Scopes and muzzleloader recoil

[ENCORE]

Its rare when I shoot a centerfire anymore but, I shoot a muzzleloader like no tomorrow. I also am a member of plenty of muzzleloader forums.

That said..... Here's a couple questions I have.

1. It appears that the recoil from muzzleloaders is breaking more scopes than from centerfire shooters. Why?
2. There are a couple of reasons, which always seem to pop up in the different threads........ lack of quality, just worn out and shooting from a lead sled. In your opinion, which is the most likely?

Now in some cases its the very low end model scopes that just get "blown out". In other cases, some that are considered a "better" scope are being blown out and in a number of cases, probably the most, they are Nikon scopes.

Why is it that muzzloaders have more problems, or seem to, than centerfire shooters and what's you take on the problem???

Thanks

 

[Dr. Vette]

Just my thought -

Muzzleloader scopes appear to be made to a price point, and that point is low. It's difficult to find one for a muzzleloader that costs over $300, and many are under $150 if not $100. That's not to say that you couldn't use a Nightforce on a muzzleloader, and maybe if I had a McWhorter muzzleloader it would make sense - but I doubt it. I find the same issue with shotgun slug scopes - they're cheap.

I do not find muzzleloader recoil to be at all objectionable compared to any of the centerfire rifles I shoot. Based on the projectile weight and the amount of BH 209 I load, I'd suspect it's similar to my 270 Win. I've never seen any comments on the recoil dynamics to show that it's much different than a centerfire or a slug shotgun. I'd put some slug guns at higher recoil than my muzzleloader any day.

You don't comment on bases or rings, but I also see some really cheap bases and rings ending up on muzzleloaders. Use an aluminum base on a TC where the 4 screws are heavily biased toward one end of the base, and I'm not surprised that the scopes are likely flexing and breaking. That rifle really deserves a steel base - and better spaced screw holes, but I doubt that TC will change.

Cheap scopes + cheap bases + cheap rings = breakage.

 

[ENCORE]

Just my thought -

Muzzleloader scopes appear to be made to a price point, and that point is low. It's difficult to find one for a muzzleloader that costs over $300, and many are under $150 if not $100. That's not to say that you couldn't use a Nightforce on a muzzleloader, and maybe if I had a McWhorter muzzleloader it would make sense - but I doubt it. I find the same issue with shotgun slug scopes - they're cheap.

I do not find muzzleloader recoil to be at all objectionable compared to any of the centerfire rifles I shoot. Based on the projectile weight and the amount of BH 209 I load, I'd suspect it's similar to my 270 Win. I've never seen any comments on the recoil dynamics to show that it's much different than a centerfire or a slug shotgun. I'd put some slug guns at higher recoil than my muzzleloader any day.

You don't comment on bases or rings, but I also see some really cheap bases and rings ending up on muzzleloaders. Use an aluminum base on a TC where the 4 screws are heavily biased toward one end of the base, and I'm not surprised that the scopes are likely flexing and breaking. That rifle really deserves a steel base - and better spaced screw holes, but I doubt that TC will change.

Cheap scopes + cheap bases + cheap rings = breakage.

We've been discussing this for a little while in MI. I think when it comes to a "muzzleloader scope", that's just marketing and they're very good at that. Its what sells to muzzleloaders.

I made phone contact with a tech at Leupold and began to ask some questions. A couple he couldn't answer. But, Leupold has extensively tested scopes, on centerfires, off from lead sleds. Their testing results show that the lead sleds "Have no issues or concerns with our scopes". When I asked questions about force and energy, that's when the tech couldn't answer them. He told me that he'd refer those questions to an engineer.

Well that went over like a fart in church......... I have but won't post the return email, where I was told that I was asking to many technical questions and it was assumed that I was calling on behalf of another manufacturer. OPTIC ESPIONAGE!!! The engineer declined to answer any of my questions.

Leupold has no data nor do they use a muzzleloader in ANY testing of their scopes. The only information that Leupold will cough up, is that they test to the recoil of a 9.5# rifle, in .375 H&H cal. to 5,000 rounds.

Its funny that they'll allow a film crew inside the facility to video and I think its Chuckhawks that has a partial video of it. Yet when a consumer asks a question about forces, they consider it OPTIC ESPIONAGE?

 

[Dr. Vette]

Interesting.

I would have said that Leupold likely has the best "muzzleloader scope" of any of the companies.

Unfortunately I won't be going to this year's SHOT Show so I couldn't ask anyone at Leupold or Nikon in person. However, Bman940 on this forum works for Nikon, so he might be able to get some info if asked.

 

[ENCORE]

Interesting.

I would have said that Leupold likely has the best "muzzleloader scope" of any of the companies.

Unfortunately I won't be going to this year's SHOT Show so I couldn't ask anyone at Leupold or Nikon in person. However, Bman940 on this forum works for Nikon, so he might be able to get some info if asked.

Funny thing about Nikon....... its the most likely to fail from the reports of hunters having problems. I have a Nikon 2.5-10x50 Monarch in LA right now getting repaired. Arrived there yesterday.

When I called Nikon, I discussed the use of the lead sled and possible problems. The person that I talked to, didn't know anything about it or, rather it could or wouldn't affect their scopes. He couldn't tell me what their scopes were subjected to in testing either. Trying to talk to an engineer, is impossible to say the least. I certainly found that out with Leupold.

I was fortunate to have an identical Nikon that I put on a centerfire..... that I never use. So I removed that and put it on the muzz for this year's hunt.