Champ203

What a great website.....I've spent more nights researching this website than you can imagine before I made my Z5 Omega purchase. I had every intention of buying a stainless Omegablack composite stock at Bass Pro for $450. That was before Walmart marked down the Z5 Omega thumbhole for $185. I couldn't resist.....Some on here have said the stock worries them. I hope I made the right decision...... My plans are to put the Nikon Omega scope on it but I'm not sure what size of Warne QD rings will work on the Nikon. Will the low, medium or high give enough clearance from the scope to the barrel? Thanks in advance.

sabotloader

Champ203

Hey man! welcome to the forum... this certainly is one of the better places to visit...

The thumbhole stock has the lug pockets reinforced with a triangle piece of fiberglass stock front and back of each lug pocket. That really give it a leg up on the standard synthetic stock. There still is a possiblity that the forearm might flex enough to cause pressure on the barrel that might shift the POI. But I am not seeing that in the one that I have...

I have a 3x9x40 mounted on mine with the Weaver style base. I used low mount Rings... still have plenty of room to put on scope covers...

If you are looking @ the Nikon Omega - there is another scope I might suggest the Nikon Prostaff#6320 with a Nikon Bullet Drop Compensator Reticule...

http://www.scopesnmore.com/riflescopes4less/nikon_prostaff_rifle_scopes.htm

Champ203

There is almost $100 price difference between the Nikon Omega and the Prostaff w/ BDC. Is there any advantage to the extra eye relief on the omega? Is it worth an extra $100? Thanks for the ideas. I currently shoot a T/C Thunderhawk carbineopen sights w/ round ballso this is a major step up for me....or at least I hope. 50-75 yards is about max for me and the Thunderhawk.

sabotloader

Champ203

You could go to the Nikon site and compare numbers... but I think they are pretty close. I actually do not know because I use Bushnell Elites 3200 with a Ballistic Reticule. The Omega is suppose to be set for a ML shooting 200 yardswith a 250 grain Shockwave and 150 grains of powder.

PM Cayugad he uses Nikons and knows them fairly well.

cayugad

I shoot the Nikon Pro Staff in 2-7x32mm and found it to be all the scope I could ever need. Excellent clarity, great light gathering, 75 yard parallex, and tuff. I accidently had my rifle slip and fall right on the scope. My first guess was.. need to sight in the scope again. It was perfect. The Pro Staff has excellent eye relief. It works great on my big conical shooters and my Knight Disc rifle.

Also all the other scopes get the paint burned off of them by my open breech rifles. Why these Nikons stand up to all the shooting with out hardly a mark on them I can not figure out. When I asked my friend who sells scopes and runs a gun shop to recomend a good scope for me, he told me he should try to sell me something expensive, but that he would recommend the Pro Staff. He said they go out the door but never come back. I now own three of them.

As for the BDC on scopes, I never use them I sight in for what I want and then learn the scope and the drop. I think you have to shoot a certain load to make them work, and I do not want my scope to tell me what the rifle should shoot.

The next scope I am going to try is the Leupold VI 2-7x33mm shotgun/muzzleloader scope. But I have to decide what rifle should wear it and I have not purchased a new inline for a while.

Champ203

This is just what I needed to hear. I will definitely take a look at the pro staff. I think that basically what you are saying about BDC is if you are not shooting a 250g. bullet and 150gr. of powder the BDC is worthless. A particular ML might shoot better groups with 100grams of powder vs. 150. Thanks for the help and saving me money. One more question Buckmasters vs. Pro Staff. Any advantages?

cayugad

I never owned or shot a Buckmasters. Actually, Natchez is having a sale on Browning scopes. Browning put their name on all the high end Bushnell scopes. The top of the line bushnell scopes are really good, and with the savings they are offering.. might be something you want to look into.

oldwun

I believe the obj lens size determines what height rings you need. For me a 40mm obj is plenty and low rings work just fine on my Omega. A lot of guys are falling into the sales pitch about 50mm vs 40mm and how much better it is. I guess it lets in more light but I have all I need in my Nikon and Leupold 40mm and 32mm.

Tahquamenon

I really like the Leupold QR (quick release) base and rings (have these on several ML's to include two Omega's along with several centerfire rifles). Really a better mousetrap for scope mounting in my view.
Allows you to remove the scope for cleaning and truly returns back to POI.
Go with medium QR rings.

M2C

Tahquamenon

Skopia

I have the Z5 Omega. I did purchase a Browning scope, 2x7x32 from Natchez in the fall just before hunting season. I have a weaver one piece base and Warne permanent attach rings. This is the first scope that I have ever used. Wasaniron sight man. When I got my Z5and read all the threads on here about the accuracyonce the right load was found, I had to purchase a scope and see for myself.I had worked up a nice load using my iron sights. When I mounted the scope on the gun, boy did that ever bring everything all together. The scopeseems to be of very high quality and very rugged. The finish is very nice and the windage and elevation clicksare very repeatable. Looks nice on the gun too. I have been very pleased. Got my first two muzzleloader deer with this set up this year. 30 and 40 yards. Because this was my first scope experience, what amazed me the mostwas the shotsconnectedEXACTLY where I was aming.I can say from this experience, that really instills a great deal of confidence to place a bullet where you want to.