Jump to content
UKV - The Place for Precision Rifle Enthusiasts

clover

Members
  • Content count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About clover

  • Rank
    Newbie or Infrequent Poster

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oxford

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. clover

    Scope rings screw NM torque

    On this subject, what are people using to apply this torque? Was considering one of these Wera torque drivers, which go for about £70 and seem a lot better quality than the American crap aimed at gunsmiths..
  2. Thanks all - I really appreciate the thoughts and support as to be honest the overwhelming guidance I've been given would have been exactly what I'd have said to anyone else in a similar situation (as I've done many times in the past). Of course it's always easier to give decent objective advice when you're not caught up in the situation yourself and a balanced external perspective is always welcomed. So, in a nutshell after I provided a photo of the contamination along with a bit of haggling and the supplier confirmed that they'd replace the scope. It was returned and surprise, suprise the morning it arrived I got a call stating that "there was no contamination", that "sometimes this happens as stuff is dislodged under recoil" and "it won't affect the scope's performance". I replied that the scope had never even been mounted, that the contam could well have been dislodged during transit (which was precisely why I furnished them with a photo before returning it) and that I accepted its negligable influence on performance - however I expected better on a scope that cost more than the car I'm currently driving. The scope's manufacturers were consulted; advising that the scope be replaced and returned to them and agreeing that the issue was cosmetic only. I was then told that there was only one other copy of the scope in stock, that this displayed a similar fault and that perhaps I might like to choose a different scope. There was nothing else I wanted in replacement so after some thought I replied today that I was happy to wait until their next delivery in the hope that they could supply me something that didn't have any faults. Failing that I'd take a refund. The response was swift; effectively stating that "the refund was in the post". So there we go - back to square one. Disappointed in the poor QC from a generally very well regarded manufacturer, being assured I'd get what I'd requested by the supplier only to be snubbed as soon as the scope arrived back with them, their apparent total unwillingness to try and accomodate me as well as their tacet acknowledgement that I wasn't going to get a better quality copy by waiting. I'm not going to disclose any names on an open forum, but if you're really bothered drop me a PM. Needless to say I won't be spending any money with this outfit in future nor recommending them to anyone else. QC concerns aside I think the manufacturer handled the situation fairly, while the more I dwell on it, the more disgusted I am at how the distributors handled it. Once the money is safely back in my account I might punt the manufacturers an emailconveying my experience of their UK wholesaler and how apparently willing they were to lose a sale for the sake of a bit of time spent checking a new scope. To make matters more delightful I've recently spunked the best part of a ton on a pair of rings to suit the scope, while the one that will probably now be fitted in its place would suit lower rings, so that's another hundred quid down the pan if I want to get it as low as possible. Thanks - sadly I think I'm under budget by a factor of around 2.5! I agree in principal, however the situation is somewhat complicated by other factors (none of which change the fundamentals but do make me apprehensive to start slinging names about on an open forum). As above, if you really want to know more, drop me a PM As above
  3. Thanks! I'd be the same if it was spotted before purchasing.. it's back at the suppliers currently and their line is that other copies that they could replace it with have the same issue and that I might like to consider an alternative. Problem is I like the scope otherwise, am not prepared to stretch my budget further and there's nothing else in the price range that really appeals / I consider suitable. On the one hand I accept that I'm a picky sod; on the other I'd expect better than this for the price tbh as I've never had another scope (regardless of price) that's shown such contamination (especially from the off). It won't make any difference to performance, however it will irritate my OCD / sense of self-respect 😛
  4. New scope purchased from a well-known and respected manufacturer and costing a little north of a grand. Upon inspection a fleck of internal contamination around 1mm in diamater can be seen between the two elements of the objective lenses. Supplier and manufacture both suggest that this is a common issue, doesn't affect the performance / operation of the scope and as such isn't a warranty issue. Buyer accepts the point about functionality but rightly or wrongly expects better from a product of this cost. What would be your thoughts were you the buyer? Has anyone else been in a similar situation? Ta
  5. That's a bit crap.. I assume they're suggesting that the synthetic stocks are more dimensionally stable with respect to changing conditions (temp, humidity etc) so don't need to float for this reason. What about loading on the forend from different resting positions for example? Surely it would have made sense to have floated it anyway, just to be on the safe side. The only possible benefit I can see from this is that the stock might act to damp barrel oscillations.. however I'd be far more comfortable with it floating tbh. At least it's near the chamber where barrel deflection will be minimal. Does yours have a standard weight or heavy barrel?
  6. Thanks Sam.. I much prefer the Mil-based setup in principal, just still struggling to get my head around the more coarse adjustments.. I'm maybe coming round to the idea a little though. Usually a good research binge on the internet is enough to sway me one way or the other; however most of the SIII reviews are American and they unsurprisingly seem to tend towards the traditional imperial / MOA-based setup so there's not a lot of information on the mil-based equivalent.
  7. clover

    Importing reloading equipment from the states?

    Apologies for resurrecting an ancient thread, however I thought it preferable to starting a new one. I've been looking into reloading options recently and the disparity in prices between US and UK-sourced equipment is quite frankly eye-watering. For example the Hornady Lock-n-Load progressive press - £859 from Brownells UK, $420 from Brownells in the US. At the current exchange rate that makes the US-sourced a shade under £300; so a touch over 1/3rd the price of the UK-supplied alternative. This has obviously gone way beyond the old "same in dollars as it is in pounds" standard that used to characterise the difference in prices across the atlantic; and even with VAT factored in the US-sourced unit is still well under half the price of the UK equivlant - which I think is utterly obscene. I'm all for supporting local, independent businesses, but can completely understand customers choosing private / grey imports when it's obvious that someone along the supply chain is clearly so intend on having their trousers down. I also appreciate how in the vast majority of cases the retailers themselves aren't to blame and have to suffer pretty crappy margins; so the blame in most cases must lie with the importers - or the fact that there are simply too many snouts in the trough between the manufacturer and end-user. This trend is patently obvious with many other goods, however this is the most outragous example I've witnesses so far. Has anyone recently imported anything of this nature from the US? I've ascertained that (as per previous posts in this thread) reloading gear still doesn't require and export license, so the only real worries are the shipping costs, potential customs charges and lack of a warranty (which doesn't really worry me when you could buy two from the US for the same price as one UK-sourced example). I know some suppliers refuse to send to the UK (usually those not wishing to under-cut their own UK operations) however it seems that one or two still will, and of course there's nothing to stop a private individual sending a package over if you know anyone on that side of the pond. I'll continue with the research but of course would appreciate any thoughts from those with experience in privately importing such equipment
  8. Thanks for the suggestion Alan. I did consider this model and while I like the 1/8 clicks I'd also like to use the scope for practical, soI think the 8x minimum mag might be a bit limiting, plus I'm looking to keep mass and mounting height to a minimum. Appreciate the thought though!
  9. I have a .223 Tikka T3X Varmint on order that I plan to use for targets out to maybe 600yds. I'm reaching the conclusion that the Sightron SIII 3.5-10x44 I'd got earmarked for the project will struggle if I want to push the range out and was looking at the 6-24x50 SIII offerings. I'd prefer Mil-based scopes (turrets and ret) and like the look of the first focal plane LR scope with the mil hash ret.. however I'm a bit put off by the more coarse adjustment on the metric scopes (0.1mRad / click is 10mm at 100M, while 1/4MOA is around 7.25mm at 100M) as well as the thickness of the ret in places (the centre dot is 0.73mRad in diameter so around 7.3mm at 100M while the crosshair thickness is 0.04mRad so 4mm at 100M). The MOA-based ret is thinner / finer in this regard (centre dot is about the same size but the crosshair thickness is 0.1MOA so around 2.9mm at 100M). I've looked at the second focal plane scopes (which are a fair bit cheaper) but am not really keen on any of their reticle offerings tbh. I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts an experiences on these scopes please, along with any general thoughts on the MOA v mRad argument (sorry if this has been done to death!). I much prefer the simplicity of the metric system, however the MOA setup potentially seems a little more precise. Thanks
  10. Thanks! Thanks for your thoughts Jamie. I'm not reloading - I'd like to but currently don't have the facilities; one of the reasons I've gone for .223. I did wonder about the cheekpiece height as they generally seem to be woefully low - something you'd have thought they'd address on a gun that's never going to have iron sights fitted... given the scope size I'm hoping to get away with pretty low mounts but haven't rules out the need for a cheekpiece riser. I've got the Neoprene Bearthooth kits on my other two firearms, which work very well for what they are but admittedly aren't ideal. I'll certainly keep your recommendation in mind, although tbh I'm not a huge fan of irreversible stock mods! Depending on how things go I might look at a higher capacity mag - I believe the riflemags.co.uk items can accomodate longer rounds so that looks like the best way to go, slightly eye-watering price notwithstanding. I suppose I will have to invest in a chamber flag, as much as I've managed to escape them at my current club (actions open, chambers empty, mags out of course!). No worries about the eggs - while I'm well seasoned in other areas of shooting, everything centrefire is new to me so I'm very happy to listen to advice Thanks James - that's very reassuring and reinforces my perception that Tikka offer good quality and value. I was torn over barrel length - the choice being 20" threaded v 24" plain.. I ended up going for the short one as I might want to fit a mod in future, which would make the gun very long and front heavy (while also requiring threading by a third party). Really I'm looking for a "jack of all trades" so have to take into account mass and handling too - I'm guessing there are advantages to shorter length in practical comps. I did go for just about the cheapest heavy-barreled option, although tbh this was less out of choice as the Super Varmint isn't available in LH, as much as I'd have liked one.. so swapping the stocks is out too. Tbh I'm just looking to dip my toe in the water at the moment and see where it takes me, so I don't want to commit to big, heavy, expensive glass (which again I guess could be a disadvantage in practical comps).. so since the 3.5-10x44 owes me very little and will get me started, I'll stick to this for now. So, the rifle was finally ordered today (T3x Varmint, Stainless, .223, 20" threaded barrel, 1:8" twist) - unfortunately being subject to the dreaded 6 month lead time on account of the LH option and quick twist. I hope I've done the right thing with the barrel choice - I'd rather it was longer from a ballistics perspective, but don't want to make it unmanageable and don't like the idea of having to get it threaded at a later date if I decide I want a mod. I did completely forget to order a set of mounts but I'll get these sorted nearer the time.. planning on going for a set of opti-locks in stainless to match the action, unless anyone can convince me of any better alternatives! Thanks again for all your thoughts
  11. Yes, thanks - I'm aware of that. The issue being that the first time I enquired about the 1:8 twist it was implied that the lead time would be fairly short as it's a common option (rather than a special order) which I figured would be the case since I'd guess this would be a popular choice in the heavier barrel profiles. Upon placing the order however, air was sucked through teeth and "special order" was mentioned.. As above, this is what I expected regarding the twist rate and what I was told when first enquiring. I agree about the barrel length.. my gut tells me to go longer on account of improved ballistics, however I've been told the same re. the availability of the 24" variants. I've been pretty much sold on the 20" version since it's threaded and should be quicker to get (for reasons I won't go into I have a somewhat limited window to acquire the rifle). That said if the spec 20" 1:8 twist turns out to be a special order, I might just spec at threaded 24" barrel if already paying the time penalty.
  12. Thanks guys - lots of great info that gives sufficent argument to persuade me that Stainless is superior and the way to go. The rifle's been just about ordered although there was some consternation over the 1:8 twist (which I'd have guessed would have pretty much been the standard on the Varmint rifles, but apparently not) so they're getting back to me in the new year to confirm a lead time..
  13. Absolutely- totally happy to spend the extra as long as it's in return for tangible benefits other than simply corrosion resistance and aesthetics
  14. It'll be target shooting, so probably more rounds than were I hunting but it won't be seeing hundreds of rounds a month. To be honest I can't really put a number on it at the moment; suffice to say that longer barrel life will be welcomed regardless!
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy