• Hey All! Lately there has been more and more scammers on the forum board. They register and replies to members requests for guns and/or parts or other things. The reply contains a gmail or hotmail address or similar ”anonymous” email addresses which they want you to reply to. DO NOT ANSWER ANY STRANGE MESSAGES! They often state something like this: ”Hello! Saw your post about purchasing a stock for a Safari. KnuckleheadBob has one. Email him at: [email protected]” If you receive any strange messages: Check the status of whoever message you. If they have no posts and signed up the same day or very recently, stay away. Same goes for other members they might refer to. Check them too and if they are long standing members, PM them and ask if the message is legit. Most likely it’s not. Then use the report function in each message or post so I can kick them out! Beware of anything that might seem fishy! And again, for all of you who registered your personal name as username, please contact me so I can change it to a more anonymous username. You’d be surprised of how much one can find out about a person from just a username on a forum such ad our! All the best! And be safe! Jim

L461 .222 Magnum Pics/Shooting Results

Sako Collectors Club Discussion Forum

Here are a couple of scope photos, for comparison purposes. Unfortunately, the camera angle badly distorts the relative size of the scopes. In the first photo, the top scope is a full-size Leupold 3-10x40mm AO. It is about 12.5" long. The next, a Kahles 6x42mm, is a bit larger than the Leupold. Then we have a Zeiss Conquest (US assembled) 2.5-8x, and finally a Leupold 3-9x compact, which is 11" long. I will try to reshoot and see if I can't photograph them in a way that gives an accurate size comparison. Next is a Zeiss 6x Diatal-C mounted on a CZ 455 in .22 Magnum. The last photo is the Burris Timberline 3-9x mounted on a homebuilt AR-15 marksman rifle. The Zeiss and the Burris are each about 10-1/2 inches long.

The Burris Timberline shares some characteristics with the Burris Mini I mentioned in an earlier post. It also appears to have higher magnification than other 9x scopes, and it has the same shape with the turrets set well forward. I am thinking it may have the same optical formula as the old Mini. I tried it out today, aiming it at the same object I used yesterday to test the other scopes, and I found it to be about as clear and sharp as the other compacts.

4 Scopes 1.JPG

CZ Carbine 2.JPG

AR-SPR-1.JPG
 
icebear,

Not sure if a matte scope would be included in your definition of a good deal but:

Zeiss Diavari C 3 - 9x36 MC Matte - eBay - $399.99
“Good condition” - Used

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-Diavari-C-3-9x36-MC-Matte-Riflescope/202618094994


Or if you'd reather have gloss.

Swarovski 3-9x36mm Habicht Rifle Scope ~Austria~ Gloss - $599.99
Condition:Used
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Swarovski-...895858?hash=item54691f0e72:g:ntgAAOSwIw1cIbTS




Yes. VERY nice. Who made the stock on the front rifle, if you don't mind me asking.

Thanks
ChrisA

The Rifle was made by Mac McCain who worked for Fajen back in the 1980's. The gun was made in the early 80's with a Douglas Supreme barrel and Mauser action. I saw it and had to buy it. I am not a fan of the Mauser action, so I had a local gunsmith case color the bolt shroud, grip cap and buttplate. It is a 257 Roberts...

DSCN5197.JPG DSCN5199.JPG DSCN5200.JPG DSCN5205.JPG
 
kirkbridgershooters,

How do the West German Diavair scopes compare to the Zeiss Conquest scopes for hunting type of shooting?

Thanks
ChrisA

The Diavari is a click or three above the Conquest. The Diavari is the Zeiss premium line of scopes. Sadly Zeiss felt to stay competitive to the mid priced market that they needed to sell cheaper scopes. The Conquest line of scopes are not the equal to the Diavaris. The Diavari C that is shown for sale, is not the same scope that the German Diavari is. I would look for the German Diavari, the later matte scopes were the precursor to the Conquest scopes...
 
Here is a better shot of the four scopes, more accurately showing the relative size. There's some reflection from the flash, but the picture shows what it needs to show. From left: Leupold 3.5-10x; Kahles 6x; Zeiss Conquest 2.5-8x; Leupold 3-9x compact. I find it interesting how much bigger the eyepieces are on the German and Austrian scopes. I much prefer the European style of focusing adjustment to the American system. The Euro adjustment, with its relatively short throw, provides a much better view of the reticle going in and out of focus than the fine threading of an American scope, where even a full revolution of the eyepiece may not produce a noticeable change.

4 Scopes 2.JPG
 
IMO West German Zeiss and Swarovski Habicht (also the B&L or Bushnell 4200 Elite made in Japan) all day long.....I personally am not a fan of the conquest line. I did a comparison side by side at the range between to similar power ranges and objectives...B&L 4200 against a Conquest and to my eye the B&L was clearer / brighter and a bought it used for a third of the price I paid for the Conquest...That one will also go "Down the road" when I get the time to swap it out.
 
Here are two photos showing how a Burris 3-9x compact fits a Sako L461 carbine. I think the size is just right from an aesthetic point of view, and it's a good quality scope. The short tube and forward turret make it a bit fussy to mount and you really don't have any room to adjust eye relief. Fortunately, it gives me a good eye position as is, so it works for me. The Leupold compact, which is only half an inch longer, would also be an excellent fit. To me the two scopes are about the same quality, and I happened to have a gloss Burris and a matte Leupold, so I mounted the Burris. If I ever run across a 4-12x Burris Mini with a gloss finish, I'll substitute it for the 3-9x.
Carbine+Burris 1.JPG
Carbine+Burris 2.JPG
 
IMO West German Zeiss and Swarovski Habicht (also the B&L or Bushnell 4200 Elite made in Japan) all day long.....I personally am not a fan of the conquest line. I did a comparison side by side at the range between to similar power ranges and objectives...B&L 4200 against a Conquest and to my eye the B&L was clearer / brighter and a bought it used for a third of the price I paid for the Conquest...That one will also go "Down the road" when I get the time to swap it out.

Thanks Stephen. Looks like I need to do some more research.
 
Here's the "original" compact scope, the old Leupold 2-7x28. It is mounted on an L579 .308 Mannlicher with low original Sako ringmounts. As you can see, the objective just clears the barrel, while the full size ocular bell still clears the bolt handle and provides very forgiving eye placement. Such low mounting not only keeps the gun's profile sleeker, but usually makes for better eye alignment with the old, slightly lower combs of the "pre-Garcia" era stocks. I wish Leupold still made this versatile scope!

P1000585.JPG
 
Here's the "original" compact scope, the old Leupold 2-7x28. It is mounted on an L579 .308 Mannlicher with low original Sako ringmounts. As you can see, the objective just clears the barrel, while the full size ocular bell still clears the bolt handle and provides very forgiving eye placement. Such low mounting not only keeps the gun's profile sleeker, but usually makes for better eye alignment with the old, slightly lower combs of the "pre-Garcia" era stocks. I wish Leupold still made this versatile scope!
I agree, that's a great little scope. It's also a great bargain - I've seen them at gun shows for as little as $125 in quite respectable condition. I've got one, but mine is the later version with a 33mm objective. That appears to be the exact same outer shell as the 3-9x compact, just with slightly different optics.

And according to the Leupold website, they are still making a couple of versions of the 2-7x compact. It's available in the VX-Freedom line (whatever that means). This is a line of budget-priced scopes with a quasi-military appearance. Matte finish only. You can also get the optic in the VX-1 Rimfire line, with traditional Leupold styling and a choice of matte or glossy finish. Glossy is $20 extra, the reverse of the old days when matte was an extra-cost finish. Midway stocks them.
 
That appears to be the exact same outer shell as the 3-9x compact, just with slightly different optics.
The current 2-7x33 is very close to the 3-9x33 in physical size, but its ocular lens is a bit larger. This allows the "eye box" (area in which the full sight picture can be seen) to be a bit larger. That's the "good news". The "bad news" is that some rifles with unnecessarily thick bolt handle roots prevent mounting the slightly larger ocular of the 2-7x33 as low as you might like. I even have one older L579 on which the bolt handle's curve is tighter than later ones and it will not accept the full-size ocular bell in a low mount without the bolt handle hitting it, but will accept the smaller ocular of the 3-9x33.
 
The current 2-7x33 is very close to the 3-9x33 in physical size, but its ocular lens is a bit larger.

When I got my 244 L57 Mannlicher carbine I had plans of mounting a Leupold 2-7 x 33 using low Sako mounts, but like you said, the bolt handle would not clear the ocular lens. At the time I didn't have a Leupold 2-7 x 28 compact, but I did have a couple of 3-9 x 33 Leupold compacts. The 3 -9 compact would be my first to mount on an L57 and I didn't know if it would fit or not. But as you can tell by these photos, it's a little more than 1/16" of the barrel and the bolt handle clears by almost 1/8", and it's easy to line up on. I did file the lug off the rear ring to give me a little more adjustment, but it fit good with the lug.

IMG_0291.JPG IMG_0292.JPG IMG_0293.JPG
 
DII: That's the way I like to see a scope fit a rifle!

The safety on the L57/L46 can require a little bit more room than that of the L461/L579, but the smaller ocular bell of the Leupold Compact series often gives you just enough clearance where a full-size ocular would not.
 
I'm new to this lovely site but at the risk of getting off to a less than perfect start and upsetting any number of members I cannot refrain from observing how so many of these stunning Sako rifles, and indeed scopes, are mated by such agricultural rings & mounts.

Please, please look at the Conetrol range of projectionless rings and contoured mounts and see what's achievable in terms of a complementory aesthetic. I have zero affiliation with this manufacturer but feel sure you won't be disappointed with the end result.

Yours truly

Harv
 
The Conetrol rings are, indeed, a thing of beauty. They are also a giant hassle to install. Once you have them set up, you NEVER EVER want to remove them for any reason! Also they do mar the checkering on the bridges if you tighten the set screws. You can avoid this by substituting brass set screws, if you can find them. Here's a picture of mine. I also had a set on an L61R in 7mm magnum, but I disliked the gun and sold it without the mounts.

There's a photo of my custom L461 with Conetrol mounts on page 2 of this thread.
 
The Conetrol rings are, indeed, a thing of beauty. They are also a giant hassle to install. Once you have them set up, you NEVER EVER want to remove them for any reason! Also they do mar the checkering on the bridges if you tighten the set screws. You can avoid this by substituting brass set screws, if you can find them. Here's a picture of mine. I also had a set on an L61R in 7mm magnum, but I disliked the gun and sold it without the mounts.

There's a photo of my custom L461 with Conetrol mounts on page 2 of this thread.
Just seen it and it demonstrates my point beautifully. Those Dap-Tar mounts look an integral component of the action.

As for difficulty in removing them? Why would you!

Harv
 
Hi Harvey, welcome to the best forum. It's ok to have and express an opinion. One of the things that make this is a great site is some of us may be hard headed and not change our opinion to match others. No doubt the Control rings are a thing of beauty and quality, but they're not Sako and they're not period to the old Sakos many of us have. Heck, if I bought a newer model Sako, I might try some Conetrol rings on it. But I've never owned a post, pre72 Sako, so I probably will not be looking for Conetrol rings. To some of us, using those old Sako ringmounts on our pre72's is like sticking with the old girl you brought to the dance 50 or more years ago. Again, welcome to the site and post some photos of your Sakos.
 
My brother has good results with the factory 50 grain Nosler ammo out of his new to him mannlicher .222 mag. I would try Imr -4895 and 50 grain balliatictips
 
Ok........you guys need to lighten up on my "new" Conetrols..............................................as they have been around for about 55 years. I use to visit their table, at the Dallas Gun Show, and ogle the O'Brien they displayed......until, years later, someone stole it and other rifles out of their trailer.

AND........with a little bit of preparation........they are easy to assemble, and smooth to adjust.

A Winslow 17-222.....with fence post stock. :)
2n1djzm.jpg
 
Nice stock, and I wouldn't call it a fence post. As far as the Conetrols go, I like them but I'm realistic about it. They are easier to work with if you spend the extra money for the top of the line rings that have a screw at the bottom to secure them in place. I still wouldn't call them easy to install and get into perfect alignment (and they have to be perfect). I know how to do it, but it takes a while. They look great on a custom rifle, but I prefer original Sako rings on a collectible/original Sako.
 
Back
Top