Reply With QuoteWhich model are they?
I've heard the Panamax range is short on adjustment.
Registered User
I've had to shim my 3-9x Nikko scopes on both of my older Weihrauchs.
A bit of research, tipped off by this forum I think, showed me that Nikkos have a smaller range of MOA adjustment than, for example, a Hawke Vantage (30 vs 100).
In both cases, I've shimmed with two layers of old 135 negative, although at different ends.
Whilst I don't think this will damage the scopes, I'm annoyed at the inelegance of it! I could by new scopes but £65 per gun, for me, seems an expensive way to remedy this relatively minor annoyance. Am I likely to be sufficiently impressed by the improvement of Hawke products over Nikko products to make this a worthwhile swap? I know adjustable mounts are an option, but for some reason I'm less inclined to go this way, seems like a bit of a bodge albeit a well engineered and effective bodge.
Thanks again.
Rob.
Happy Old Goat
Which model are they?
I've heard the Panamax range is short on adjustment.
Arthur
I wish I was in the land of cotton.
Registered User
Mountmasters. The spec sheet on the website says 30 MOA elevation and windage.Originally Posted by Arthur John Smithsplease
Registered User
When it comes down to it it's realy about how accuratly the mounts you are using have been machined as if they were exactly the same then there should be very little need to adjust for elevation in a perfect world. if you don't want to shim the scope then take a small amount of the bottom of the mount that is in effect to high.
Registered User
From my experience of a mountmaster looking through an empty milk bottle would be an improvement
Registered User
Sorry, I should have mentioned that one, if not both, of the scopes have been on other rifles without needing to shim. But you do raise an interesting point in that other mounts, rather than the Nikko provided ones, are perhaps made to better tolerances? If you're going to make a scope with less adjustment than the competition then surely the mounts need to be spot on?
Registered User
Well, as a relative newbie and not wanting to spend stacks on a scope then I have limited experience in that sense. I was thinking of getting something better for my '77 anyway. Perhaps I'll just do one at a time. I can't see my self spending hundreds though.From my experience of a mountmaster looking through an empty milk bottle would be an improvement
Registered User
I've always used thin Ali, I'm lucky enough that I do a lot of metal work and got a lot of metal working gear, but I've used drinks cans, some glue and sandpaper when I was younger. Layer up individually then when you've shimmed enough glue together and sand to shape. It's not quick this way but look brilliant with a lick of paint
Registered User
As above i usualy use a coke can or similar as shimming, i also forgot to mention that if the mounts are not exactly the same it will make a difference if the mounts are close together or further apart, the further apart they are then the less shimming you will need.
Registered User
Had this issue on a .308 shooting to 1000 yrs as well as my air rifles.
Read on the Leupold site that its recommended to shim.
Interesting advice: 1 thou thickness rear shim gives close to 1MOA elevation.
Worked for me. I used plastic sheet from a ring binder.Very consistent thickness and quite dense.
Registered User
Oh there's no need to spend hundreds, NS glass just doesn't suit my eyes, & that is the main issue, you need a scope that your eyes can get on with & the only way to know is to look through it.
But going back there really should be no need to ever shim a scope if/when you have half decent mounts.
Again the cost of mounts is relative, some people think £20+ is expensive, it's not, even BKL's at £50 are cheap compared to quality CF rifle mounts.
Posting Permissions