Multi barrel zeroing experiences and scope choices

[Rick - Mauser M03 Blog author]

Rick here. I've copied a Mauser M03 Blog comment from Don, along with my reply over to this forum, for easier to and fro discussion. Feel free to join in with your thoughts folks.

Don wrote:

Hi Rick

I have a few more questions for you if I may, but I will tell you a little about myself first.
I have only had my gun licence for about a year so I am a novice with firearms.
My first rifle, like most people, was a .22. For my first center fire rifle I didn't want to muck around and buy low or middle of the range, wanted something special, reliable, accurate and as safe a possible. Like you, it's very hard to go past the M03!
My M03 is the stalker package in 270 standard barrel and 9.3/62 in the short 20" fluted barrel using a Ziess Victory V8 1.8-14x50 rail scope with ASV - I love it!!!
I am facing some slight challenges that I am hoping you might be able to help me with.
90% of the shooting with the m03 has been with the 270, working with different ammo to find the best that suited the rifle. Hornady American whitetail in 130 grain has been the best. I have found the 9.3 disappointing. I have found ammo that shoots well, but I still wont to work on that. I have also found the repeatability with barrel change on both calibers fine. It's the difference in where the 270 to the 9.3 hits on the target. The 9.3 hits 11" down and 8.5" to the right at 100mt. A good friend of mine has a Sauer multi barrel rifle in 308 and 9.3 with the same size barrels and without changing his scope is only out by an inch. I understand that I have different barrels and a bigger difference in caliber velocities, but I expected they would be closer.
If it was closer, I was hoping just to make a small scope adjustment and then swap ASV rings and it would be spot on.
To me, I think I will just have to by another scope and base. I am not really interested in continually adjusting my scope that much. I have no problems buying another scope but would like some advice.
I was thinking of using the 1.8-14x50 Ziess scope for the 9.3 and or an aim point h34l for some fun and getting a victory V8 2.8-20x56 with asv for the 270, however you may have some better options here???
If I was doing it all again and I wanted to try and use only 1 scope I would try and find 2 or 3 calibers that had the similar velocities like a 22-250, 270 and 300 win mag?, again any input would be greatly appreciated as I am only a novice.
I look forward to hearing from you.


Cheers Don

Rick replied:

Hi Don. I'll be very happy to help. Others may chime in too, so keep an eye out for further comments. What I will also do is copy your question and my reply over to the Mauser M03 Blog Discussion Forum, for which there is a link at the top of this page. It doesn't see a lot of traffic, but is a better medium for back and forth discussions. You can decide where you prefer to write - here or there. I'll follow you. :-)

Firstly, congratulations on your quick progression to the quality end of rifle and scope technology. I'm impressed. A 270 Win and 9.3x62 is a great combination; very versatile. I have a friend with a similar M03 combination and I will ask him for input on how the two barrels print. I know already that they are individually accurate.

I think you are right in your analysis; the separation in impact points is being caused by both internal and external ballistics. Let's look at external ballistics first. The 270 bullets are travelling faster and are more streamlined. Their higher velocity and ballistic coefficient means they drop less than the 9.3s. This is likely to be part of the reason why the 270 is printing so much higher at 100m. 

However, I think it's the internal ballistics we really need to look at, i.e. what's happening before the bullets leave the barrels. You might be aware that when rifles are fired the barrels vibrate and whip around like a water hose that's held a few of feet from the end, just faster and not as much. The trick in choosing factory ammunition or developing hand loads is finding a load where the vibrations are minimal and consistent, as well as one where the bullet leaves the barrel when the vibration is at a peak. At that point, the barrel will momentarily stop moving before changing direction. If each bullet in a string leaves at that same peak, a small group should result. Herein lies the root of what can happen with a switch barrel system. Accurate loads for multiple barrels can end up being well separated, because that accuracy comes from bullets leaving the barrels at the respective peak points of vibration. The variables of barrel length, barrel profile, calibre, powder burning rate, chamber pressure curve, projectile bearing surface, projectile jacket hardness, etc, etc, all add up to make it far from likely that two quite different set ups will shoot side by side at 100 metres.

If we look at what you are dealing with (provided I understand correctly), you have two barrel and ammunition combinations that are true to the most likely scenario, the bullets don't land in the same place. At first look, that's annoying. However, my take on it is this. These two barrels were never going to shoot groups through the same minute of angle circle and if by some miracle they did, that would only happen at one distance. At all other distances external ballistics would pull the trajectories apart. So, adjusting the shared scope's turrets and ASV rings was always going to be required. I know you knew that. :-) As long as the number of clicks required fall within the scope's range of adjustment, we're having a win. I'd be feeling mighty unhappy if the clicks ran out before I was making holes where I needed them. Unless I was looking for justification to buy another scope! Therein lies a possibility - find some 9.3x62 ammo that's wonderfully accurate but so far away from the 270 that you just have to get that new scope!

Turning to the question of which scope, well, now it gets really interesting. If you have an excellent gun shop nearby, they might have S&B, Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss scopes in stock. Kahles and Steiner too perhaps, if it's a particularly good shop. :-) Looking through these in quick succession and in the right conditions is quite revealing. In the post linked below I wrote about all of the trade offs there are in scope design, but in summary, we can have the highest light transmission numbers possible, or the best flat field and edge to edge sharpness, but not both. That edge to edge sharpness and lack of field curvature comes from including additional lens elements in the design, which chew up light, as well as add weight and cost. Which is better? For me, it depends on what mood I'm in and what I'm using the optics for. A simple point is, we look through spotting scopes for many minutes at a time, sometimes adding up to hours in a day. It's important that the image quality across the field of view is excellent. A flat focal plane and edge sharpness is much appreciated. Then, we look through binoculars for up to a minute at a time. Excellent sharpness across the central two-thirds of the field is important; the edges less so. We can always adjust the position of our eyes slightly, if adjusting the binocular's aim point is a hassle. Lastly, we look through a rifle scope for only seconds at a time, but the quality of the image in the middle of the field is of the highest importance. A lower quality image at the edges of the view is certainly irritating, but of no consequence when lining up where to quickly place a bullet, relative to the cross-hair.

When purchasing my Zeiss Victory HT scopes I put a lot of emphasis on low light performance, knowing I would often be using them at night, under spotlight or moonlight. I was aware that they would not make my eyes pop with fascination like the Leica ER and Magnus scopes, or the Swarovski scopes I tried. The field curvature that is a 'feature' (not a flaw) of the Victory HT scopes results from their 'as few as possible' lens elements design. They work well for what I bought them for. 

If I won the lottery and could buy a new set of scopes, I'd be looking hard at those Leicas and Swaros again. Their image quality, at the expense of three or so percent of light transmission compared to the Victory HTs, would put a smile on my face each time I lifted my Mauser up to see what the heck that is over there. 

I guess I'm suggesting that a good place to start with scope selection is to really nail down what the main point in choosing the optic is. Best on-paper light transmission, or best image quality? Will you always carry some useful binoculars when hunting, or use a Mark I eyeball, with a rifle pulled off the shoulder and lifted to the that eye when needed? To keep weight down I've dumped the binos of late, hence my heightened interest in scopes with nice and flat, edge to edge sharpness. Don't get me wrong, my Zeiss Victory HTs are also sharp from edge to edge, it's just that the significant field curvature means that what's sharp at the edges is much closer than what's sharp in the centre.

Chances are you will use the 9.3 in tough country, chasing gnarly critters. They might not always be the kind that want to eat you but they're probably going to be a good size. Shots will sometimes be up close. You won't be head shooting rabbits at 200 metres with it, though you might swat the occasionally bunny at 100 to check the sights. :-) As such, weight and size, along with a bias towards lower magnifications, will be a factor. I'm thinking a scope with a smaller objective, lower power and lower weight could be worth thinking about. Such scopes should be less expensive too. When I'm walking around with my 270 I keep my scope at 4x. It's high enough to help my eyes evaluate detail at distances and low enough for pop-up pigs at 6 metres. I dial up to 10x for a set shot at distance if time permits. Higher power is always handy when shooting groups at the range, but try not to let that influence decisions on the best scope for hunting. The same point applies to scopes with parallax reduction focusing rings - great for sniping or long range target work - not so for walk-about stalking; guaranteed to be set for the wrong distance when a fleeting shot presents. 

Re the V8 2.8-20x56; that's the kind of scope I'd use with a 243 or 6.5 barrel, for long shots on small targets, having carried it from one end of my Landcruiser to the other end. It wouldn't be the first scope to come to mind for my 270, largely because it must weigh a bit. I'm actually thinking that your V8 1.8-14x50 is a good fit for the 270. I'd keep it for use with that barrel and look into what's best for the 9.3, at the lower end of the magnification scale.

That's a long enough comment for the moment. :-) Please get back to me with what you think. BTW, it's your money and they're your eyes, so be sure to please yourself with any choices you make.

Regards, Rick.

Here's the link I mentioned, on scope design compromises.

http://mauserm03blog.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/zeiss-victory-ht-scopes-on-mauser-m03.html

[Rick - Mauser M03 Blog author]

Hello again Don. 

I was just talking with the friend I mentioned, who uses two barrels similar to yours on the one M03 receiver. When he was using only the one scope it was normal for him to see impact point separation of 8 or so inches between the barrels at 100 metres. Furthermore, with the smaller barrel alone, using bullets with a difference of around 30 grains could cause a separation of 4 inches (100mm). If we extrapolate this to your situation where the difference in bullet weight is over 100 grains and the difference in muzzle velocity is around 600 fps, along with the difference in ballistic coefficient, well, a shot separation of about a foot at 100 metres seems quite predictable. While we would all like to see the results your friend with the Sauer 308 and 9.3 is experiencing, I'm calling that a serendipitous rather than expected.

Regards, Rick.

[Don]

Hi Rick 

Thank you very much for your help 

I will leave the Ziess on the 270 and find a new scope for the 9.3 

The main use for the 9.3 is for Sambar in the thick bush, i would like to get up north and find some pigs but don't have a place to shoot them

I will certainly be using it in low light so something with high light gathering and a illuminated reticle

I do like scopes that have a larger diameter  tube and a fine reticle, i find it just easier to see out of

I thought a 2x10 type scope with asv type set up, I would think that most Sambar shooting will be done around the 50 mt to 150 mt range

but if i see the big trophy across the gully at 250 mt and with the big drop from the 9.3 I thought asv set up may come in handy

Tomorrow i am going down to Rob at Mialls gun shop and have a look, they are just down the road

Cheers Don

[Don]

Hi Rick

with your scope adjustment do you just memorize where you left it last

or do you have some sort of base position that you adjust from

Cheers Don

[Don]

Hi Rick 

I work really hard save my money and have always tried with every thing i do to buy better things, i think it just works out cheaper in the end

ie I run a mechanical workshop that specializes in euro cars but i drive a Land cruiser :-)

But not everyone can do that so for some people buying  a M03 with multible barrels and then 2 or 3 scopes and mauser bases is above their limit

So do you think that if you had a m03 with 3 different calibers that suited the full range of game from small to medium and to large or dangerous game 

could there be 3 calibers that would work in a similar way that you could use the 1 scope with and only have to make minor adjustments to change calibers?

i have not seen it but i would have thought that Blaser, Mauser, Sauer would have tested that and worked out what compinations of ammo and barrels work?

Cheers don

[Rick - Mauser M03 Blog author]

Hi Don. The scope I'm using with two barrels is a Kahles K624i, which has turrets with nice clicks that are well numbered. I have a Note on my iPhone for all of my shooting records and I keep track of the scope-to-barrel settings on that. For example, with the 6.5x55 barrel I'm presently using the third hand load I've developed, and Load 3 is zeroed at 100m with 123 clicks Up and 13 clicks Right. If I switch to the 243 Win barrel, as I did a couple weeks ago when I reassembled the whole rifle, my iPhone shooting Note tells me that for Load 2 with that barrel I need to set the scope to 106 Up and 9 Right for zero at 100m. So this method complies with your suggestion of having a base position to then adjust from, being 0 and 0 on the two turrets. I think this is an easier system to work with than trying to remember, 'To go from this barrel to that barrel I have to move six up and nine right. Whereas, to go from that barrel to this barrel I have to move nine left and six down.' I tried the latter approach in the first instance with my barrels and boy is it a good way to get confused, so much that I could miss the target paper altogether!

[Rick - Mauser M03 Blog author]

Hi Don. I think it would be perfectly feasible to have one receiver, three barrels and one scope, to cover the full range of game a hunter is likely to meet. Here in Oz a good combination in this respect would be a 243 Win for rabbits and foxes, including when the wind is blowing, then a 270 Win for pigs and small to medium deer and a 9.3x62 for large deer and the like, in scruffy country where a reliable knock down is helpful. The latter would also be an adequate choice for a hunting trip in North America or Africa, up to a point. As for a scope, something like your Ziess Victory V8 1.8-14x50 has a great range of magnification, good light gathering and great optical performance. Hard to beat. 14 power is plenty for sniping at small critters out to 250m, while 1.8 is ideal for scrub bashing for a deer that won't move until you're almost stepping on it. Honk! It's an amazing scope. They came out a few months after I'd bought my Victory HTs. Hmmm. Always happens. :-)

[Rick - Mauser M03 Blog author]

Hi Don. When you're looking at scopes, keep in mind that it's the objective lens size that determines how much light is gathered and passed into the tube, and therefore how much reaches our eyes, not the tube diameter. Larger diameter tubes provide more room than narrower tubes for moving the internal optics up and down and side to side, hence more room for a wider range of adjustment, via more clicks. Salesmen often get this light transmission thing wrong. :-| Say to yourself three times before putting your head on the pillow tonight - 'The scope's tube diameter has no effect upon its light transmission properties.' :-) 

Another benefit of wider tubes is that they can allow for optical designs that involve less severe bending of the light, and therefore lower refractive index lenses, with less distortion and chromatic aberrations. That is, better optical performance, and quite possibly at lower cost than would be the case if exotic lenses were needed to bend that light more whilst keeping it tidy. Now try to construct a sensible sentence that includes the words 'Leica' or 'Schmidt & Bender' together with 'lower cost'. Not possible. :-)

A 2-10x42 or 50 scope would be great for the 9.3. I dare you to look through a Leica ER or Magnus scope while you're there at Mialls. Aim it out through the door at those brick walls across the street, with a rest against the cabinet to reduce the shake. OMG! They are nice! :-D If you compare to the Zeiss Victory HT equivalents, you might notice the field curvature I've been talking about, a consequence of a simpler optical design with fewer elements. The HTs are lighter, brighter (tell me if you can actually see that, in daylight) and probably cheaper. Oops, I mean, less expensive!

Of course, it's valid to weight up how often the scope on your 9.3 will be used and to factor that in to a value judgement. John Miall will say that his ranking of these scopes goes from Schmidt & Bender as best, then Leica, then Swarovski, then Zeiss. Within reason, he might have a point, but there's nothing wrong with Zeiss scopes. I have a Leupold 2-7 on my old Remington 30-06. When I bought it about 27 years ago I thought it was pretty damn good. And expensive. I get a fright when I look through it these days, but guess what? It does the job, every time! :-) And it's been through hell compared to the pampering my new German scopes get. 

I'll be happy to compare thoughts with you on what you find from your trip to Miall's.

Regards, Rick. 

[Don]

Hi Rick

What do you think of this one 

3-12x54 PM II Ultra Bright

[Rick - Mauser M03 Blog author]

Hi Don. Hmmm, nice scope. No doubt about that. But I don't think it's the right scope for a 9.3. It's more of a tactical scope. The parallax adjustment will mean it will be in focus at some distance but out of focus at all others - not what you want for a sneak about hunting rifle. Sambar tend to bolt if they think you're too close. Quick shooting is the key, so a scope with fixed parallax at 100m will be the most suitable. I think it'll be too heavy for stalking.

Final nail in the coffin could be the 'new' label I see on S&B's page. For them that usually means not available for ages after announcement.

Consider something like a 1.5-6x42 Zeiss Victory HT or similar in the other Zeiss models, or in the other brands. The biggest scope I'd consider for a 9.3 would be a 2.5-10x50 ish sort of thing. Anything bigger will be heavier than I'd want to carry for Sambar hunting. Stupidly steep hills out there. And they're not exactly small targets! Even at distance.

[Don]

This may be better for me 

2.5-10x50 Polar T96

[Rick - Mauser M03 Blog author]

Yeah, that's more like it. 96% transmission. Geez that's getting right up there. This is a nice scope, one to enjoy owning and using. Envious, I would be. :-)

[Don]

Hi Rick

Thank you very much for your help I have learnt a lot

with the Kahles K624i and your zero setting is that at the base of its adjustment and the you adjust it up 123 clicks and 13 clicks to the right

Cheers Don

[Rick - Mauser M03 Blog author]

Hi Don.

The scope adjustment numbers I have quoted are literally those that I see on the turrets when the bullets go through the target square at 100m. The elevation turret has 250 clicks of adjustment in total, from maximum depression to maximum elevation, equating to 2.5m of adjustment range at 100m. Now because this is a tactical scope it's possible to loosen some grub screws that hold the turret adjustment ring to the turret's spline, and then spin the ring around until it says 0 for where the bullets are going at 100m. Very handy, especially if the shooter is using the scope with one rifle and one standardised load, such as military snipers do. However, I'm not doing that. I'm using the scope with two barrels and I'm still developing favourite hand loads, so I haven't touched those screws yet. My elevation and windage turrets are still at the factory preset, where maximum depression is zero on the turret and maximum elevation is up at 250. That means the middle of the scopes adjustment range will be about 125 for elevation and 0 for windage, noting that the windage turret has a plus and minus scale.

They key point is, I have not needed to dial in 123 clicks to get the crosshair and the bullet hole at 100m to line up. I've only had to adjust by a few clicks.

Does this hit the spot? Let me know if further queries come up.

Regards, Rick.

[Don]

Hi Rick hope you are well

I returned your PM did you get mine ?

I have been under the pump a bit but I did spend the weekend doing the ADA Deer Hunters coarse, one the best things I have done

I thing I hate at the moment is gun shops,  my first gun was a 22 and I looked at scopes and found a 3-12x50 scope which I though looked great and the glass was nice

but i find out later that its parallax is at 100 mt and they don't say a thing, i will just have to get the right scope for the 22 and use the other one for something else

i am going to review all my scopes that i have for my rifles 

Anyway i have ordered a aimpoint H34L for the 9.3 it looks like allot of fun, and from what i have been told most Sambar deer are shot at less that 100 mt 

i still am going to get a normal type scope for the 9.3, hopefully the upcoming Melbourne shot show will have plenty of scopes to look at

if you were in my position which scope would you get for the 9.3?

Cheers Don 

[Rick - Mauser M03 Blog author]

Hi Don. Yes I saw your private message reply. I was waiting to hear more on your plans re new scopes, which has come along I see. I agree that an Aimpoint would be a lot of fun and a good choice for a 9.3 for up close quick shooting. The nice thing about a Mauser M03 is that it's easy to have an Aimpoint and a riflescope ready to go for the one barrel, which you may indeed end up doing.

I'm glad to hear about your plans to visit the Shot Show - I was going to suggest that. There might even be some good deals going. Certainly S&B have indicated that they have some deals organised to coincide with the show. The latest SSAA magazine had an advertisement along those lines.

Re what scope I'd get for the 9.3. It would either be a 1.5-6 or 2.5-10 style scope. I thought that the S&B 2.5-10x50 Polar looked like a great solution, particularly if Sambar and other large critters here in Aus will be the main targets. If a trip to Africa was on the cards, I'd be leaning more towards the 1.5-6 direction. Nevertheless, the Polar scope mentioned will not be too big for such a trip. It looks like a great scope to me. As mentioned, I'm quite happy with my 2.5-10x50 Zeiss Victory HT, but if starting again, would look very closely at the Leica and Swaro equivalents, if I hadn't already bought one of those S&B Polars!

Re your scope on the 22, a 100m parallax is normal for such a scope and will be absolutely fine for shooting bunnies from 25m, to 50 and 75m. Even 100m if the rifle is good for that. No need to change that one. I used an old Hunter fixed 4x scope with a 40mm objective on a Ruger 10/22 for years and shot thousands of rabbits with it. Its parallax was at 100m and was never a problem. Scopes with parallax/focussing adjustment are really only needed with sniping style rifles, such as my .17 Remington and 220 Swift, where shots at 200-300m are the norm. Even then, the parallax system is often a pain when spotlighting, as it's so often on the wrong distance setting, providing a blurry image when a quick shot is needed. I recall when a mate and I were knocking one fox after another over, when one sat there at 40m, just looking at us, thinking it was hidden in the bracken. I couldn't find it with my 6-20 Leopold, because the scope was just a blur at that distance, being set on 200. Finally I realised that the blurry orange of the bracken I was sweeping over was also the fox, which was HUGE in the scope. 'What? Is that it?' I thought. I realised I couldn't miss and quickly fired before it ran, even though it was just an out of focus mess. Fixed focus scopes are definitely the go when quick shooting is the order of the day. Or night.

Regards, Rick.

[Don]

Hi Rick 

With the Polar T96 i have the option for a reticle in the first focal or second Focal plane

which would you recommend ?

i am really looking forward to the shot show hopefully they have plenty of stock

Whats next for you with your MO3 i though you said that a 300 winmag might be next

i think i saw some 300 winmag standard barrels on special from US

I have got a extreme stock coming for mine

Cheers Don

[Rick - Mauser M03 Blog author]

Hi Don. I apologise for not getting to this yesterday. I was out on an all-nighter on Wednesday night, making the most of the full moon and clear night. Great fun to be able to see the lie of the land without headlights or spotlight. You'll see a story on this on the blog later today.

Now, to your question on a reticle for the Polar scope. It would be an idea to read my post on this subject, called Reticles - First Focal Plane vs Second Focal Plane . This link should open the post, but if not, try this:

http://mauserm03blog.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/reticles-first-focal-plane-versus.html

It's a long article but if you can stick with it, it'll explain the benefits of each reticle plane. 

First focal plane reticles are best for sniping at long distances. The scale of the reticle stays proportional to the image as the scope is zoomed. And, the turret's clicks can be designed to be proportional to the reticle divisions. In this way, if a bullet strike is observed to be 1 Milliradian below the rabbit due to drop over distance and 2 Milliradians right due to wind, this can easily be corrected with 10 clicks up and 20 clicks left, just as the next bunny enters from stage left. The ideal situation is to have a friend observing your shots with a first focal plane scope of their own, to then call out the corrections. This is how military sniper teams work. First focal plane reticles are less suitable for walk-around hunting. The reticle lines can be too fine at low powers, or if designed to be useable at low powers, they can be too fat at high powers. Nevertheless, a first focal plane scope with a reticle that is designed for hunting rather than sniping can be OK for stalking or static hunting. The increased thickness of the reticle lines at higher zoom settings can be useful in dim dusk light conditions. That is to say, I wouldn't eliminate a seemingly ideal hunting scope from consideration simply because it's reticle is in the first focal plane.

Scopes with reticles in the second focal plane are generally more convenient for stalking, including for settled long shots if they present. With these scopes, the appearance of the reticle, i.e. the thickness of the lines, doesn't change as the scope is zoomed in or out. The reticle is designed to be ideal for the application in mind, and will always be that way, regardless of the zoom setting. As you zoom in, the animal grows but the reticle doesn't. 

I have only one scope with a first focal plane reticle. It's the Kahles K624i. I love using it with my 243 Win and 6.5x55 barrels for long shots on rabbits and foxes, and for long range target shooting, as well as load development work. But it's rotten for walk-about hunting, where it's important to have the zoom turned down in case a quick shot is necessary, or for just looking through the scope at unclear objects in the distance. The reticle is so fine at the low power settings that the cross-hair is virtually invisible. Nope, for general hunting, a scope with a second focal plane reticle will always be more useable. The Leopold's on my old Remington 30-06, and on my 220 Swift and my Sako 17 Remington are all second focal plane. My newer Zeiss Victory HT scopes, used on my Mauser M03s in 270 Win and 30-06, are all second focal plane.

So my recommendation for a scope to go with your 9.3x62 barrel, to be used in thick country while chasing big and fast beasties, would be for one with a second focal plane reticle. But as stated above, if the only choice is first focal plane, you'll manage with it, provided it's a hunting oriented reticle.

Re barrel choices for me, my original plan was to pick up a 300 Win Mag and a 222 Rem barrel in the Match profile. Frankly I'm less interested now that Mauser has reduced the barrel lengths by 3 and 4cm respectively, but the idea is still there. I really have to make some serious enquiries about Mauser's ability to make custom barrels for the M03. A contact in the UK had one made in 338 Remington Ultra Magnum; apparently not a problem, though it attracted a hefty but not unreasonable custom barrel fee.

Good luck at the shot show. I'm sure you'll see plenty of scopes. Be sure to get in touch with the scope company reps and let them know what you'd like to see in particular. They'll do their best to bring those along. Try emailing in...@schmidt-bender.de to make your requests. They'll be choosing which scopes to bring right now. :-)

Regards, Rick.