[Guest]

I popped on to your 50 section a little bit ago, and noticed that you had created a potentially unsafe condition in the process of lapping your scope rings. I posted part of the cure but based on dates, nobody has been there in a while. If you take a piece of 220 or so sandpaper and lay it grit upward on a flat smooth surface, and then massage the upper and lower ring flats on it, that will increase the space between the upper and lower ring halves allowing you to apply more screw pressure. If you feel that you may have lapped the rings into a mild oval, leave them off the gun, snug them onto the lapping bar, and turn the rings on the bar until you see at least 75% rub marks. Assuming they are barrett adjustable rings, which I have, now mount the rings on the gun and loosen the hex nuts. Now lay your scope in the rings and tighten the rings to the scope first, then tilt or level the scope as you like and tighten the hex nuts last. Do it any other way and you are taking a chance of kinking the scope tube. I use a nightforce 8-32, and tilt the front of the scope down with the elevation bottomed out until I am dead on at about 400 yards. Now I have all my elevation adjustment available to me if I want to reach out. Almost forgot, put nothing inside the rings such as tape which I have seen supplied with some brands of rings. This will change that crucial dimension that you create when you lap.

 

[Rich Z]

Thanks for thinking of me.

So far I have only taken the model 99 out to shoot and the scope seems to be firmly in the rings. When I lapped the rings, I checked the wear markings frequently to make sure it seemed to be lapping the rings evenly. I then marked the scope tube before taking the gun out to sight it in, and there was NO movement at all from recoil.

I still have to sight in the model 95, but I am hoping that the scope will be firmly seated in the rings as well. I've had a headache off an on for the last week or two, so shooting a .50 just isn't something you want to do when your head is already pounding internally.

But I will say this, I REALLY appreciate the generous gap between the scope eyepiece and my eyebrow that Nightforce gives me!

Thanks.....

BTW, to make sure I understand what you are talking about, what exactly is this "unsafe condition" you mention? Movement of the scope within the rings to where it gets closer and closer to my forehead?

Just want to be sure I am not missing something in what you are telling me.

 

[Guest]

Just that Rich, I actually figured that recoil would slide the scope forward and the muzzle brake might actually cause it to slide back. The good news is, it sounds like it's not doing either. You didn't mention reticles, mine is the r2 which simply by moving to a lower set of crosshairs gives me more elevation. This was decided for me by the 8-32 scope which only has 65 inches of elevation, where the 5.5-22 is around 100. I currently have only the 82a1, prior to that a 99, with a barrett/swarovski 10x, which was a nice scope, just not the kind of magnification that gun deserves. It can probably hit a beer bottle at 1000 yards but its tough to see one that far with 10x. Sheri at barrett also told me that prior to any trigger work being done on any of these guns, that the application of Loctite moly paste, on all moving trigger parts, rubbing and pivot points, that the trigger pull could be safely dropped by several pounds. Machine shop supply houses can find it for you, it's not on every hardware store shelf.

 

[Guest]

Another thing I heard from Barrett is that they have developed a new muzzle brake design, that is so efficient that it prevents proper functioning of the 82. Could be a godsend on the 99 and 95 however, might not cure your current headache, but may help prevent the next one.

 

[Rich Z]

The model 99 isn't too bad with recoil, but I have some trepidation about the 95. It is MUCH lighter than the 99. I may have to check into that new muzzle brake.

There was a writeup on muzzle brake comparisons in the FCSA journal not too long ago. Of the ones they tested, the AR-50 proved to be the most effective. But dang it is BIG! Maybe that's why it works so well, though.

Thanks.

 

[Guest]

I saw an AR50 sitting next to a Barrett 99 at a gun show and there was over a foot of difference in the length. It does seem that their brake would defeat the purpose of the 95. That new brake was designed in part for that 25 mm upper they have for the 82, whether it affected function in that caliber, I don't know. If you like Barretts, and it appears you do, and have deep pockets, there was a Barrett made back some years ago, 82a2, a bullpup semi auto that could be shoulder fired offhand. With what few are out there, you may never see one and if you do the price will be more painful than any recoil. As far as that new brake goes, it probably puts crosshair type scopes to the test, due to the whiplash effect of recoil and instant muzzle brake reversal. Probably no problem with night force, if I thought there would be, I wouldn't have bought one.