Need opinion on scope appearance

[RJ556]

I would like other persons opinions on whether this scope (Ziess 4x32) looks too big on this 1A. Thanks, RJ

 

[wwb]

"Looks" got nothin' to do with it (pretty much, anyhow).

Regarding the rifle/scope combination as a tool, the most likely range(s) at which it will be used determines the magnification and whether or not it's a zoom.

The other consideration is how the stock fits with the scope..... a large objective requires higher rings, which often results in a quick, natural mount putting your eye at the bottom of, or even below the scope. Adding a pad to the comb or fitting a custom stock solves this, but so does mounting the scope lower (requiring a scope with a smaller objective lens).

To me, if the rifle/scope doesn't come naturally to the shoulder with the proper sight picture, it ain't right, and it's gonna get changed.

 

[mike7mm08]

As hard as it can be to get a scope to work on a #1 for some people, I would not worry about looks. If eye relief is good and getting a sight picture is natural go with what you got.

 

[gewehrfreund]

Looks Ok to me, but tell us more about the rifle (i.e. the engraving) with some close-up pictures perhaps.

 

[Pal Val]

Looks OK to me. If you don't want it, I can take it and give it a good home. :-)

 

[Silent Sam]

No not too big. There are trimmer scopes though. That scope has a large eye box.

 

[RJ556]

Val, its not going anywhere. I think function is first, but looks DO have something to do with it. If looks had nothing to do with it, I would have bought a T/C Encore and went ugly all of the way (and saved a lot of money). The caliber is 30-06 Spr. It was engraved by Frank Conroy, an engraver that has done a lot of work for Ruger. The color case work was done bu Doug Turnbulls people. I do have an older Pentax 2.5x8x32, with surprisingly good optics, that works well on a No.1 and looks smaller than the Conquest.

 

[picketpin]

It's all in the eye of the beholder/owner. For me, personally, yes it's too large of scope on the configuration.

Just a matter of personal choices. On 1#s in "A" or "S" configuration (factory sights) I tend to use either Burris or Leuplod Compact/Mini scopes or things like the older K 2.5 or K3 Weaver, Burris Mini 4x or others that have no forward objective "bell". To MY eye they simply look trimmer and in the case of "S" rifles with no forward objective bell, classier and more in keeping in line with the general look of the configuration. To MY eye it's the "classiest" looking #1.

I own more "S"s than "A"s but have never scoped either with a scope that required the removal of the rear sight blade. The K3 with the German Post cross hairs in factory LOW rings on my 338 "S" are just about as close to getting the scope down as you can practically get.

The most out of whack looking #1 I ever saw was a 223 "AB" with an off brand, 8-32 50mm scope complete with 6" sun shade in super high rings.

RWT

 

[RJ556]

I agree much with what you are saying picketpin. With the short skinny barrel on a 1A, it does not take too much scope to take away from their classic looks.

 

[mike7mm08]

You want ugly get something with a 50 mm obj. about 20 power on the top end target turrets and set it up in some of those cool see thru rings. :lol:

 

[308longdistance]

I like the Conquest line on the #1s. It's a nice scope for the money, and the constant 4" of eye relief suits me. Although I do agree the older Burris Fullfield does have a better line/look to it.

RJ, I've also seen that some with the 1A have also put the rear sight on backwards so it folds to the rear to help with scope clearance.

 

[Pal Val]

RJ556, You'll get no argument from me. It's a splendid looking gun, I'm a big fan of the 30-06, and I wish you much enjoyment from it.

 

[Lee Martin]

Looks fine to me. It's obviously a quality scope, so that's priority one. And overall it looks 'balanced' on that gun.

BTW, nice rifle.

 

[singleshot]

First off, beautiful rifle !!!

I also believe the scope looks too big. But in my opinion, the matte finish doesn't flow well with the overall beauty of that rifle..

Again, fantastic looking rifle !!!


Todd

 

[Klondike Mike]

Way too big! I have a Simmons 2.5X if you want to trade. ;)

 

[dfletcher]

To be clear, just because we answer this question doesn't mean you can post a picture of yourself asking "do these pants make my fanny look fat?" - OK? :wink:

I think the scope looks to big for the rifle, if we're going with just cosmetics. Does having a larger scope affect handling?

Since you're going with a lower power scope how about one of the Nikon 1 to 4X or Leupolds? I think the straight tube looks great on the No1 and it's quite compact.

 

[florida outdoors]

I found that a larger scope affected the handling of my No.1 International 30-06.
On the compact International it was amazing to sense the difference.

 

[ArmedinAZ]

RJ556 has a #1 with custom engraving and color case hardening. Of course looks matter! :wink:

I'd find a nice old Leupold that has the anodizing starting to go bronze. Have Leupold overhaul the optics. Hard to find fault with a Zeiss though.

Beautiful rifle in the perfect caliber.

 

[Major T]

My Zeiss 4X may be somewhat older than yours and it appears shorter, but I don't think mine would give me the proper eye relief on a No.1. My opinion is that a combination of form and function is required, You have a good combination on that nice rifle. Jack

 

[RJ556]

Gentlmen, thanks for your great comments. I have found a scope to try on this rifle that will possibly look better, (in my opinion) and will give me more magnification, (when desired) It is an older Pentax Light Seeker 2.5x8x32. This scope has a very long tube behind the adjustment turret. I use to hate the looks of them when they were new on the scene, but they do solve a problem on the No.1 rifle. The objective lens housing will clear the scope rib with low Ruger rings, another plus. The 8x is nice to have for checking accuracy. I will post a pic a bit later. Thanks, RJ

 

[RJ556]

Here is a couple of pics with the Pentax. Eye relief is perfect for me and this scope is somewhat lighter than the Ziess.

 

[MMichaelAK]

Good scope.
Crappy esthetics.

I think you're onto something with that 2-8x32 Pentax. I have the same Pentax on my "Do-All" Kimber 30-06 but mine's matte finish which is okay because it matches the rifle.

 

[florida outdoors]

It's all in the eye of the beholder/owner. For me, personally, yes it's too large of scope on the configuration.

Just a matter of personal choices. On 1#s in "A" or "S" configuration (factory sights) I tend to use either Burris or Leuplod Compact/Mini scopes or things like the older K 2.5 or K3 Weaver, Burris Mini 4x or others that have no forward objective "bell". To MY eye they simply look trimmer and in the case of "S" rifles with no forward objective bell, classier and more in keeping in line with the general look of the configuration. To MY eye it's the "classiest" looking #1.
RWT

Another vote for Leupold compact. I have used larger on my No.1 International but I do believe the Compact actually balances better.Maybe it's all in the eye.

 

[RJ556]

Yes, the compact would be fine if it had SEVEN inches of eye relief, or if I had a neck like a swan.

 

[OIF2]

That's a gorgeous rifle, in my favorite caliber (.30-06)...if you want something that looks "right", a Leupold 1-5X VXIII looks great and doesn't "overwhelm" the rifle. It also has excellent eye relief and is a practical scope for the cartridge. Here's one on a Boddington 7X57, with the issued Warne double-lever mounts. I've also found that the Leupold 2-7X 33mm works well, mounted as far back as it will go for proper eye relief.

Sometimes you gotta go big, though...below is a .223 rebarreled custom job with a large-belled Nikon 5-15X. Works, but it ain't pretty.
Bob

 

[RJ556]

Bob, you've really got a couple of beautiful "Ones" there. I do have the Leupold 1.5x5 on my 1A in 6.5x55 Swede, however, I had to shorten the butt stock 3/4" to get the proper eye relief. If I was to put one on the 30-06, I would have to cut it also. A couple of years ago, I had to have cervical surgery, in which two of my disks were replaced with synthetic disks and 3 vertebrae in my neck were fused and a plate installed. This is probably the bigger reason that I have scope eye relief problems on my rifles.

 

[OIF2]

Bob, you've really got a couple of beautiful "Ones" there. I do have the Leupold 1.5x5 on my 1A in 6.5x55 Swede, however, I had to shorten the butt stock 3/4" to get the proper eye relief. If I was to put one on the 30-06, I would have to cut it also. A couple of years ago, I had to have cervical surgery, in which two of my disks were replaced with synthetic disks and 3 vertebrae in my neck were fused and a plate installed. This is probably the bigger reason that I have scope eye relief problems on my rifles.

I understand. The Pentax looks fine, has the power you need and the eye relief works, too. On the other hand, the Zeiss scopes give it a very "European" look that is pretty neat. Just the name on the scope also counts for something as far as "looks" go. Wish I had your problem...again, a gorgeous '06, set up the way I would like it!
Bob