Is a heavier scope more susceptible to creep than a lighter scope?!

[andrewM]

Here is a challenging question: are heavier scopes more susceptible to creep than lighter scopes?

I have no idea but, with some older air rifles, the anti-recoil holes do not exist. For example, with the Original 45, there is a lightly grooved scope rail and I found it was necessary to place two arrestor blocks to hold the scope.

It occurred to me that smaller and lighter scopes might be less susceptible to creep but it might be the other way around, or it could be there is no difference. There are arguments for each possibility, I think.

It is a question for a technophile of air-gunning!

Rgds to all
A

[Biker_Bob]

I think basic physics says yes.
The greater the mass of the scope the less it will want to move when the gun moves and therefore the more likely it is to creep.

Force = Mass x Acceleration

The gun supplies the acceleration, so the greater the Mass (of the scope) the greater the Force applied to the mounts.

[jjjohn]

Put an arrestor block behind it ? as you say you have 2,
if the gun kicks that bad their are more problems than a scope sliding to think about.

[andrewM]

Put an arrestor block behind it ? as you say you have 2,
if the gun kicks that bad their are more problems than a scope sliding to think about.

It is, from new, an untouched 177 and I gather this calibre kicks a little more than 22. I suspect the late '70s/early '80s scope mounts were not as good as the modern versions and I think this is the problem.

Probably, Biker Bob's physics are sound.

Rgds
A

[Shed tuner]

yup, for sure. more scope mass = more inertia. the rifle moves with a given force, the heavier scope takes more force to accelerate - that force is applied through the union of the mount to the rails > more likely to creep.

lighter lenses within a scope also make it less likely to fall apart internally

[TonyL]

I'd always want to use a Sportsmatch one-piece mount on a springer whenever possible. As said above, a considered tune (and check / replace seals) to improve the firing cycle should help, too. And, as per above, this combined with a lighter scope should all help.

[rapidresponse1]

not really sure on this one

[gsxrman]

Physics may say yes, but in reality, with quality mounts, not really.

[Muskett]

Most springers can't take a heavy enough scope to make the weight between light or heavy any real issue. It's all about the mount's grip to rails that really matters and a heavy scope requires more grip than a lighter one. Arrestor blocks and pins just take the strain off the friction grip. Some rifles seem to transfer the recoil nudge more than others.

I tend not to switch scopes about, often the scope id there for the lifetime of the combi. For springers I over tighten as not shifting for me is the priority. Arrestor blocks, pins, and stops are just further guarantee. My kit my risk, so you decision if you crank up the torc.

PCP's are so recoil friendly firm is enough.

[Bunny-on-Bunnyr]

I make sure the actions dove-tails are as clean as can be with earbuds and carb / brake cleaner, then fit a one-piece mount 1/4 turn more than tight-enough.
If you mount a 50mm scope on high mounts (observed current real life local fasion) :
A: Theres a lot of mass in a 50mm scope = large energy store
+
B: High up = long 'lever'.
=
C: Upset = you and your rifle.

A big scope may provide 'static' out-fit balance, but 'lead in it's tail' weighs Less and has a single moment of inertia... something to think about!

Low mass 40mm objective scopes lower down (medium / low depending) seem to 'quell' the recoil cycle of 'most' of the springers I've shot Without tuning the the shot-cycle to a barrels favourite lead.

[BTDT]

In a word yes, heavier scopes are more prone to creep, and to understand why, you need to accept that the mechanism that drives scope creep is the transition from recoil to surge.

The heavier the scope, the greater its momentum when it is recoiling along with the rifle, and momentum is a measure of the force needed to bring the scope to a halt, after which, the scope's inertia (resistance to movement, also a function of its weight) comes into play as the direction of travel of the rifle reverses, and these forces act at the small contact area between the scope mounts and rifle. The heavier the scope, the greater the forces acting on the mount/rifle contact area.

The other factor is the nature and harshness of the transition from recoil to surge, which varies according to the rifle, and how it is set up.

[gsxrman]

Only real factor as the forces are tiny really is crap mounts.

[Shed tuner]

Only real factor as the forces are tiny really is crap mounts.

not really true; the acceleration (and deceleration) forces are significant. But I do agree that good mounts are the solution.

[andrewM]

Thank you for the feedback.

My personal view is that air rifles are often over-scoped and my inclination has been to use a lighter scope, perhaps in the area of x32-40 in terms of optic size. Probably, the mounts are key but from what has been said, here, there is less recoil pressure on a lighter scope and its mounts, which is what I probably suspected and helpful to have confirmed. It is, of course, a challenging question and I always find the answers from those who know more, technically, than I do most interesting and read them carefully.

Rgds to all
A

[gsxrman]

not really true; the acceleration (and deceleration) forces are significant. But I do agree that good mounts are the solution.

Generally only large heavy scopes are used for target use.
My TX FT Rig had a decent scope on top and it passed the penny on top of the scope test, so what forces are we talking about. They are tiny really compared to the grip of quality well fitted mounts.