Lithgow la101 scope questions

[Urastus]

Hello. I have a lithgow la101 coming and a hawke panorama 4-12x50 AO scope. It's my first rifle and I'd like to have everything ready for when it arrives so I can start shooting.

I have found rings that I like the look of, I was just wondering what height would I need with the 50mm objective?

Also, the scope I'm getting only has a 3.4 inch eye relief; am I likely to need a rail?

Lastly, the rings I want are pricey but I like the ability of getting close to sighted without using up the available clicks - does anyone have experience with these? Are they a good idea or a gimmick? : https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Burris-XTR- ... SwOgdYzI7X

It looks like the ring inserts are shaped in such a way that you can align the scope body to a degree in the rings.
Thankyou for your time

[bladeracer]

Hello. I have a lithgow la101 coming and a hawke panorama 4-12x50 AO scope. It's my first rifle and I'd like to have everything ready for when it arrives so I can start shooting.

I have found rings that I like the look of, I was just wondering what height would I need with the 50mm objective?

Also, the scope I'm getting only has a 3.4 inch eye relief; am I likely to need a rail?

Lastly, the rings I want are pricey but I like the ability of getting close to sighted without using up the available clicks - does anyone have experience with these?: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Burris-XTR- ... SwOgdYzI7X

It looks like the ring inserts are shaped in such a way that you can align the scope body to a degree in the rings.
Thankyou for your time

I can't see how a rail would alter the eye relief.
I've seen those rings but haven't tried them. I prefer an adjustable one-piece bridge mount in that instance. I would have to check what mine is, I got it from the UK.
I wouldn't be concerned about it though. Unless the rifle is dove-tailed or drilled way out of alignment, the scope should be pretty close to zero without running out to the end of adjustment.

[in2anity]

Hello. I have a lithgow la101 coming and a hawke panorama 4-12x50 AO scope. It's my first rifle and I'd like to have everything ready for when it arrives so I can start shooting.

I have found rings that I like the look of, I was just wondering what height would I need with the 50mm objective?

Also, the scope I'm getting only has a 3.4 inch eye relief; am I likely to need a rail?

Lastly, the rings I want are pricey but I like the ability of getting close to sighted without using up the available clicks - does anyone have experience with these?: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Burris-XTR- ... SwOgdYzI7X

It looks like the ring inserts are shaped in such a way that you can align the scope body to a degree in the rings.
Thankyou for your time

That particular scope seems to have 95moa of elevation - I believe that will be enough for a 200m zero. Beyond that, the 22lr is like throwing stones. And yes those signature rings can be fitted to give you additional elevation (i have the non tactical ones) - but just how far are you intending on shooting? Also tactical rings are more for heavily recoiling rifles are they not? Also I don't see any need for a rail - the la101 is designed to take the rings directly.

Honestly, subtensions on the reticle sound better than what they are in practice, especially for non-ffp reticles - you're better off just obtaining the trajectory and perhaps printing out a little sticker on the side of your rifle for the various distances.

[Urastus]

Bladeracer: I assumed the rail would allow me to move the rings and scope further back. The la101 comes with two tiny sections of rail that are just enough to mounts the rings. So the only adjustment I'd have would be what's available in the scope body. However, all this may be my misunderstanding, my only experience is a few videos.

Re running out of adjustment: I can imagine I'd set this up and leave it, using holdovers (the scope I'm getting has mil dots). However, not having experience with scopes, I thought it would be a good idea to have as much adjustment available in case I do use it. I see that a lot of people dial out and in for different ranges and windage.

[bladeracer]

Bladeracer: I assumed the rail would allow me to move the rings and scope further back. The la101 comes with two tiny sections of rail that are just enough to mounts the rings. So the only adjustment I'd have would be what's available in the scope body. However, all this may be my misunderstanding, my only experience is a few videos.

Re running out of adjustment: I can imagine I'd set this up and leave it, using holdovers (the scope I'm getting has mil dots). However, not having experience with scopes, I thought it would be a good idea to have as much adjustment available in case I do use it. I see that a lot of people dial out and in for different ranges and windage.

I guess that will come down to how well the scope fits the ring positions. It's possible you might not be able to work with the eye relief but I think that would be unlikely unless the scope is very unusual. If you did decide to use a rail - assuming the rifle will accept a rail - you could get a 20MoA rail if you're intending to shoot past 200m.

I do dial my elevation if I'm shooting paper or steel but I think it's better to learn to use the scope for field use. The biggest drawback with large holdover is cant. When your bullets are hitting on your reticle cant isn't a big deal. But when the bullets are hitting 500mm or 2000mm below the reticle, even very slight cant will greatly expand your groups. Get a bubble level in that case.

[Urastus]

in2anity - you're right; I was kind of thinking 100 (realistic bunny range), but 200 might be fun at the range. I didn't realise they were tactical rings, they just kind of look logical and solid. I wanted two bolts on the base to rule out movement.

Thankyou both for the quick consensus on two of my questions - I'll look for non cam type rings and try without the rail; the scope will certainly be easier (and cheaper) to set up that way.

The other rings that looked good to me were the leupold prw (and less money) https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Leupold-PRW ... 2305654726

[in2anity]

but I think it's better to learn to use the scope for field use..

Presuming your scope is not ffp, how do you personally account for variable magnification scopes? My understanding is that the printed subtensions are for a certain magnification, leading to basically an infinite amount of combinations you must memorise (if you plan on adjusting your magnification)

[Urastus]

Presuming your scope is not ffp, how do you personally account for variable magnification scopes? My understanding is that the printed subtensions are for a certain magnification, leading to basically an infinite amount of combinations you must memorise (if you plan on adjusting your magnification)

Oh! I f****** that idea up Dam, the idea of using mil dots looked good. So that's why everyone carries on about ffp. OK, so realistically the mil dots are only good if I figure out ranges @ 12x for example?

[bladeracer]

but I think it's better to learn to use the scope for field use..

Presuming your scope is not ffp, how do you personally account for variable magnification scopes? My understanding is that the printed subtensions are for a certain magnification, leading to basically an infinite amount of combinations you must memorise (if you plan on adjusting your magnification)

Nope, I don't consider FFP to be useful at all for hunting, or target shooting for that matter.
Any variable scope will specify the magnification for the subtensions. Half the mag will double the subtensions and so on - you can make a chart if you wish to. My scopes' subtensions are at 18-power, which is fine. Any shot I'm taking that requires hold-over is likely to be over 300m, so I'll be on 18-power, in a solid position, and have ranged the target, and would most likely dial the elevation into the scope anyway in a live-target situation. Like most shooters, I tend to use only two positions on my scopes, minimum when walking, and maximum when I'm set-up for a shot.

[in2anity]

Presuming your scope is not ffp, how do you personally account for variable magnification scopes? My understanding is that the printed subtensions are for a certain magnification, leading to basically an infinite amount of combinations you must memorise (if you plan on adjusting your magnification)

Oh! I f****** that idea up Dam, the idea of using mil dots looked good. So that's why everyone carries on about ffp. OK, so realistically the mil dots are only good if I figure out ranges @ 12x for example?

That's correct - I think usually the subtensions are applicable to the max magnification, and sometimes max magnification can be detrimental in the field.

IMO bdc reticles have their place in fixed-power, flat shooting rifles, htiting larger targets, but bdc seems more designed for "volume of fire" applications (i.e. military) where a DM would quickly relay distances to a section (who then subsequently can pour fire in the rough vicinity using their bdc's without adjusting their sights). This has spilled into the civilian world but is a bit of a ambitious idea for sfp scopes.

[bladeracer]

Presuming your scope is not ffp, how do you personally account for variable magnification scopes? My understanding is that the printed subtensions are for a certain magnification, leading to basically an infinite amount of combinations you must memorise (if you plan on adjusting your magnification)

Oh! I f****** that idea up Dam, the idea of using mil dots looked good. So that's why everyone carries on about ffp. OK, so realistically the mil dots are only good if I figure out ranges @ 12x for example?

Nope, subtensions work at any range, and any magnification. If your scope has the subtensions (or in this case, mils) calculated at 12-power, at 6-power they'll be doubled (so 2mil gradients). I'd be very surprised if you use any magnification except four-power and twelve-power so it's irrelevant what the gradient is in between. If you're on four-power you are unlikely to be shooting at a range that requires significant holdover anyway. Personally, twelve-power is not enough for me when shooting paper at 100m as I can't make out the bullet holes.

Mil dots, MoA subtensions, or marking dots on the objective lens with a Texta all work the same way. You have to determine the range at which each "mark" meets your bullet.

[bladeracer]

That's correct - I think usually the subtensions are applicable to the max magnification, and sometimes max magnification can be detrimental in the field.

I think generally scopes are set for maximum magnification, but I have seen some that have the reticle set to a lower magnification, probably where the scope starts to lose clarity.

[Urastus]

Thanks for all your clarifications bladeracer and n2anity. I wasn't about to go and change my scope order as I have done with my rifle choice. Luckily I didn't go too crazy on scope purchase - I was looking at a meopta (drool), so I'll keep what I have and start learning for real when it all comes. It sounds like 2fp is your preference anyway, and I think I'll mostly be at the range till I can shoot well enough to hunt ethically.

Yes, I understand what you mean re scope power at the range too. I had to start somewhere and wanted to keep the setup versatile (hunting and range). I wanted to keep the scope range small (ie 3 times magnification; 3-9 or 4-12 or 6-18) for light transmission and clarity; I even considered fixed power. I think I'm in the ball park for what I want though. There's some sort of .22 discipline at the club I've joined that shoots at 25m and 50m from various positions. It sounded like good realistic practice for hunting.

[bladeracer]

Thanks for all your clarifications bladeracer. I wasn't about to go and change my scope order as I have done with my rifle choice. Luckily I didn't go too crazy on scope purchase - I was looking at a meopta (drool), so I'll keep what I have and start learning for real when it all comes. It sounds like 2fp is your preference anyway, and I think I'll mostly be at the range till I can shoot well enough to hunt ethically

To be a little clearer.
You have two options with holdover.

1. You can shoot at fixed ranges - 50m, 75m, 100m, 125m, 150m, etc - and see how far your bullets have dropped below your reticle. Then you note how many mils that is and note it down. For a 50m zero you might have 1mil at 75m, 2.5mil at 100m, 3.8mil at 125m, 5.5mil at 150m. A mil is quite coarse - roughly 100mm at 100m - so you will pretty much always be working in tenths. MoA is 29mm at 100m. This will put you pretty close if you are estimating ranges in 25m increments.

2. You can determine at what range your bullets meet each mil-dot. With a 50m zero you might be 1mil at 75m, 2mil at 90m, 3mil at 110m, 4mil at 130m, 5mil at 140m, 6mil at 155m, etc.

Personally, I prefer to know the range at which my trajectory meets the holdover marks.

[scoobs]

if you want fun, try plinking at 200m with cci quiets. can pretty much rack up another shot before the projectile hits the target

[Urastus]

Personally, I prefer to know the range at which my trajectory meets the holdover marks.

I can see your logic but how did you figure that out? I'm guessing you entered all the known data (eg projectile weight, fps, caliber etc) into some program and got the answers and then confirmed it on a range? Ignore that, I think I get it.

[bladeracer]

Personally, I prefer to know the range at which my trajectory meets the holdover marks.

I can see your logic but how did you figure that out? I'm guessing you entered all the known data (eg projectile weight, fps, caliber etc) into some program and got the answers and then confirmed it on a range? Ignore that, I think I get it.

Yes, put the bullet weight, BC and velocity into a ballistic calculator. Then go and shoot to confirm the numbers.
http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?pl=17HM2+V-MAX+17gr&presets=&df=G1&bc=0.11&bw=40&vi=1080&zr=55&sh=1.5&sa=0&ws=10&wa=90&ssb=on&cr=1000&ss=5&chartColumns=Range~yd%3BElevation~in%3BElevation~MOA~FBFFF5%3BElevation~MIL%3BWindage~in%3BWindage~MOA~FBFFF5%3BWindage~MIL%3BTime~s%3BEnergy~ft.lbf%3BVel%5Bx%2By%5D~ft%2Fs&lbl=17HM2+HORNADY+V-MAX+17gr&submitst=+Create+Chart+

I finally found the adjustable mount I bought - http://www.sportsmatch-uk.com/products

I vaguely recall getting it from PyramidAir in the UK.

[Urastus]

I finally found the adjustable mount I bought - http://www.sportsmatch-uk.com/products

I vaguely recall getting it from PyramidAir in the UK.

In my research on scopes I often came across pyramid air.

The mounts look good. It looks like the rail on the base of the mount might cover half the ejection port.

[bladeracer]

In my research on scopes I often came across pyramid air.

The mounts look good. It looks like the rail on the base of the mount might cover half the ejection port.

You might struggle with a rail on that, although you could grind the side out of it to clear the ejection port.

[Urastus]

The lithgow optional rail is shaped around the port. However, I think I like the leupold prw rings, and as you and in2anity have suggested, I probably won't need a rail.

Now if someone knows what height I'd need for a 50mm objective on an la101, I'll have all my answers

[Urastus]

The lithgow optional rail is shaped around the port. However, I think I like the leupold prw rings, and as you and in2anity have suggested, I probably won't need a rail.

Now if someone knows what height I'd need for a 50mm objective on an la101, I'll have all my answers

[in2anity]

Here’s my Lithgow with a 40mm objective scope and medium leuie rings

75E880C1-AA33-4425-9D17-24669EA9C1F5.jpeg (131.89 KiB) Viewed 8237 times

As you can see I have a little dope sheet I once made stuck on the side for number of clicks (from 40m starting zero) for 60m, 77m and 100m - you could just as easily have it in moa if you wanted. These days I know from memory it’s around the 3moa mark, then 6moa, then 10moa - I just quickly spin it around to the appropriate number. You can easily and accurately guesstimate distances between these.

That said, these days I’m a huge fan of the Leupold CDS aka custom dial system. Buy one cry once (learned that the hard way!). Once you figure out the actual trajectory for your favorite load, you send in your ballistic information and receive a free custom dial to match it. Then it’s just a matter of rotating the dial to the required distance and you’re bang-on (pun intended). Here’s my 308w CDS:

F2F4EC16-95F2-4493-96B4-2E619676E291.jpeg (66.06 KiB) Viewed 8237 times

The digits on that turret are in hundreds of meters, with 1(00m) being my zero. It has multiple rotations going all the way up to 8(00m)! That thing is deadly out to 500m with my pet 150gr load.

Then you can go full bespoke (if you pay); here’s a CDS I had made for a rimfire silhouette build:

4586D490-87F7-4EAC-8135-3886F1080581.jpeg (100.59 KiB) Viewed 8237 times

All you gotta do is rotate to the bank that you’re currently shooting and bingo, perfect every time. Also that turret has a stopper in it preventing over-rotation so it’s 100% idiot proof (lucky for me

Honestly I think a 40mm objective is more than enough for a 22lr - the importance is in glass quality. And I strongly feel the 22lr is at most a 100m caliber - the wind absolutely destroys it past 100m. That bdc reticle stuff just didn’t work well for me in reality - believe me I tried to make it work (even in comps), but I shoot best with a dead on hold and my silly wet scores reflected this. Food for thought.

[straightshooter]

Please understand that I have never seen or handled a Lithgow 101 so the clear images on this thread are a revelation to me and hence the following comments.
I see the lack of a built in standard rimfire dovetail as a serious deficiency although it may be feasible to overcome with suitable selection of rings and scope.
The rail bases, the necessary rings and large objective scope all serve to increase the height of the scope.
If you hope to use the rifle for small game, problems will arise with the height of the centerline of the scope compared to the centerline of the bore and the shape of the stock.
Put simply the scope will be too high and your head position will be unsupported resulting in erratic practical offhand accuracy.

[in2anity]

Please understand that I have never seen or handled a Lithgow 101 so the clear images on this thread are a revelation to me and hence the following comments.
I see the lack of a built in standard rimfire dovetail as a serious deficiency although it may be feasible to overcome with suitable selection of rings and scope.
The rail bases, the necessary rings and large objective scope all serve to increase the height of the scope.
If you hope to use the rifle for small game, problems will arise with the height of the centerline of the scope compared to the centerline of the bore and the shape of the stock.
Put simply the scope will be too high and your head position will be unsupported resulting in erratic practical offhand accuracy.

bear in mind the European comb styling on the la101, but yeah - a rail AND a 50mm objective would definitely be on the taller side although you might get away with low rings with such a setup as the flares might extend down lower than the rail... I say KISS - a nice set of leuie rings with a leuie duplex scope would see you through to the end of days. something like this https://www.ozscopes.com.au/leupold-vx- ... scope.html

[Urastus]

in2anity, I don't think that scope gets closer than 50 yards focus. The 3-9x33 efr target has an adjustable objective that goes down to 10 yards - but apparently the objective is smaller than 33 (someone measured it), which seems too small. It's weird, hawke vortex and bucket loads of other manufacturers all go down to 10 yards or even less; and leupold has one scope with a tiny objective - sheesh. Nikon has an awesome bang for buck scope but again it's really strange. In the states it will focus down to 10 yards. The model here is 50 yards - nikon.com.au says 10 yards, but all sellers and suppliers say 50yards (one shop showed me the min 50yd mark on the objective adjuster)? It's a 3-9x40 target efr ao (the model names vary; in US it is now the p3 I think, here it's all sorts of things including ps2?). The other strange thing with Leupold side focus is, apparently it's not really a focus, or you don't use it to focus, it's used to remove parallax and the routine sounds like too much trouble https://www.longrangehunting.com/threads/side-focus-parallax-help-needed-leupold-4-5-14.82191/ . I did read this on leupold too but too much trouble to find where.
So I really wanted an adjustable front objective - one less lens (more light, less complex), really basic, and you do focus. Meopta has an awesome scope with great reviews (not many) and the glass has has been compared to zeiss victory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQUykptFD0c, but $1600. The dude reviewing in youtube has a 6-24 (he shoots bunnies at 700 yards ), but I was considering the 4-16x44 and was thinking the quality would be similar. But after saying all that, it sounds like you are both recommending a 40mm objective? I think the local rifle shop will put up with me changing the order, especially if they get to keep the difference I think I'm going to ask them to change the rifle order too - I don't want the threaded barrel.

As an aside, my friend is on a club committee and he went to a meeting (gov, police, hunters, clubs etc) for the whole of Tassie discussing the recent changes that the liberals were proposing - no changes. So no silencers in the foreseeable future. And really, I'd probably get a 16" barreled rifle for a silencer.

[bladeracer]

I think I'm going to ask them to change the rifle order too - I don't want the threaded barrel.

I don't have any interest in suppressors, but I prefer a threaded muzzle so I can run a cheap flash hider to protect the crown and reduce the chance of plugging the muzzle with mud or dirt if it touches the ground.

[in2anity]

I think I'm going to ask them to change the rifle order too - I don't want the threaded barrel.

I don't have any interest in suppressors, but I prefer a threaded muzzle so I can run a cheap flash hider to protect the crown and reduce the chance of plugging the muzzle with mud or dirt if it touches the ground.

Yes I totally second this - having a threaded muzzle is better than not - my la101 is threaded, and it benches just as well as ones without the thread

[Urastus]

Well apparently Lithgow don't have an unthreaded option anymore - according to the local gun shop. I had another look at scopes - I'll stay with what I have and look at it as a learning issue. If I ever get a higher caliber for deer I can put the 4-12x50 on that and get a high end scope that I should be sure about by that time.

Thanks again everyone.

[PaddyT]

Ive got a Bushnell Trophy 2.5X15 50 on mine, these are being run out at the moment and if you can find one its probably going for around $350 , I paid more for mine at the time but its a lovely scope , makes the rifle a bit heavy when shooting offhand but i can still do a 3-400 round session off hand at the range no probs. The 15 magnification works fine at 100m, at 200 its a bit trick to see the bullet holes - I have been planning to try a 200M fly shoot with it but havent got round to it. Rifle is boringly accurate- im no great shakes as a shooter but 3/4 inch groups at 100 and SK match ammo no probs. CCI Stds, SK STd, SK MAtch, Velocitors, mini mags , ELEY HV, ELEY SUbs, they all shot very well. Mine doesnt like Win PP or CCI Stingers at all.

[in2anity]

I have been planning to try a 200M fly shoot with it but havent got round to it.

I'm not much of benchrest shooter, but a can definitely see the allure of that fly shoot comp. I think the Lithy would hold its own - the trick to winning is more being able to read the wind/mirage rather than mind-bending mechanical accuracy.