Scope Mounting, how close is too close?

[DanP]

Never really mounted a scope on a handgun before, just wondering how much clearance is truly required / desired.

Before I go and attempt to exchange yet another set of rings.

The scope in question at this time is a simple Bushnell Trophy Handgun 2-6x32 - got some weaver-based rings so I could attach it to either my GP or Beretta 87T... on both guns the rear (eyepiece) is practically (but not quite) touching the rail.

But not enough clearance there to even slide a plastic lens cover.

Anything to worry about here? Mount "as low as possible" or get taller rings because such a tiny clearance is asking for trouble?

While I am at it, what makes a handgun scope different than a rifle scope? Is one more resistant to shock than another?

 

[Legionnaire]

Dan, others may have different opinions, but I prefer as low as possible. My scoped revolver doesn't wear lens covers. As long as the scope isn't touching the rail, you should be good to go; the scope should be rigid enough not to flex under recoil.

Two main differences between rifle and handgun scopes. First is eye relief. Rifle scopes are set up for the ocular lens to be roughly 4" (give or take) from your eye due to the way a rifle is held. Handgun scopes, in contrast, typically have eye relief in the range of 14-20" as the gun is typically held at arm's length.

The second (and related) difference tends to be in power of magnification. Most shooters I know have scopes of 2x or 4x max on their revolvers. My SuperRedhawk wears a 2x Leupold. Some will use a 2-7x variable (more typically on long barreled single shots like the T/C Contender/Encore). In contrast, 4x is typically the low end for a rifle scope, the most common hunting scope being in the 3-9x variable category, and some scopes getting up to 30+ power.

The two are generally the same (or very similar) in their construction. But the different applications make eye relief and magnification two key differences.

 

[C.R.Sam]

I like to cap optics when not actually in use. Scopes, camera lenses, binoculars etc.

Easy to trim a cheap cap so that it stays on, goes on, and protects.

Sam

 

[DanP]

Thanks for the education.

So just to make sure: if one were to put a handgun scope on a rifle, or vice-versa, the only thing to really consider is the eye relief?

Vibration / heat is not a factor?

 

[craigz]

You might also try a ScopeCoat, a thin, stretchy tube of neoprene that encloses the whole scope. Midway has 'em.

 

[labgrade]

From a purely anal point, everything flexes. Return to "zero" is the key to a maintained accuracy. Lower is better usually, but not necessary. Usually, the flatter the trajectory, the less need for a lower mount, but, with say, a .357, shots are likely under 100 yards which tends to negate any benny from a lower mount.

Far as a cover - I'd use one. Just makes sense in protecting your optics - a fairly sizable investment.

Too, your standard scope cap can be shaved till you get enough clearance to slide on your cover. Use an emory board, andpaper, Dremmel tool to remove enough material so you can slip it on without causing too much pressure between scope & barrel. A complete slot may be needed & I wouldn't woory in the least as you just want to protect the glass & not the side of the objective lense.

Eye relief for handgun scopes is twitchy sometimes. What works well for me off the bench (to do load development & sight-ins) doesn't usually work as well in field conditions. You'll have to find your own "works best" there.

Setting the ocular adjustment (for eye relief) is usually better done at the higher power as the lower power is much more forgiving.

 

[Legionnaire]

labgrade is accurate (even if anal) . Let me clarify on the scope covers. When afield, my revolver rides in a Pistolpackaging Bandito shoulder rig that covers the objective end of the scope, so I've not felt the need for scope covers. When in storage, though, I have an old Burris "rubber band" thingy that holds covers over both lenses.

In answer to your last question, DanB, you are correct. The only real consideration is eye relief (and magnification). There are many who forward-mount pistol scopes on rifles (scout configuration) with no problem. I'd be less inclined to go the other way (rifle scope on a handgun), especially if it's a hard kicking magnum, as the low eye relief and stout recoil are likely to have negative unintended consequences [insert smiley with "scope eye" here].