driftrider

I would never go with the see-through rings. They force you to mount the scope way too high unless your rifle has a very high cheek piece. Having the scope too high will cause your to lose a proper cheek weld with the stock and effect accurate shooting. If I were worried about needing iron sights I would mount the scope in QD rings and bases. This will keep the scope properly positioned for your eye but allow easy removal of the scope to use iron sights if necessary. I think that you may be overly worried about scope failure though. All of my hunting rifles except my Savage 10ML either don't have iron sights at all, or have had them removed. The 10ML still has them, but the scope is mounted in conventional rings and bases. I do have the necessary tools to remove the scope in my field box which goes with me anytime I shoot or hunt, so removal would only require a trip back to the truck.

Mike

bmumford

Good advice driftrider. I was worried about that too.

Thanks everyone for the advice. I'm ordering the Warne quick detach that will allow me to take off the scope and still see iron sights over the mounts (if I end up installing iron sights on my rifle).

I do have ONE more QUESTION...

Will iron sights get in the way of my field of view through a 3.5-10x40 scope?

driftrider

No, they shouldn't unless the sights are very tall. The only problem I could foresee is that the rear sight, if mounted too far back on the barrel and/or the scope is very long, could physically get in the way of the scopes objective, preventing the scope from mounting unless much higher rings are used. I had this problem with a Traditions In-line once and had to remove the rear sight because it was in the way of the scope when I tried to mount the scope.

Below is a picture of my Savage 10ML-II. The scope could be mounted a bit lower, but it fits me pretty good as it is. The scope is well clear of the rear sight, and the sights are not visible through the scope.

Mike

bmumford

That's what I'm talking about! I love those Savage muzzleloaders. I may end up buying one at some point. Hunting is turning out to be an expensive hobbie though!

ADV. Hunter

I heard the same thing about the see through but I have never had an issue with it. I shoot just fine with it, 400 yard shots even. And it is on an old WWII rifle. But as I said if your using the detachable then there is no need for the raised see through rings.

driftrider

I love mine. Trust me, unless you're a hardcore (dare I say masochistic) traditionalist muzzleloader, once you try smokeless powder muzzleloading, you won't want to go back to the dirty expensive BP "substitutes". It's pretty darn accurate too. I love mine, but it's made my other muzzleloaders pretty lonely as they don't get out much anymore since the Savage came a few years ago.

Mike

bmumford

Having the laminate stock, you don't have this problem, but if I where to get the synthetic hardwoods version of the 10ML-II, I would be stuck with their flimsy stock. My new 116 in .30-06 has the Accustock which is a vast improvement. It's simply the best mass produced synthetic stock.

driftrider

Yeah, the old style Savage composite stocks left a lot to be desired. I've yet to personally handle the new Accu-Stock, but the aluminum bedding channel has to be a vast improvement on stock stiffness. I just have a thing for laminate stainless rifles. My latest acquisition...

Mike

bmumford

Okay, this may be a stupid question, but are laminate stocks compressed/layered wood on the outside and some kind of plastic on the outside, or is it the actual wood on the outside and your'e seeing layers of wood that have been compressed together?

bmumford

By the way, the Accustock is VERY rigid. It's not just the aluminum bedding; it’s a different kind of plastic. The forend simply does not flex. It's perfectly formed to the barrel with a consistent space between the barrel and the synthetic forend.I didn’t buy this gun for a long time because it was going to be expensive to buy a QUALITY replacement for the stock.

The Accustock simply makes this gun perfect for someone who doesn’t have the money to spend 1,000-2,000 on a rifle. It’s just as good as those expensive models minus some refinements that, if you have the money, would be the only improvements for the gun. For example, the Accustock is still produced via the injection molding process, so you’re still going to see a seam. Once I start getting a lot of scratches, I’m probably going to have it dipped in Realtree AP.

If Accurate Innovations starts producing a new stock for LA savage stocks with the slight changes made on the new models, I might go to that one day. Again, money is always a factor. With the Accustock, you can buy the rifle as is and no one can say the stock is a piece of crap; it’s not. IMO, they’ve really hit a home run with this one.