I have a T/C G2 Contender 7X30 waters with a 10" barrel. I have tried a couple of different scopes on it. So far none have held zero. The first was a 2x scope I removed from a Super Blackhawk. While it worked fine on the 44mag it would not hold for the 7x30.
The last was a 2-6 Bushnell trophy I believe. It would not hold zero either so I put it on a 22long barrel where it works fine. Is there a secret to mounting a scope on a 7x30 waters barrel or are there just a lot of crappy scopes on the market. Does anyone have a 7x30 waters and scope combination that works. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

What mount are you using?

Hello Rolly, Welcome to this site! Glad to have you on board.

H2OBUG asks an excellent question.

In my experience: in a caliber like 7X30 Waters you may need to go with a six-screw scope mount BASE, with possibly MORE than two scope rings. Several factors enter into this: First, yours, per your post, is a 10 inch barrel, which affects "recoil" due to its weight. Second, if the scope is "heavy or light" (weight) this also figures into the equation. And even the scopes LENGTH, PLUS how the scope rings are SPACED matters, as these scope tubes DO flex under heavy recoil; hence ONE of the reasons for needing more than two rings (minimizes flexing), other than the more OBVIOUS one of "holding power."

In a nutshell: the heavier the total weight of the "package" the "less" recoil. But conversely, the HEAVIER the SCOPE, the greater the need for a stronger scope mount and rings.

For your combo (not picking on you, just making an assessment from what you posted) you have a "light" gun (10" barrel vs. 14") and if the scope is "heavy" that combo is a perfect situation where you may need a six screw base and three or four scope rings. It all has to do with Newton's Laws of Motion (Inertia.)

Just trying to help!

Again, WELCOME!

Gregg

I agree that a close look at the mounting is in order. I don't believe a 6 hole base is that much better than a 4, done right. I do feel that 3 rings can do a lot for stability, and wide rings are better than skinny ones.

I had a 10" Waters and it was a snappy little feller, recoil-wise. I used both the T/C "Duo-Ring" base/ring combo (at first), and the Weaver 92A base/Leupold Rifleman ring combination later. Both held solid, but the Leupy rings were much kinder on the scope and are all I use on my T/C's anymore.

Welcome Rolly!
I tend to think your problem is in the rings or base.
That Bushnell Trophy is a pretty tough little scope. I had one on my Encore handgun in 450 Marlin shootng 420gr bullets at near 1800fps with no problems. I Guarantee that it was generating more recoil than the 7x30!
7x30 is a sweet caliber. 1st Contender barrel I ever had about 25yrs ago. Stick with it!

A person can spend a lot of time, money and aggravation trying to "save" some money, or they can invest in a T'SOB and 3 or 4 rings, coupled with a Leupold or Bushnell 3200 and be secure and happy.

I have a 45-70 barrel that wears a WEaver 92A base, Leupold Rifleman rings (three of them), and a Bushnell 2-6X Trophy scope. Several hundred rounds after this combo was assembled, it still works as good as the day I started shooting it. Never shifted zero.....ever!

The six screw base is certainly not needed on a Waters. Properly mount the Weaver and lap the scope rings (or use Burris Signature Zee rings) and all will be well. The dozens of Contender barrels in my safe can't be wrong.

I used the weaver 92A base and used a little steal bed to make sure it fit the barrel well. I used the standard weaver rings with blue loc-tite. they all stayed tite. perhaps more and better rings such as TSOB rings will work. What scopes do you think have the best reliability?

First welcome to HH!
I wouldn't hesitate to use a weaver style base (degreased with locktite strength that is proper-can't remember color/#), then I would use Burris Signature Zee Rings (2).
I have found that the Burris Signature Zee Rings have a better grip and more surface area than typical rings. They will not give you the typical "scope ring" either.
Bushnell's best variable is a good one, I have good success with Burris, and Leupold is good too.
Or just go with a fixed 4x Leupold.

Thank you all for the advice. I will try some higher quality rings and see if that makes a difference.

Welcome to the site Rolly!!!

Just an observation, please don't tkae this the wrong way. You said that the 2~6 didn't hold zero on the Waters barrel but later was fine on a 22 barrel. So we can rule out the scope. The mount is suspect, and the other guys have covered that. The gun is short, light and kind of whippy. So if you grip during recoil is not consistant from shot to shot and from shooting session to session, you will chase the POI all over.

I had 2 Warne rings on a 4 hole Weaver base on my 450 Marlin with no problems. Everything was put together with blue loctite.

I could be wrong but I felt like 2-6 worked on the 22 barrel because it produced little to no recoil. If I could start with a scope that I knew was good on a similar handgun maybe I could rule it out. how do I go about isolating the problem. I shoot from a rest using a consistent as possible two hand grip. I do not have access to a rest I can lock the pistol into to remove my error.

You stated that the 2X scope came from a 44 mag that worked fine. The 44 has the same or more recoil than the Waters barrel. So I'm really thinking it's not the scope.

The hold and rest that you describe sound good and repetable.

If you looked the mount over and it's tight and the rings are tight we can rule that out.

When you say it will not hold zero, what exactly is it doing? Are the shots junping all over the target? Are you getting a group that's not small enough to your liking? Is there a great deal of verticle stringing? At what distance are you shooting groups?

Just some thoughts to help diagnois the problem;
Is this a new barrel or a used one?
If you have owned this barrel for a while did it shoot good for you before changing scopes?
Are you using factory loads or handloads?
How does the crown look?

Buy the Bushnell 2-6X that I have for sale...I know it is good!! That will eliminate the possibility of a bad scope!!

Shameless ;-)

Well...if SOMEONE had not MADE me buy THEIR Competitor...I would not have to sell off my extras so the kids can eat!!

Honestly....it's for the kids that I need cash!! Really....

You don't have to pay a lot for strong rings. The Leupold Rifleman brand aluminum rings sell for $15 to $20 and they are all I use on Weaver bases. They are wide which gives leverage and the aluminum won't mar the scope tube. I feel that aluminum grips better than steel as well.

And, it always will be ;-)

I'll be yer whippin' boy, no prob. If that scope was silver I might could use it.

The shots are all over the place it is hard to keep it on the paper at 25 yds. The base shows no sign of being loose. everything locked down with loc-tite 242. The ring also tight with 242 loc-tite. Scope appeared to slip rearward in the rings slightly approx. 1/8 inch. When I use the open sights I can shoot good groups. perhaps adding more rings is the answer.

Rosin.....that the answer for sliding scopes. My 'smith gave me a knife blade scoop into a snuff can at least ten years ago. Still using that....a little bit goes a long way.

Perhaps different rings.

Rosin rocks! When my daughters went through gymnastics I had unlimited access. You can even use a rosin bag, any sporting goods store should have them. Another thing I have used is a tiny piece of the double sided tape you get with the 3M window insulator kits, it is super thin and tacky.

OK, sliding scope. Yes rosin will work. Any sporting goods store or a bowling alley will have it. I use address lables in my scope rings. Cut them to fit the ring and stick the lable to the ring. That little added grip will hold the scope.

My brother had a 458 Win Mag rifle and the scope would not hold in the rings. He was getting really frustrated. An old gunsmith told him to lightly dust the rings with flour. Guess what. That scope never moved again. Worked just like rosin. The old fellow passed on years ago. Sure wish we had learned more from the old guy.