ml scopes, fact or fiction
12-01-2007, 08:38 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 7
ml scopes, fact or fiction
I have been shooting a ml for years with a old red dot sight, no problems. Recently our state started allowing magnification to used on a ml. So I mounted ancheap ( yes cheap, it was lying around the house so I used it) Tasco scope on my Knight 45 cal. It held up for about four shots then gave up. I have never had much faith in Tasco or many of the Bushnells.
Now to my question. Is there any difference between a regular scope and a shotgun/muzzleloader scope, or is this just sales tactics? Is the recoil different or more intense on a ml?I shoot a Nikon Prostaff on my Tikka T3 270 WSM with no problems and was considering a Nikon on my Knight as well. They seem to be a decent scope for the money, certainly not a Zeiss, but decent.
Now to my question. Is there any difference between a regular scope and a shotgun/muzzleloader scope, or is this just sales tactics? Is the recoil different or more intense on a ml?I shoot a Nikon Prostaff on my Tikka T3 270 WSM with no problems and was considering a Nikon on my Knight as well. They seem to be a decent scope for the money, certainly not a Zeiss, but decent.
12-01-2007, 11:03 PM
#2
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 6,921
RE: ml scopes, fact or fiction
Shotgun/ML scopes tend to have a longer eye relief and shorter parallax free settingthan most rifle scopes. Personally I have always used rifle scopes on all my ML's and no problems.
12-19-2007, 02:39 PM
#3
Spike
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dover DE
Posts: 88
RE: ml scopes, fact or fiction
I agree with Skeeter, ML scopes have been traditionally sold with a low magnification and a 50-75 yard parallax setting where a typical rifle scope is parallax adjusted to 100yds. Other than that, they are built the same. I don't think parallax really even comes into play unless you are using a scope above 6x.
