shooting the triumph today for the second time with my burris signature 3-9x40 electro dot. i have maybe a total of 25 shots through the combo. well today after maybe 6 shots i noticed that my crosshairs were moving. this could explain why i wasn't getting any groups. i tapped the rearend of the scope and watched my crosshairs move, they ended up looking like and X instead of +. not happy at all.
i wonder if my lead sled is to blame. it was questioned awhile back that the sleds were hard on scopes. of course the lead sled people say that there is no way that is possible.
all i know is i just wasted alot of time, gas, blackhorn and barnes bullets for nothing.
There are a lot ofolks out there that have had simular problems with the lead sled. I do not own one nor have i shot off of one but if you load the sled up enough to stop recoil it will cause a problem eventually....
Might ask Burris and see what they say...
__________________
Keep on Shooting Muzzleloaders they are a Blast
There are a lot of folks out there that have similar problems without using the lead sled. There are many people that use the lead sled without any problems. For the lead sled to cause a problem, it has to be exerting some kind of extraordinary force on the scope. I don't see it happening. Someone needs to explain where this mysterious force comes from.
Where it comes from is the charge. Its simple physics. Remember the law of physics that any action results in an equal and opposite reaction? You load a lead sled up with weight and set off a stiff charge - something has to give. In this case it was the scope. I've also seen in one of the other forums where a guy was shooting his 416 with 100 lb of weight (like on the TV ads) and cracked his stock.
When shooting off your shoulder, your body acts somewhat like a shock absorber - restricting and cushioning, but allowing movement.
__________________ PLEASE NOTE THAT DUE TO THE RISING COST IN AMMO PRICES I WILL NO LONGER BE FIRING A WARNING SHOT.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
I'm not as good as I'm gonna get - but I'm better than I used to be. "Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil - it has no point."
recoil - that energy has to go somewhere. Your shoulder is a nice, pliant cushion that will absorb the energy, a brick wall is not so accommodating.Just run a simple vector analysis of the distribution of force.
But I always wonder (when reading of this type event)what kind of rings/mounts were involved and if they were secure.
UC - I would have to say that his mounts were secure. Apparently the held in place well enough to wreck his scope. The Burris Signature scope isn't a piece of crap scope.
Your question makes me laugh though. Years ago Bushnell came out with a handgun scope with what they called 'post mounts'. If you don't recall these, they were simplytapered studsthat were screwed into the mounting holes on the revolver and the scope had matching holes with a locking screw. I installed this set up on my S&W 29 (.44 mag). It didn't even last one cylinder full. about the 4th or 5th shot, the scope went sailing over my head landing about 5 feet behind me. Peeved me off at the time - but funny now.
__________________ PLEASE NOTE THAT DUE TO THE RISING COST IN AMMO PRICES I WILL NO LONGER BE FIRING A WARNING SHOT.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
I'm not as good as I'm gonna get - but I'm better than I used to be. "Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil - it has no point."
Come on guys. The only thing that is going to take a beating when a rifle is fixed in an imobile device (like a grossly over weight lead sled) is the rear stock and maybe the action.
Think of it this way. Is the same scope & rings setup going to get more punishment being attached to a 15 inch encore pistol or a 12 pound target rifle?
recoil - that energy has to go somewhere. Your shoulder is a nice, pliant cushion that will absorb the energy, a brick wall is not so accommodating.Just run a simple vector analysis of the distribution of force.
But I always wonder (when reading of this type event)what kind of rings/mounts were involved and if they were secure.
Yes, the force goes into the slight movement of the rifle/sled/SCOPE combo. The scope moves much faster and farther if it pushing some wimpy shoulder back.
Think about the most extreme situation. The gun is put up against a solid brick wall. The stock is strong enough not to give under the extreme recoil. The scope sits perfectly still on top of the rifle. NO recoil at all is felt by the scope.
ok, then you sit on top that receiver and tell me what you feel.
"Think about the most extreme situation. The gun is put up against a solid brick wall. The stock is strong enough not to give under the extreme recoil. The scope sits perfectly still on top of the rifle. NO recoil at all is felt by the scope." Scenario is impossible. Where does the recoil go then? Compression of the stock? If the stock comresses, the scope moves.
I think your scenario and the one above are erroneous over simplifications of a complex situation so far as energy distribution during recoil but do not claim to be able to offer definitive proofto the contrary. It isn't how far you fall, it's how fast you stop.
And further, let's pose this question to Twanger on HA - he ISa physicist.
blown scope, lead sled to blame?
