Armory Sponsor
Posted: 7/9/2010 8:34:33 AM EDT
|
I was visiting neighbors day before yesterday that I only speak with a couple times a year, delivering some excess goodies from my garden and one conversation got around to firearms - this neighbor had been shooting his black powder cannon on the 4th. I mentioned that I had considered getting my .50 out that nite when I heard his cannon going off but had decided against lobbing any projectiles off at nite. Anyway, he said he had a .50 too and brought it out to show me - was a Watson (?) upper. Had what looked to be a 28" - 30" barrel and a fairly rudimentary muzzle brake. The bolt screwed in with this crank handle, and was a shellholder style. To me the bolt seemed a little on the light side but I'm definitely not qualified to say for a fact. The extractor ridge around the bolt just seemed like it could possibly fail if you had a really tough extraction but then again the threading on the bolt was mighty fine (threads per inch) and maybe it was all plenty suitable, probably much better than smacking with a hand like on mine. The firing pin seemed quite light too - no comparison whatever to my State Arms Rebel firing pin. My neighbor said he had shot it much and that it was a comfortable shooting rifle. I guess the shorter barreled .50s recoil less because less of the powder burns ? My Rebel weighs 41 lbs. with a 36" barrel and has a large muzzle brake and I wouldn't call it "comfortable" to shoot. Acceptable yes, but not comfortable. Comfortable is shooting my .22 Hornet.
This upper also had a Nightforce 5.5x22 - this is the first Nightforce I've ever looked thru. To be honest, I didn't think the glass was any better than a couple of my Nikon Monarchs or the Unertl on my 52B but I really liked the reticle - I assume they were mildot circles with very tiny dots in the center along both the verticle and horizontal, then empty rectangles out at the ends. I'm not well-versed on all the fancy reticles, just familiar with the basics, but this reticle was pretty much uncluttered and I would be interested in learning how to use one such as this someday. It was also the illuminated version but I couldn't see it when he turned it on in full daylight outside. He said he tried it in the house and it was OK. The scope was definitely a nice one but I can't see where it should cost 2 to 4 times what I paid for my current ones. I have one of my Nikons on my Rebel, fine crosshair with a very small dot and it has done well at the shorter range I've shot so far. The dot might give a little problem when trying to reach out over 600 yards or better, haven't had the opportunity to try yet. I'm hoping to go shooting with this neighbor sometime before the summer is over and I'll get a chance to try the Nightforce out in action, maybe after shooting with it I'll think more of it. |
|
Never have seen a Nikon Monarch that had as high a resolution as an NXS. Atleast my buddy's 4-16 Monarch sure can't hang with my 3.5-15 NXS side by side. And I do like Monarchs for a cheapie hunting scope. Planning on replacing my Leupy VX-II on my 270 soon because I like the Monarch BDC reticle and the 4x top to bottom magnification range.
But hey, putting an NXS on a Watson's Upper is like putting a $5000 stereo in a $1000 clunker...why???? -David Edgewood, NM |
|
I shot by a guy shooting a Watson upper at a world Championship match years ago and he placed in the top 5 with it. They shoot well but are a pain in the butt to load. You have to pull the back pin and seperate the upper from the lower and then crank the bolt out, put a new round in and then crank the bolt back in and replace the pin. It is hard to get 5 shots off before the conditions change a lot. They have a Loather Walther barrel.
Ed |
Armory Sponsor


