Modifying LPVO to meet 1x scope requirements

[Timberline001]

With three of the states I hunt changing their scope/sight requirements in recent years I'm in need of a reliable 1X scope. The only offering I can find is the vortex crossfire. Not only is it difficult to find but I also don't trust its ability to hold zero, it doesn't offer a useful reticle, and it doesn't have reliable turrets. My idea is to take a more useful model of LPVO and fix it to 1X. I'm sure in all of the years states have required 1X scopes someone has done this and is likley one of the tinkering masters rokslide holds. I would like to hear some ideas of how to go about it and any issues that may arise.


My first thought is to epoxy it but I'm not sure how well that will hold. I guarantee if you get checked by a game warden it needs to withstand them wrenching on it as hard as they can to avoid a ticket. What says the tinkering muzzy hunters?

 

[lazydrifter]

I saw on another forum where several people had talked to several different Washington state game wardens about this. They said absolutely not. If it's a multi power scope that has been modified they will write you a ticket.

 

[Timberline001]

I saw on another forum where several people had talked to several different Washington state game wardens about this. They said absolutely not. If it's a multi power scope that has been modified they will write you a ticket.

They’ll have to specify that in the regulations otherwise I don’t see how that’d hold up. Currently it only says telescopic sights are prohibited. A scope that’s fixed to single power is not telescopic.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

They’ll have to specify that in the regulations otherwise I don’t see how that’d hold up. Currently it only says telescopic sights are prohibited. A scope that’s fixed to single power is not telescopic.

that would be a tough battle to fight without them specifying what constitutes a “permanent” fix. It’s still a telescopic sight by definition whether you can use it or not.

 

[Timberline001]

that would be a tough battle to fight without them specifying what constitutes a “permanent” fix. It’s still a telescopic sight by definition whether you can use it or not.

If it cannot telescope then it is not a telescopic sight, by definition.

 

[Luke S]

If I really wanted to do this (I don't) here would be my suggestion.

• JB weld around the entire dialing ring so you can't turn it without breaking something. Smooth out as much as possible while ensuring that it will never, ever move.
• Tape off the ends and paint over the scope body with something that covers over the JB weld and any labels that show it was once telescopic. Something think like truck bed liner maybe? Obviously you'd have to work around the scope mounts for this.

You now have a non-labeled scope with no obvious means of zooming that will be a 1x if examined. You've also rendered a $500 scope useless for resale.

I wonder about a reliable red dot instead though. Safer if its legal and you're not ruining the resale value.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

If it cannot telescope then it is not a telescopic sight, by definition.

If done permanently then I agree, but devils advocate as they read the rules that’s gonna be an uphill battle without more instruction how to do it legally.
Someone can add enough tension to pass the “warden in the field test” then just use a spanner wrench when they want.
I’d ask for more clarification before risking a fine/suspension.

 

[Timberline001]

If I really wanted to do this (I don't) here would be my suggestion.

• JB weld around the entire dialing ring so you can't turn it without breaking something. Smooth out as much as possible while ensuring that it will never, ever move.
• Tape off the ends and paint over the scope body with something that covers over the JB weld and any labels that show it was once telescopic. Something think like truck bed liner maybe? Obviously you'd have to work around the scope mounts for this.

You now have a non-labeled scope with no obvious means of zooming that will be a 1x if examined. You've also rendered a $500 scope useless for resale.

I wonder about a reliable red dot instead though. Safer if its legal and you're not ruining the resale value.

That’s along the lines of what I was thinking with way better execution.

I’m not worried at all about the value at all considering this is all it’ll be used for and I have no intention in selling it.

I’m not interested in a red dot. The only model I know of with a dial is made by leupold and that’s not an option. I also don’t want to rely on an electronic reticle.

 

[Erict]

I get your quandry, but not sure you get how the law would apply.

I am not sure what states you are looking at, but your idea would certainly not pass muster in Utah, where their regs state:

(1) A muzzleloader may be used during any big game hunt, except an archery hunt, provided the muzzleloader:
(a) has both the powder and bullet loaded from the muzzle;
(b) has open sights, peep sights, or not more than a 1x scope or sight which contains no internal or external components that make it capable of magnifications;

 

[Timberline001]

I get your quandry, but not sure you get how the law would apply.

I am not sure what states you are looking at, but your idea would certainly not pass muster in Utah, where their regs state:

(1) A muzzleloader may be used during any big game hunt, except an archery hunt, provided the muzzleloader:
(a) has both the powder and bullet loaded from the muzzle;
(b) has open sights, peep sights, or not more than a 1x scope or sight which contains no internal or external components that make it capable of magnifications;

Worse case scenario I bring it to DWR and have a game warden inspect it and he says no and then I have a shot gun scope. If they say yes I’ll get written documentation as well as a verbal recording. I’ve had to similar with laws in Idaho a few times. By my reading of it it’d be legal because there would not be any components that make it magnify. The components are there, yes, but they do not “make it magnify” if I do it correctly.

 

[Fatcamp]

Primary Arms has a red dot with an etched reticle which helps with feeling confident it will work.

I have one of those and a Crossfire. Way prefer the Crossfire. I'm not sure why but the Crossfire had a better image than any other 1x I've tried, and I've tried a few.

A few years ago I called the Leupold Custom shop to ask if they would modify one for me. Not only wouldn't they do it but they were completely rude and dismissive of the idea. And I quote, "Well, if it doesn't have magnification its not a scope so why would we work on it." Not a fan.

 

[Timberline001]

Primary Arms had a red dot with an etched reticle which helps with feeling confident it will work.

I have one of those and a Crossfire. Way prefer the Crossfire. I'm not sure why but the Crossfire had a better image than any other 1x I've tried, and I've tried a few.

A few years ago I called the Leupold Custom shop to ask if they would modify one for me. Not only wouldn't they do it but they were completely rude and dismissive of the idea. And I quote, "Well, if it doesn't have magnification its not a scope so why would we work on it." Not a fan.

Thanks I’ll take a look at the primary arms.

I’ve seen your comments in another post stating you had good luck with crossfire and it gave me the confidence to at least try one. I wish it had some kind of MOA hash mark or mil dot system at least.

 

[Fatcamp]

Thanks I’ll take a look at the primary arms.

I’ve seen your comments in another post stating you had good luck with crossfire and it gave me the confidence to at least try one. I wish it had some kind of MOA hash mark or mil dot system at least.

My buddy got a dial for his but I haven't gotten a report.

Mine killed two last season, both at about 100 yards.

But I baby that thing once it's dialed in.

 

[CorbLand]

Why not just save yourself the headache and get the Leupold Reddot for like 400 bucks?

 

[Timberline001]

Why not just save yourself the headache and get the Leupold Reddot for like 400 bucks?

I’ve had enough leupold scopes fail me that I won’t trust them anymore. Especially since red dots already have more risk as it is depending on illumination to function.

The way they mount is super unnatural for me to look through as well.

 

[Timberline001]

The aimpoimt 9000l seems like a decent option for a red dot but I’m still not sure how I feel on depending on an electronic device. Also worried about the illuminated dot for super bright days and making precise aim on the 100-175 yard shots.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Regs force some weird products. Now there’s gonna be a fixed 1x with an exposed elevation turret and wind hashmarks. I’d buy one if CO switched from irons only.

It would be nice to just use a modified LPVO like you’re saying. Meopta makes an illuminated 1-6 that would be a solid option.

 

[5MilesBack]

If telescopic sights are illegal, why use a scope at all?

 

[Grundy53]

If it cannot telescope then it is not a telescopic sight, by definition.

But do you really want to take time off work to argue that in court?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[Timberline001]

If telescopic sights are illegal, why use a scope at all?

To have a turret to dial for further shots or at least a MOA reticle. There’s turret peep sights but for the amount they cost I’d prefer this route.