With a 5" ring spacing 20moa at 100yds is .029" but I probably wouldn't shim more than .020. I would probably look at a canted base or something like Burris signature z-rings with the inserts that can be offset. You can also call Leupold tech and ask them if they have a idea why it is like that. If everything is perfectly centered most of the older scopes still had 20-30MOA of up.

I have the same problem with a Zeiss 4.5x14 with the Z-1000 reticle because I'm using the center of the cross hair and not using the recommended 200yd zero. I only have about 1/3 of the total travel left for up. So I ordered a canted rail and Z-rings both but I also ordered a 1" ball end mill because I'm going to try milling the Talley light weight rings I have on it now for a 20moa cant. Worse case scenario I screw them up . I actually can't believe Talley doesn't offer anything with a cant built in.

 

[IdahoCTD]

The amount of travel is trivial really. Every scope mentioned should have plenty of travel if everything is centered and correct. What is going on is that the mounts most likely aren't centered to the bore and have a reverse cant to them. 28.5 MOA is roughly 28.5" at 100yds in each direction. That is a lot. My Zeiss only has about 41" total with up and down and while it is off of center I can still get to about 850yds with the turret.

 

[JD338]

Scotty

One other option might be to get low Tally mounts.

JD338

 

[OU812]

The amount of travel is trivial really. Every scope mentioned should have plenty of travel if everything is centered and correct. What is going on is that the mounts most likely aren't centered to the bore and have a reverse cant to them. 28.5 MOA is roughly 28.5" at 100yds in each direction. That is a lot. My Zeiss only has about 41" total with up and down and while it is off of center I can still get to about 850yds with the turret.

3rd option now comes to mind since IdahoCTD is so right with his logic. I would call Talley and explain what is going on. It's possible the rings/bases were manufactured out of spec or something else is wrong or they will have a solution for you.

 

[SJB358]

The amount of travel is trivial really. Every scope mentioned should have plenty of travel if everything is centered and correct. What is going on is that the mounts most likely aren't centered to the bore and have a reverse cant to them. 28.5 MOA is roughly 28.5" at 100yds in each direction. That is a lot. My Zeiss only has about 41" total with up and down and while it is off of center I can still get to about 850yds with the turret.

3rd option now comes to mind since IdahoCTD is so right with his logic. I would call Talley and explain what is going on. It's possible the rings/bases were manufactured out of spec or something else is wrong or they will have a solution for you.

I am sure it is something to do with the rifle itself actually. I know some folks have adjustments with older rifles, before things were standardized more. I know the scope is "good" as it just came off my 270WSM and shot fine.

I don't really wanna do a 20MOA rail on this rifle as I don't like the extra height it gives to the scope. Might try looking at a Warne 2 piece base that has some cant built in.

Great ideas, keep them coming, I need all the help I can get!

 

[IdahoCTD]

One way to test things is to undo one of the bases at a time. If you find a base that is free floating then you found your problem. So leave the rings mounted to the scope and pull the screws out of the rear base. Then attach the front ring to the front base and have the rear base already attached to the scope. It should either be floating or have a lot of pressure against it. In your case I would suspect it would be floating. All of this doesn't really matter if the barrel threads/action face aren't reasonably close to alignment with the outside of the action. With a gun that old I wouldn't bet on anything.

The other thing that comes to mind is pressure being exerted on the barrel by the stock. If it isn't free floated it throws things off.

 

[SJB358]

Great idea Nathan, I will try that tonight. Just to verify what the deal is.

I just spoke with Talley, they said they were sending me a new base, that will get about .0020" milled off a custom front base. The tech stated it might take a week to get one milled, reblued and sent back out to me. They also stated lapping wasn't needed with their rings as the difference will be minuscule on the tube. Great folks to deal with. Apologized for something that wasn't their mounts fault at all.

That small amount should give me 10-15" of elevation back at 100 yards, so I should be back in business.

 

[OU812]

Good deal Scotty.

 

[IdahoCTD]

I think you meant Talley not Timney but we forgive you.

That is pretty standup of Talley to do something like that for you.

 

[SJB358]

I think you meant Talley not Timney but we forgive you.

That is pretty standup of Talley to do something like that for you.

I did. Thank you.

Yeah, I think that was pretty cool of them. I am thinking it is more of my rifles issue than the mounts, so they could have told me to stick it, but they didn't. They gained a gratified customer and I will spread the word. Plus, I like the Talley's on that 338.. I would put another set on any other Pre 64 I happen to come across as well.

 

[FOTIS]

Good to know Scott