scope removal

[GeorgeG.]

If I remove my scope from my 30.06 rifle and plan on putting it back in the same location, will it still be on paper?

So I have a 30.06 rifle with a BSA scope... the scope had some kind of rubber matte finish instead of just metal. Well, this last season, something must have got on it because the rubbery stuff has been deteriorating into some sticky, tar-like crap. I've discovered that goo-gone takes it off leaving just the metal. I'm fine with this but I'd prefer to just take the scope off and do the whole thing. So will mounting it in the same location at least keep it on paper or will I need to take it somewhere to get for this?

[Roger]

Last scope I removed and reinstalled only needed minor adjustment.
If it's a bolt action, you can sight it down the bore with the bolt removed.

[ceyko]

In my experience it depends on a few different variables, but yes you should be on paper at 100 at a minimum - minor adjustments others.

The times I have further adjustments is when it completely remove rings and all that crap. Even then not bad.

[dee]

If I removed a BSA scope it would not get put back on, they are junk and you are on borrowed time until it breaks hopefully not while hunting.

[YALE]

If I removed a BSA scope it would not get put back on, they are junk and you are on borrowed time until it breaks hopefully not while hunting.

This.

[ceyko]

If I removed a BSA scope it would not get put back on, they are junk and you are on borrowed time until it breaks hopefully not while hunting.

This.

Good points.

[GeorgeG.]

that's good to know. I've had it for a few years now and so far it has served its purpose. Besides having to deal with the fogged lenses, I don't really have many complaints.

What would be a better scope that's reasonable priced? I don't recall what the magnification is or I paid for it but I'm sure I was on a budget.

[HOOCBB]

Burris Fullfield II, Leupold VX-I, Nikon Prostaff lines are all very affordable and exponentially better than BSA.

I like the Burris Fullfield II on my Rem 700 .270 Win and the Nikon Monarch on my Savage 10 .308 Win. However, if I could do it over again, I'd get a mildot reticle instead of the BDC reticles that mine have.

[dee]

For affordable and pretty decent the NIKON prostaff or Bushnell Elite series are really hard to beat. Leupold in my opinion is way overpriced for what you get these days, it seems they are more about selling their name than a quality product.

Edit: 3-9x40 is a good all around magnification and objective lens diameter for a hunting rifle.

[YALE]

I just got a pro staff in a trade, and I'm pleased with the quality of the glass.

[dee]

I just got a pro staff in a trade, and I'm pleased with the quality of the glass.

That's how I aquired mine, next 3-9 I buy will be a Minox I've been wanting to try their scopes ever since I bought some of their binoculars.

[ceyko]

I can't recommend Nikon Prostaff enough. On sale you can get them for 100-120 a lot of times.

[YALE]

While we're at it, the new Leupold-made Redfields aren't terrible. If you're going to go cheap, OP, try to shoot for a modicum of durability over clarity.

[ceyko]

While we're at it, the new Leupold-made Redfields aren't terrible. If you're going to go cheap, OP, try to shoot for a modicum of durability over clarity.

Kind of funny since i was going to add-on that if you do f-up the scope while in the field - it's not the end of the world. At least compared to losing a 400-1000 dollar scope.

[dee]

Kind of funny since i was going to add-on that if you do f-up the scope while in the field - it's not the end of the world. At least compared to losing a 400-1000 dollar scope.

The higher priced scopes usually come with a better warranty guarantee and are generally better built all together so the handle abuse better.