VX-6 3-18x44mm Update

[DrMike]

I have talked about these differences in ring height before regarding this issue before but I seem to have the "engineer's curse"! No one ever listens to what I have to say until it is usually too late to address the issue. I should be used to this phenomena by now as even my wife never pays any attention to my logic until whatever opportunity is already long gone!

Ah, yes, the curse of Cassandra. It is a part of my life, Charlie. Don't stop giving out advice, however. There are always some who listen and heed what is said.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Thanks Mike, I just feel invisible sometimes.

 

[BK]

I have talked about these differences in ring height before regarding this issue before but I seem to have the "engineer's curse"! No one ever listens to what I have to say until it is usually too late to address the issue. I should be used to this phenomena by now as even my wife never pays any attention to my logic until whatever opportunity is already long gone!

Ah, yes, the curse of Cassandra. It is a part of my life, Charlie. Don't stop giving out advice, however. There are always some who listen and heed what is said.

(Joking here!) Maybe people would pay attention to you if you stopped using the pocket protector and slide rule and wearing horned-rim glasses with the Band-Aid around the nose piece! (Surveyors always gotta poke fun at engineers! Usually civil engineers, but any engineer will work in a pinch.)

 

[DrMike]

Any engineer will work in a pinch.

Oooo. That's gotta' hurt. I quietly removed the tape from my glasses and slid my pocket protector into the desk drawer.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Actually, I wear the fake, horned rim Titanium glasses frames but I still do still have my Pickett 6 inch, Aluminum, slide rule with a genuine leather clip and pocket case (and remember how to use it)! The leather pocket tab on the Pickett case still has a pin hole in it from my badge while working at Douglas Aircraft on Apollo 11. Now are you impressed?

Usually it is toolmakers who make fun of engineers but they have trouble spelling engineer!

 

[DrMike]

Charlie,

I still have two slide rules, though admittedly I haven't used them in decades. I do believe I could still use them.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I just checked my Pickett. It has a #4 aircraft screw in one corner because I lost the screw to hold that corner together but it still works ok. Amazing that a man almost went to the moon on space ships designed with slide rules. We did not even have 4-function HP calculators until about 1966. I still have a box with a bunch drafting tools and stuff in the closet. The slide rule is in there also.

 

[BK]

Oh man, and I thought I was old school with my HP15c!

(BTW, you can get iPhone apps emulating both the 15c and the 48...)

 

[BK]

The leather pocket tab on the Pickett case still has a pin hole in it from my badge while working at Douglas Aircraft on Apollo 11. Now are you impressed?

I was pretty impressed by your dissertations before, but yes I'm more impressed now.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I was only one short-sleeved, white shirted engineer in a virtual sea of white shirts and did not design anything terribly important despite designing several devices for the aircaft company's which I got patents for. My grandfather was an engineer (MSEE) at Bell Labs and did stuff that was pretty far out technology for it's day. I just had a good time doing what I did get to do. The defense hardware (fighter, bomber) side was fun blowing stuff up, the medical device hardware side was more serious business.

I am just another old coot now who is lucky to remember as much as I do remember, given my hypoxia bouts from being ill. Somebody here has to provide delusional patrol services occasionally, not that I am not delusional myself!

 

[nvbroncrider]

You might consider trying some Picatinny mounts and rings in medium height before giving up on using Leupold high, standard type rings which are .250 higher than low Leupold rings. The Picatinny medium rings are only .1875 inches higher than the Picatinny low rings. This 1/16th inch less ring height difference may allow you to mount a 50mm objective diameter scope on on Picatinny medium rings instead of having to use Leupold high rings, thereby lowering the cheek weld point by .0625 inches while still having adequate barrel clearance under the scope for using covers.

My two 50 mm objective scopes (a Swarovski 4-12x50 and a Kahles 3.5-10x50) are mounted using Picatinny hardware instead of Leupold rings in order to take advantage of the additional 1/16th inch stack-up, height savings between these two ring and mount systems. I have mounted both of these two scopes respectively on a Weatherby Mark V and a Winchester Model 70 custom stocked rifle. Both rifles also have rather high stock combs which promotes better cheek weld and makes all of this dimensional configuring work really well together without having to sell my (2) 50 mm objective, high quality scopes for something which may not be as good quality and certainly will cost me some "boot" (as well) in order to end up as well, equipment-wise as I am starting out.

I have talked about these differences in ring height before regarding this issue before but I seem to have the "engineer's curse"! No one ever listens to what I have to say until it is usually too late to address the issue. I should be used to this phenomena by now as even my wife never pays any attention to my logic until whatever opportunity is already long gone! Anyhow, for what it is worth, you might consider this?

Charlie,

I enjoy your posts and appreciate them. I'm not an engineer I'm an economist but each person has their expertise. Not to mention that we can all learn from each other. I've met some engineers and every one of them that comes out of school today has no common sense. It's a shame more don't have that. I've seen it way too much at a fairly young age. Mostly they can't explain stuff to a point where us common people can understandwhat they are saying. Thanks Charlie we appreciate it.

Jake

 

[Oldtrader3]

Jake, I know what you are saying. I ran a "Management Training Course" for newly graduated BSME's and MBA's, (for 10 years) in one of my engineering groups, mainly to keep fresh graduate engineers from getting run over by cars in cross walks or otherwise hurting themselves before they had learned anything useful to their employer and certainly before they had made us any money to justify the salaries that we had to pay them, being double degreed and all!

It usually took the full two years of training in all four area (Automation, Finance, Materials Logistics and Project Management) before they started to be productive and by then, if they had not been promoted to Director or better still, VP, they felt unappreciated and as though their careers were not on track, whatever that means!

No one (including their mother's) had ever taught them that they had to pay dues and learn how to make money for their employer before they became useful and that just being handsome and smart in their Mother's eyes was not enough to get them anywhere but in politics, which of course was enough for some of them and they transferred into Marketing early on! The rest of the poor guys that I had as reports were judged by how much money they made us, saved us, or avoided us spending, in order to continue having us pay them to stay on the payroll. I used to explain these laws of the jungle to these young engineers but they all thought that I was insane, stupid and not credible.

I think that these kids finally got wise to that reality and realized that an engineering degree would never get them rich and they had to actually work at it. So instead, most of the smart ones now major in Communications and butt-kiss their way to the top, doing nothing which is a time honored tradition in most large companies! My problem is that I have never been an accomplished butt kisser and had to make at least 50 times my salaries to justify not getting fired.

My last boss told me that if I had not been able to do many different spcialities myself, that I would have been dead on the street many times over! Unfortunately, I think that he meant what he was saying about me? Oh well. I am retired and this has passed and no longer matters.
Charlie

 

[tddeangelo]

Charlie, I've been thinking of your setup with rings/bases for my pending Winchester, so I do listen....sometimes!

I like Talley for simplicity's sake, but I will give the TPS rings another peek. Lower mounting is better....and if they can bring it down a hair from where the Talley's will put it, so much the better.

 

[Oldtrader3]

That was the only point that I was trying to make, Tom. Only that there may be some other stack up configuration out there in ringland which may work better for use with a 50mm objective scope. I also tend to like stout build sometimes preferring it to elegance as well. Just the pragmatist in me but I do like the looks of the TPS rings as well because form and function have a beauty all their own.

I did not particularly like the 3.5-10x50 Kahles on the Weatherby Mark V until I put a higher combed stock (Euromark) on it and switched to the lower ring-mount stack and ended up with a better cheek weld ratio. I do not know what I would do if I ever had to adjust to a 56mm or larger objective scope, at least not with the rifle stock styles that I shoot.

That is certainly an issue if you are going to use that large scope on a Pre 64-Model 70 with more heel drop. My .270 is a Pre-64, Model 70 but has a custom, higher combed stock on it. I hope that the cheek piece addition will solve it for you and expect that it will.

 

[tddeangelo]

Charlie, I also found out the rifle will be wearing a 50's vintage SuperGrade stock, which I'm told has the same or similar contours to the modern production stocks, as opposed to pre-war stocks that dropped more significantly. Things may not be as tough as I envision for getting a good mount.

I could also flip the Swaro and get a VX6 without laying out anymore cash and bump down to a 42mm obj, which is more appropriate. I like everything about the Swaro BUT the 50mm obj. So...we'll see if I can get it where I like it. I bet I don't lose a nickel on a resale if need be. I have about 3/4 of the retail cost tied up in the scope.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I have only owned one Super Grade, .257 Roberts, Model 70 which was made in 1958. It had the same comb height as my Alaskan Models had but it also had a cheekpiece with a slight rollover shape. As for stackheight on the rings, I never had any scopes that were more than 42mm diameter objectives (Redfield Illuminator's) during that era.

Tom, you will just have to try them and see what fits. I do have TPS medium rings and a Swarovki 4-12x50mm scope on my Model 70, Pre-64, Super Grade and it fits and works fine as far as cheekweld is concerned. However, my stock comb is not factory built to Winchester spec.

We can can talk more about this when the time comes. I have all three heights of Redfield, TPS and Beuhler mounts and rings (etc.) in my parts box. So, if you need some measurements, let me know.