Myself, i think their are two simple reasons they make 'muzzle loader' scopes.

One reason is scopes labeled for muzzle loaders normally have the zero parallax range shorter than the scopes for center fire rifles, similar to the shorter zero parallax range of rim fire scopes.

The second reason is because muzzle loaders don't shoot so very flat, so labeling a scope 'muzzle loader', and fitting it with a fancy reticule, and saying it can be used with 2 or 3 pellets for long long ranges is appealing to the consumer.

I doubt there is such a thing as a 'resonic' unless maybe it is a rock band.

It is a 'known' that air rifles are destructive to normal scopes, but shotguns, muzzle loaders. I think not.

Falcon

Thanks for the information. It does look like one of those may fit.

I have no idea who you need to tell you empirically on this matter, but these scope companies have spent a lot of time and money doing research on this subject. And let me say again, it is not "RECOIL!" that will damage a scope. It is vibrations, harmonics, or a level of resonances in the action and barrel that cause the damage. Recoil has nothing to do with it.

Now I had two good rifle scopes go Tango Uniform on me and I don't need a hit on the head when one of the companies that repairs my scope tell me not to put it on a ML again!!! I think he was telling me this for a reason.

I have owned Leupold VII,Burris Fullfield,Simmons & Bushnell 4200.
My favorite hands down is the Burris 4200--very good quality.

Ranger

falcon

I ordered the quake for the objective, and the weaver for the eyepiece, they arrived yesterday, and they fit nicely. I was worried about the weird objective shape, but the quake cover works real nice.

Thank you for your help!

Each rifle of any kind has its own harmonic signature. I have yet to have anyone be able to tell me (including a scope company) how ML differ from centerfire, and how they design a scope differently to account for this. I've had companies tell me different stories on the same question before depending who answers the phone, so I don't place too much stock in that without a better explanation.

I'm sorry you've had bad luck with centerfire scopes on MLs. However all but one scope I've ever put on a ML was designed for centerfires and the only one that went Tango Uniform on ME was the ML scope!! A relative of a friend still hunting with my old Traditions Lightning from about 2000 with the $60 Bushnell centerfire scope I put on it and it's still running strong. I know plenty of guys who use centerfire scopes and don't see them going out at all. If they were not capable I would think I'd see them going out with more regularity.

If you have doubts in a centerfire scope on a ML then by all means stay away from them, the last thing you need in the field is doubt in your equipment. But I've had no reason to develop such doubt and nobody makes ML scopes with the features I need so I'll continue to use centerfire scopes.

I promise that if the start going out on me I will come back here and public eat crow for you

Spaniel I understand. My experience with centerfire scopes on my MLs has made me shy away from them. If It was only one scope, I could have changed I suppose. But two?

Like you said it all boils down to confidence. And I have none when it comes to MLs and centerfire scopes.

I am however getting ready to install a 3x Malcolm styles scope on my .54 cal. Hawken carbine from Leatherwood. I figure they were made originally for these type guns way back when and should work on mine. I got my fingers crossed.

rafsob
I have had 4or 5 go out without any thing I knew of being wrong, I personally believe that the difference is in the type of powder. The main difference to me is between the type of detonation you get from black powder and smokeless powder, I personally do not believe that the cartridge has any thing to do with it I also believe that they work for a lot of people because of lighter loads and less shooting. It has taken 1200 or so shots to scramble them in my experience. There is a certain brand of scope I like on my center fires that I will never put on a muzzleloader again. I won't mention the brand as it seems some people think you are stepping on toes if you don't have good results with the brand they like. Lee

just put a bushnell trophy 1.75 - 4x 32, shotgun scope on my triumph. i've had a trophy 3-9 x 40 on my 30-06 for close to 20 years, we'll see if history repeats its self.

FYI it was a Leatherwood that went south on me on a ML and it was a ML scope. If you talk to a company regarding this issue again and they can explain the design differences between a centerfire and ML scope, please share because inquiring minds what to know!