Large-objective scopes on Coopers

[dan97526]

Has anyone found the comb on the straight stock Coopers low for a large-objective scope? I've never had anything larger than a 44mm on mine and, since I'm thinking of putting a 50mm on my M21, I'm wondering if I'll still be able to maintain a decent cheek weld.

I realize this has a lot to do with the individual, but it can't hurt to ask.

[Rick in Oregon]

Dan, if the primary use of that rifle is sage rats, not sure why you'd want to burden the rifle with a huge objective, as virtually all squirrel shooting is done in daylight hours. The only advantage of the 50mm+ objective scopes, is more light transmission, and that really only applies to low light, dusk/dawn shooting.

Unless you hunt nocturnal squirrels, why would you want to put a huge objective lens scope on a nice svelte Cooper rifle? Maybe you just like large, overwhelming scopes, or just want more bulk and weight......not sure.

(In all the decades I've shot squirrels and PD's, never once did I wish for a larger objective on my scope, nor not been able to make the shot due to 'not enough light'........)

As far as cheek weld......the lower the scope is over the bore, the better the cheek weld. Just sayin'.........

[dsandfort]

Hey Dan, here's my lopsided take on this.

I love Leupold scopes and most of our shooting is target. About 20% of our work is on real squeaks. For target work we tend to like 25x out at 300-400 yards. For squeaks we generally shoot at about 10x-16x. To get that 25x we need to go with 50mm objectives. The 40 mm Leupold VX3 "only" goes to 20x. While this doesn't seem like a big deal, we find that extra 5x to be useful for punching paper at distance.

If you select proper rings, we can get the 50mm scope down as low as the 40mm relative to the barrel. This means that the centerline of the scope is only 5mm higher on the 50mm scope which equates to about 0.2 inches taller off the cheek. We think it's a negligible sacrifice that allows us to gain more magnification.

Hope this gives you some food for thought.

Del

[RowdyYates]

Rick's correct about the cheek weld/scope objective dia. However, fwiw, I'm trying a 50mm objective (side-focus Minox) on my M21 V .204. For the best barrel-hugging fit, I had to go with Weaver-type (don't laugh): Leupold Rifleman extra-high rings. At a whopping 17 bucks the rifle is still accurate as heck, although it looks like Kelblys will fit down the road. They really don't look that bad (silver), and any sight-alignment problem is due more to the long eye relief of that particular scope - I need to slide it forward more - than cheek weld imperfection.

[Rick in Oregon]

Dan, here's a look at a Leupold VX3 LR 6.5-20X 40mm on one of my Coopers using Leupold Low rings. You can see that the scope is hugging the bore very well indeed:



The 40mm objective gives all the brightness one could ask for for rat shooting. Not really sure why any one would want a 50mm on a rat rifle with all the extra bulk, as I've never wished for more myself. I'm of the firm belief now that some folks just seem to love huge objectives on their rifles; to each their own I suppose, but I much prefer slim/trim/effective with minimum weight and bulk.

One thing for certain: we've got lots of choices! Good luck with the project, and post up a pic when she's all finished.

[dan97526]

Thanks everyone.

Rick, I'm not wanting more light gathering ability, but more power. I'm running the same 6.5-20x40 as you (actually, on your recommendation ). I've found myself wishing for a little more magnification out at long range, now that I have a 20VT for mid range. If I could find a 40mm scope from a reputable maker that topped out around 24x I'd buy it.

Del, my experience pretty much matches with yours. With sages rats in the 200-300yd range I usually am working around 15x. I find I fight my scope a bit at high power, getting good eye relief.

Rowdy, what are you going to do about mounts with the Kelbys? I'm leaning towards the VX-6 4-24x52 on my M22 6.5-284, but it has a 34mm tube. I think the Kelby rings would serve well but I don't see a Cooper mount option. Perhaps I'm missing something on their website.

As you've probably guessed, high-powered optics are new ground for me. I have two years under my belt with the 6.5-20. Prior to that I was running a 4-12 and rarely shot over 200 yards.

Thanks again!

Sent from my KFAPWI using Tapatalk

[TwentyBore]

Has anyone found the comb on the straight stock Coopers low for a large-objective scope?

Haven't tried a Cooper, but with a large-objective scope, it seems like no stock really has a high enough comb. That's why expensive aftermarket stocks come with adjustable cheek risers, and why cheepskates like me put inexpensive Kydex adjustable cheek rests on our rifles.

[Jim White]

Has anyone found the comb on the straight stock Coopers low for a large-objective scope?

Haven't tried a Cooper, but with a large-objective scope, it seems like no stock really has a high enough comb. That's why expensive aftermarket stocks come with adjustable cheek risers, and why cheepskates like me put inexpensive Kydex adjustable cheek rests on our rifles.

All of my thumbhole stocks do and my HS Precision stocks do ok with them too.

[Critter]

On the squirrell grounds in western Montana with .17 HMR. Note custom base.



While I tend to agree with Rick regarding objective size, I tend to favor 34 mm tube for one simple reason. Going from a 30 mm to a 34 mm to provides a significant advantage in terms of elevation and windage travel. Depending on caliber the additional travel will allow you to deal with much longer ranges. My light varmint rifles are now 17 HMR which is a Cooper and 204 Ruger. I also prefer Mill Scale reticles which allows for long-range shooting without cranking the elevation knob in most cases. I also prefer the Extended Range Elevation Knob (Erec) which allows for double or triple the normal elevation travel.

This has to my recollection a 58mm objective which works just fine on my Cooper and also a short action 700 BDL which I had converted from .223 to .204. I've also happened on to a Ruger number one in 204 to which I have added a Hicks device and a trigger job. I feel the number one makes a very excellent varmint action, although I have never seen another one in .204

ps. Has anybody noticed that the prices of scopes have jumped significantly making me feel really really glad that I purchased mine ten years ago!