Help me to choose best rifle in .223

[Stix]

yep...something looks a big miss there Daddybang...can only go by the pics but that rifle/scope combo set-up doesnt look at all comfortable on you mate...

Length of pull looks short, but that could just be the pic.

[SCJ429]

The eye relief is still very long, need to move the scope mounts forward until the cheek is on the cheek rest. The exit pupil gets very small at higher magnification and head position becomes critical.

[Flyer]

Thanks Flyer - very much appreciate all your help mate!

I'm a bit lost though, do I also need to buy ring bases separately or the rifle comes with them installed? I'm trying to find various photos of the rifle on the web but get mixed results.

They're ring mounts - you don't need anything else. The Weihrauch has an 11mm dovetail and the base of the ring-mount clamps on to it.


Islander7 - Your new rifle should arrive with a set of Weaver style bases & screws in the carton and should also have 4 tiny "filler" screws installed in the holes on top of the receiver. Both mine arrived that way. Perhaps Flyer will confirm. If you're using mounts that clamp to the dove tail, I would leave the filler screws in the receiver and put the supplied bases & screws away carefully. Mine appear to be a "Weihrauch Special" thread - Certainly not the standard 6/48 threads found on most rifles.

I'll have to check my box again, because I don't remember seeing any Weaver mounts in mine. My Sako A7 came with them, but not my Weihrauch, as far as I know. I do have the mounting holes with tap screws and thought of mentioning this, but I haven't used them so can recommend anything.

[Daddybang]

yep...something looks a big miss there Daddybang...can only go by the pics but that rifle/scope combo set-up doesnt look at all comfortable on you mate...

Length of pull looks short, but that could just be the pic.

The eye relief is still very long, need to move the scope mounts forward until the cheek is on the cheek rest. The exit pupil gets very small at higher magnification and head position becomes critical.

Yep as its not my rifle and I don't tend to shoot it off the shoulder (they're a bloody heavy bit of kit) very often it's not a problem .
We actually had to turn the comb around to get any cheek at all on it. All too bloody complicated for me so as I said I'll stick to my 3-9x.and leave the high.mags for those that want it!!

[bladeracer]

Yep as its not my rifle and I don't tend to shoot it off the shoulder (they're a bloody heavy bit of kit) very often it's not a problem .
We actually had to turn the comb around to get any cheek at all on it. All too bloody complicated for me so as I said I'll stick to my 3-9x.and leave the high.mags for those that want it!!

I was figuring it can't possibly be your own rifle set up like that

[Stix]

yep...something looks a big miss there Daddybang...can only go by the pics but that rifle/scope combo set-up doesnt look at all comfortable on you mate...

Length of pull looks short, but that could just be the pic.

The eye relief is still very long, need to move the scope mounts forward until the cheek is on the cheek rest. The exit pupil gets very small at higher magnification and head position becomes critical.

Yep as its not my rifle and I don't tend to shoot it off the shoulder (they're a bloody heavy bit of kit) very often it's not a problem .
We actually had to turn the comb around to get any cheek at all on it. All too bloody complicated for me so as I said I'll stick to my 3-9x.and leave the high.mags for those that want it!!

Well dont let that put you off high power scopes though DB...if you ever wanted one, setting one up for yourself will be very different.
As SCJ says, eye position is critical at the high end.

[Islander7]

Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all

[Daddybang]

Yep as its not my rifle and I don't tend to shoot it off the shoulder (they're a bloody heavy bit of kit) very often it's not a problem .
We actually had to turn the comb around to get any cheek at all on it. All too bloody complicated for me so as I said I'll stick to my 3-9x.and leave the high.mags for those that want it!!

I was figuring it can't possibly be youmr own rife set up like that

Yeah just a mates I get to play with from time to time!

Heya stix it won't cause I want to start shooting at distance over the next year so I guess the lower mags won't be much chop at 500+.!!(hell i might even have to start going to the local range as 300+in safety isn't really doable at home until I clear more scrub and I'm not sure how I'll go with palaschmucks new laws.!!

[bladeracer]

Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because I would've been disappointed even more probably

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all

It's a good test technique I think.
My eyesight completely falls over without decent light.
Something else that plays a large role is whether you've just been staring at a computer, phone or TV, or if you've just come outside into sunlight a few minutes before. That's one reason why I go out well before sunup, so my eyes have completely settled by the time the dawn starts.

[Member-Deleted]

G'day Islander7 mate I have a Z3 and am very happy with it I shoot on moonlit nights quiet easily with heart-lung shots
on scrubbers with no fear of missing out to 200yds it has very good light capabilities in the moonlight and on a dark night I
could shoot till 7.30--8 pm most nights
It picks up stuff in the moonlight that my range finder won't
I've shot bulls from 65yds to 205yds on moonlit nights comfortably all heart/lung shot
When I bought the Z3 I think I paid $1400 or so but well worth it wouldn't part with mine

[Flyer]

Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all

That's a bit surprising. It's unfortunate you don't have another scope to compare, because that would tell you if it's the scope or your eyes.

Doesn't that model Meopta have an illuminated reticle? Was it on when you tested?

Also, that one doesn't have any parallax adjustment, so if parallax is set at 100m, and you are trying to look at things at 60m at night, the scope was probably a little out of focus to begin with. Perhaps you should try at 100m or longer. That is the trouble with having no parallax - you can't always get a sharp picture close up unless you zoom right out to get better depth of field.

[bigfellascott]

Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all

It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all.

[Islander7]

Bladeracer, yes I spent whole night outside yesterday without looking at bright computer/phone screen etc, so my eyes were very well adapted to the natural twilight setting. Astronomy is my another hobby, so I know the importance of eye adaptation to the darkness before looking through scope.

I've decided to keep it for now at least. I'll try to get and test better optics (Swarovski etc) in the future. If I get blown away, I'll happily upgrade. My own conclusion now is everyone's eyes are different, and apparantly my eyes aren't that great after all, which is a bit disappointing I didn't believe this fact at first, but then I remembered that I've got a $20k hi-fi stereo system and I'm the only one (within my circle of friends and family) who are able to clearly hear difference/advantage in comparison to, say, $3k system.. so yes, we are all different.

Flyer, illuminated reticle was off, simply because it came to me with dead battery (ex-display unit). Yes it's got fixed parallax at 100m, however it has a focus ring, so you can get everything in focus at most distances.

Bigfella, I still will try to do a proper test with more expensive optics in the future, just to see for myself

[bigfellascott]

My bet is you will still be very disappointed - or at least left wondering what the added $$$$ were really for.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Why did you get a smoke with no parallax adjustment

[bigfellascott]

Why did you get a smoke with no parallax adjustment

It's only a 3-12 so not needed.

[Islander7]

Why did you get a smoke with no parallax adjustment

After all the research I did I realised that I wanted a 'set and forget' scope. Even if it had parallax adjustment, I would have probably set it at 100m and never touch it again anyway.

[allan]

I'll have to check my box again, because I don't remember seeing any Weaver mounts in mine. My Sako A7 came with them, but not my Weihrauch, as far as I know. I do have the mounting holes with tap screws and thought of mentioning this, but I haven't used them so can recommend anything.

If the bases aren't there, you're not missing anything - Mine are rubbish. The HW66JM even came with a Leapers UTG 3-9X40 scope in the box - Have it advertised on a couple of sites - Can't give it away!

I have both my scopes mounted using J&P delrin 11MM adaptors & Burris Signature zees.

[Stix]

Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all

It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all.

When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.

In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.

Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).

The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price

Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.

Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see...

So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions..

[Gaznazdiak]

Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all

It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all.

When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.

In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.

Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).

The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price

Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.

Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see...

So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions..

Light gathering ability is determined in the main by objective lens size.
I learned this when buying an astronomical telescope, the bigger the objective, the more light that can be collected, and the fainter the objects you can observe.

My Hawke 10-50x60 is far brighter on 10x at dusk till dark than the view through my 10x50 binos, even though there are two lenses collecting instead of one.

[bigfellascott]

Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all

It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all.

When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.

In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.

Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).

The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price

Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.

Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see...

So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions..

Yeah done all those types of tests in the bush and honestly still haven’t seen any real reason why I should spend $1000’s more to do the same thing - I certainly haven’t noticed any real difference in my success rate using the more expensive stuff over my Nikon, leupold or zeiss.

[Flyer]

Bladeracer, yes I spent whole night outside yesterday without looking at bright computer/phone screen etc, so my eyes were very well adapted to the natural twilight setting. Astronomy is my another hobby, so I know the importance of eye adaptation to the darkness before looking through scope.

I've decided to keep it for now at least. I'll try to get and test better optics (Swarovski etc) in the future. If I get blown away, I'll happily upgrade. My own conclusion now is everyone's eyes are different, and apparantly my eyes aren't that great after all, which is a bit disappointing I didn't believe this fact at first, but then I remembered that I've got a $20k hi-fi stereo system and I'm the only one (within my circle of friends and family) who are able to clearly hear difference/advantage in comparison to, say, $3k system.. so yes, we are all different.

Flyer, illuminated reticle was off, simply because it came to me with dead battery (ex-display unit). Yes it's got fixed parallax at 100m, however it has a focus ring, so you can get everything in focus at most distances.

Bigfella, I still will try to do a proper test with more expensive optics in the future, just to see for myself

Hi mate, the focal ring is simply to adjust the eye piece so you can tailor it to your own eye (if you are short sighted, long-sighted etc). Parallax obviously adjusts parallax, but it also adjusts the focal point of the object the scope is aimed at so you can see it sharper at a given range.

[Gaznazdiak]

Yes indeedy.
Wouldn't go back to scopes without now I have "seen the light".
Far superior.

[Flyer]

I'll have to check my box again, because I don't remember seeing any Weaver mounts in mine. My Sako A7 came with them, but not my Weihrauch, as far as I know. I do have the mounting holes with tap screws and thought of mentioning this, but I haven't used them so can recommend anything.

If the bases aren't there, you're not missing anything - Mine are rubbish. The HW66JM even came with a Leapers UTG 3-9X40 scope in the box - Have it advertised on a couple of sites - Can't give it away!

I have both my scopes mounted using J&P delrin 11MM adaptors & Burris Signature zees.

Hey allan, I just looked again, and no Weaver mounts

But you just reminded me about that Leapers scope that came with it - it's gathering dust on a shelf next to the Swaro and Weaver scope boxes, lol.

On a related note, I disassembled the bolt and polished up the inner bolt handle and rest of the bolt and have got it working pretty slick now. They have a heavy firing pin spring in them and are only a 54-degree bolt throw or something, so can be a bit stiff when you first get the rifle. I did find there was a bit of a taper on the bolt handle and the bolt itself wasn't perfectly smooth, so it was binding up a little when I cocked the handle. That's gone now.

Next mod I'm think of doing is lightening the firing pin a little and replacing the spring with something with a little less tension. Again, the Weihrauch HW66 has got a big ol' firing pin in it which needs a strong spring. It's a bit of overkill, but part of what makes these rifles so accurate, I believe, is the heavy-duty action for small calibre. I've just finished bedding mine front and back as there was no need to bed the entire action. Whether it needed to be bedded or not is open to conjecture, but I felt better about doing it. I can't leave things alone.

[allan]

On a related note, I disassembled the bolt and polished up the inner bolt handle and rest of the bolt and have got it working pretty slick now. They have a heavy firing pin spring in them and are only a 54-degree bolt throw or something, so can be a bit stiff when you first get the rifle. I did find there was a bit of a taper on the bolt handle and the bolt itself wasn't perfectly smooth, so it was binding up a little when I cocked the handle. That's gone now.

Next mod I'm think of doing is lightening the firing pin a little and replacing the spring with something with a little less tension. Again, the Weihrauch HW66 has got a big ol' firing pin in it which needs a strong spring. It's a bit of overkill, but part of what makes these rifles so accurate, I believe, is the heavy-duty action for small calibre. I've just finished bedding mine front and back as there was no need to bed the entire action. Whether it needed to be bedded or not is open to conjecture, but I felt better about doing it. I can't leave things alone.

Totally agree - I'd be surprised to ever see a FTF from one of these! I too found the cocking effort a little heavy on these rifles but I think I've seen smaller valve springs than the WH firing pin spring! A little polishing of the bolt internals and a dab of grease improves the overall smoothness considerably.

[Flyer]

Yes, I used your photo for reference before I pulled everything apart - thanks! I see in your photo it looks like you've also polished the inner bolt handle. It made quite a bit of difference to the feel of mine.

[Stix]

Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all

It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all.

When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.

In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.

Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).

The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price

Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.

Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see...

So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions..

Yeah done all those types of tests in the bush and honestly still haven’t seen any real reason why I should spend $1000’s more to do the same thing - I certainly haven’t noticed any real difference in my success rate using the more expensive stuff over my Nikon, leupold or zeiss.

Hey BigFella...i certainly wasnt trying to tell you how to suck eggs mate. ..and to be honest im envious of you having that experience...
Unfortunately i spent 14 plus years in the photographic industry servicing some of the best & most anal commercial photographers with everything from camera & lens hardware to film, photographic paper, colour seperation & reciprocity failure issues, right through to the initial transition into digital...not to mention having photographed my share of portraits & weddings (where skin tones & detail in wedding dress on a sunny day...well on any day, are critical), and all this history forces one to actually see subtle differences as big black dogs balls right in the middle of your vision...

I have a Ziess conquest HD5 that cost me good coin yet has real bad chromatic aberration, is not in focus when parralex is set correctly & is only sharp in the middle of the image, all the outside is real blurry...i find it bloody annoying & not worth the coin as compared to my bushnell elite's for the money they cost...yet for everyone whos looked through the scope, im the only one that notices it...
Im somewhat lucky in that ive lost most of my 'eye' having been out of the game for a long time now, but some of it still remains.

And ive had the pleasure of comparing my scopes to a Swarovski Z6 3-18x50, & let me tell you...my eyes were experiencing multiple squirters...
If i had the coin, id have one of those on every bolt action centrefire i own with no hesitation...

Having said all that...most of what i do is bunnies & foxes, & all of those shots are within 300yds, most between 80-200, so i agree with you whole heartedly that almost any glass does the job...

[bigfellascott]

Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all

It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all.

When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.

In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.

Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).

The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price

Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.

Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see...

So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions..

Yeah done all those types of tests in the bush and honestly still haven’t seen any real reason why I should spend $1000’s more to do the same thing - I certainly haven’t noticed any real difference in my success rate using the more expensive stuff over my Nikon, leupold or zeiss.

Hey BigFella...i certainly wasnt trying to tell you how to suck eggs mate. ..and to be honest im envious of you having that experience...
Unfortunately i spent 14 plus years in the photographic industry servicing some of the best & most anal commercial photographers with everything from camera & lens hardware to film, photographic paper, colour seperation & reciprocity failure issues, right through to the initial transition into digital...not to mention having photographed my share of portraits & weddings (where skin tones & detail in wedding dress on a sunny day...well on any day, are critical), and all this history forces one to actually see subtle differences as big black dogs balls right in the middle of your vision...

I have a Ziess conquest HD5 that cost me good coin yet has real bad chromatic aberration, is not in focus when parralex is set correctly & is only sharp in the middle of the image, all the outside is real blurry...i find it bloody annoying & not worth the coin as compared to my bushnell elite's for the money they cost...yet for everyone whos looked through the scope, im the only one that notices it...
Im somewhat lucky in that ive lost most of my 'eye' having been out of the game for a long time now, but some of it still remains.

And ive had the pleasure of comparing my scopes to a Swarovski Z6 3-18x50, & let me tell you...my eyes were experiencing multiple squirters...
If i had the coin, id have one of those on every bolt action centrefire i own with no hesitation...

Having said all that...most of what i do is bunnies & foxes, & all of those shots are within 300yds, most between 80-200, so i agree with you whole heartedly that almost any glass does the job...

Hey Stix I didn't take what you said as some sort of shot at me mate (I never worry much about that sort of thing to be honest) my take on it all is if I can't see any really BIG difference between all these high end and mid level scopes why would I pay a heap of extra $$$ for no real world benefits.

I do get that spending more on good quality glass etc would be important for long range shooting (1km+ type thing) but in most of the average hunting situations that 99% of us are doing (50m to say 300m) as an average I can't honestly see any need for myself needing to spend $2k+ to shoot a bunny especially when I've been getting the job done with ease using a cheapish scope and exploding the heads at over 300m when one couldn't even see them with the naked eye as the light was that bad (late evening behind a mountain where the sun had well and truly disappeared over many hills but I could still make out the bunnies head just fine for a shot on it (it was around 8.30pm in Summer so daylight savings) and it was right on the last bit of usable light (we actually had to put the spotties on whilst driving over to it it was that dark in the end) I'm really not sure how much better I would have done with a high-end Euro job, to be honest.

I was using a mates S&B a while back (high Mag type magnification) and I didn't really like the image I was seeing through it - it looked a bit dull/flat for want of a better description, which was a bit puzzling to me, but he loves it so that's all that really matters at the end of the day, I even compared 2 rangefinders side by side whilst I had the opportunity (a Vortex 1000 and a Leica of some sort) and again there wasn't any amazing difference to my eyes whilst looking at the same object, what it did was range things a little easier and quicker but not by much (I think it had an ability to range things further out compared to the Vortex, other than that it was much a muchness to my eyes. The one rangefinder I did find that was ordinary compared to the Vortex was a Leupold of some sort, (not sure of the model) but it was dull and the contrast was ordinary compared to the brightness and clarity of the Vortex the differences in that particular comparison were very obvious.

cheers mate

[Bristles1]

Old Sako L461 can't beat em and you will be able to give it to your kids kids. I am a fan so I am biased. Had my current one for 40 years, still shoots the lights out.

[bigfellascott]

I couldn’t get rid of mine quick enough lol worlds worst trigger and wouldn’t shoot for s**t - was 2nd hand so who knows how well it was looked after but that trigger was on par with the ruger trigger and just could not get it to come good no matter what we tried including a fella who does triggers for a living!

Never again I’ll stick with my howas from now on I think.