OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Rifle Scopes
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Rugged Budget Scopes?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

Rugged Budget Scopes?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Message
seattlesetters View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/20/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote seattlesetters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 08:51
Originally posted by wshive wshive wrote:

That said, I would really like to be sold on a fixed scope, but I'm a bit scared to commit to just one magnification. Seems like for my purposes, the debate would be between 4x or 6x. Which one would I "regret" less? (Yes, someone please tell me, seriously.) Or perhaps I should just split the difference and get a 2-6 or 2-7? I know I'm flip-flopping on this subject, but I'm having a tough time trying to "predict" what I'm going to need given my absense practical experience.
I've hunted for over 35 years and the times I used a fixed power scope, the only thing I ever wished for was less magnification when using a 6x...to me, it was nearly useless in the woods. The times I've used 4x, I found it to be better-suited to all-around use than a 6x but again, I found myself wishing I had more field of view in the thick stuff.
 
If you are going to be hunting mostly open terrain, a 4x fixed is fine. Wide-open terrain is better for a 6x. Or, just get a 2-7x or 3-9x and hunt anywhere you like.
Back to Top
jetwrnch View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/03/2006
Location: Knoxville, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 294
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jetwrnch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 10:01
With boar in the mix I would (and did) consider a 1.25-4x20 or similar. An older El Paso Weaver K2.5 micro track can be had for well under $100 and work just fine. A new Weaver V3 would be another option at $150. GREAT little scope for the money and dang near bullet proof.
Back to Top
John Barsness View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist


Joined: January/27/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Barsness Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 13:05

seattlesetters,

Obviously we're all different. I have been hunting big game for 43 years now and killed my first deer at 40 FEET (not yards) with a 4x, no problem. Have killed more than one bull elk in thick stuff at under 100 yards with a 6x. Elk are a lot bigger than deer, and I've also taken a bunch of similar-sized game all over North America and in Africa at close ranges with 4-6x scopes. If they are specialized instruments for open country then my definition of open country must be different than yours.

I have also killed quite a bit of game with a 2.5x scope at up to 300 yards. Have also killed several head of big game at 200-350 yards with iron sights.
 
All of which is why I feel that, in general, magnification is way over-rated for general big game hunting. 
 
Extra magnification helps most when shooting in really dim light, because of twilight factor--or when shooting at REALLY long range, say beyond 400 yards. Even then, I have killed a bunch of animals neatly at over 400 with a 6x scope. 
 
But in general both field-of-view and magnification are over-rated in a normal hunting scope. The average hunter tends to obsess about them, however, just as he obsesses about a couple hundredths of an inch in bullet diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, or 200 fps in muzzle velocity. If you know the rifle, and know how to shoot, then a very wide range of scopes and ballistics will do the job on a very wide range of big game.
 
We tend to obsess over relatively small details in America because we have such an array of rifles and scopes that we feel that somehow we can pick the "perfect" combination for eveyr kind of hunting. In other countries, where firearms ownership is more limited and both rifles and scopes are really expensive, hunters tend to use one all-around rifle with an all-around scope--and often it's a fixed power, partly because of price and partly because of reliability. They don't worry much about whether 4x is exactly right for every range, or whether their 7x57 or .30-06 or .375 H&H is under-powered or over-powered. They just got out and hunt stuff.
 
In my experience the only reason most deer hunters even "need" 9x or 10x on a hunting scope is so they can spot their shots on a 100-yard target when sighting in. And the only reason they "need" 3x is to feel better at closer ranges. Fiddling with the magnification ring also makes them feel more confident because they feel "ready" for any shot, even though when the shot comes most of the time they could have just left the scope on 4-6x and got it done.
Back to Top
SD Dog View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
OT Scratching Post

Joined: February/28/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 4177
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SD Dog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 13:18
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

seattlesetters,

Obviously we're all different. I have been hunting big game for 43 years now and killed my first deer at 40 FEET (not yards) with a 4x, no problem. Have killed more than one bull elk in thick stuff at under 100 yards with a 6x. Elk are a lot bigger than deer, and I've also taken a bunch of similar-sized game all over North America and in Africa at close ranges with 4-6x scopes. If they are specialized instruments for open country then my definition of open country must be different than yours.

I have also killed quite a bit of game with a 2.5x scope at up to 300 yards. Have also killed several head of big game at 200-350 yards with iron sights.
 
All of which is why I feel that, in general, magnification is way over-rated for general big game hunting. 
 
Extra magnification helps most when shooting in really dim light, because of twilight factor--or when shooting at REALLY long range, say beyond 400 yards. Even then, I have killed a bunch of animals neatly at over 400 with a 6x scope. 
 
But in general both field-of-view and magnification are over-rated in a normal hunting scope. The average hunter tends to obsess about them, however, just as he obsesses about a couple hundredths of an inch in bullet diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, or 200 fps in muzzle velocity. If you know the rifle, and know how to shoot, then a very wide range of scopes and ballistics will do the job on a very wide range of big game.
 
We tend to obsess over relatively small details in America because we have such an array of rifles and scopes that we feel that somehow we can pick the "perfect" combination for eveyr kind of hunting. In other countries, where firearms ownership is more limited and both rifles and scopes are really expensive, hunters tend to use one all-around rifle with an all-around scope--and often it's a fixed power, partly because of price and partly because of reliability. They don't worry much about whether 4x is exactly right for every range, or whether their 7x57 or .30-06 or .375 H&H is under-powered or over-powered. They just got out and hunt stuff.
 
In my experience the only reason most deer hunters even "need" 9x or 10x on a hunting scope is so they can spot their shots on a 100-yard target when sighting in. And the only reason they "need" 3x is to feel better at closer ranges. Fiddling with the magnification ring also makes them feel more confident because they feel "ready" for any shot, even though when the shot comes most of the time they could have just left the scope on 4-6x and got it done.


Excellent  Amen.
If nobody ever said anything unless he knew what he was talking about, a ghastly hush would descend upon the earth. AP Herbert

Stupidity & ignorance have been the foundation for many certainties.
Back to Top
wshive View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/11/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wshive Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 14:28
Okay, I think I need to just man up and make a decision. One last question though: is it a good rule of thumb to assume that a fixed scope will have better low light visibility than a variable of comparable quality despite the variable's larger objective lens? Coatings and everything else being equal that is.
Back to Top
John Barsness View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist


Joined: January/27/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Barsness Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 14:41
A fixed scope tends to have fewer lenses than a variable, so is a little difference, as each lens-to-air surface tends to scatter a little light.
 
On the other hand, a fixed 4x scope with a 28mm objective allows all the light through it that the human eye can use. The exit pupil of such a scope is 7mm in diameter (28mm divided by 4 is 7mm) and the average human eye can only expand to 7mm in diameter.
 
If we turn a typical 3-9x40 scope to 4x it will have a 10mm exit pupil, but our eye can't use the "extra" light.
 
A 6x scope with a 42mm objective also has a 7mm exit pupil, and a 3-9x40mm scope will have a slightly smaller exit pupil when turned to 6x. In that case the 6x62mm scope would be slightly brighter in dim light than the 3-9x40 set of 6x, assuming equal quality lens systems, both because of a very slightly larger exit pupil and fewer lenses in the 6x.
 
 
Back to Top
seattlesetters View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/20/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote seattlesetters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 14:48
JB - I agree all individual experience is different.  I have found different needs hunting in the thick rainforests of the PNW. If I were to used a fixed-power scope up here, it would be a 2.5x at the very most.

I once passsed up a quick, going away shot on a big bull elk at 30 yards because I just couldn't discern enough elk through the 6x scope I was using at the time. Just saw too many tree branches, ferns, bushes, alders, etc. I can't say for sure if I'd had my trusty 2-7x variable (which would have certainly been set on 2x in such terrain) if I would have been able to make a shot or not. If so, that certainly means I could have made the shot with lower power fixed like a 2.5x. But on that day, a 6x fixed was a handicap (not because it was a fixed power scope, but because it was a 6x) which caused me to pass up a shot at the bull of a lifetime.

If I were to ever purcahse another fixed-power scope, I'd go with a 4x for sure for the type of hunting I do, and maybe even a 2.5x.
Back to Top
300S&W View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: January/27/2008
Location: Burlington,WV
Status: Offline
Points: 10592
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 300S&W Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 15:05
   We could really use more low to medium power fixed power scopes on the market. I've got my steel tubed Weavers in 2.5x,4x,and12x;a Denver Redfield in 2 3/4x;and a Weaver GS in 4.75x which,and someone correct me if I'm wrong,was the last attempt at bringing out a REALLY new fixed power scope for hunting. Of course,until the demand increases I guess we'll not see too many new additions.
"I ain't got time to bleed!"
Back to Top
ar15a292f View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: May/26/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 77
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ar15a292f Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 16:10
For under $200 I'd go with the Burris 3X-9X-40mm Fullfield II with the Balistic Plex reticle.
Back to Top
300S&W View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: January/27/2008
Location: Burlington,WV
Status: Offline
Points: 10592
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 300S&W Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 16:41
  Here's another good Burris selection. I'd really like the reticle I believe.
"I ain't got time to bleed!"
Back to Top
wshive View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/11/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wshive Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 17:10
Originally posted by 300S&W 300S&W wrote:

   We could really use more low to medium power fixed power scopes on the market. I've got my steel tubed Weavers in 2.5x,4x,and12x;a Denver Redfield in 2 3/4x;and a Weaver GS in 4.75x which,and someone correct me if I'm wrong,was the last attempt at bringing out a REALLY new fixed power scope for hunting. Of course,until the demand increases I guess we'll not see too many new additions.

There really are few 4x options to choose from. The only sub $200 scopes I could find are:

Weaver K 4x38
Nikon ProStaff 4x32
Leupold FX-I 4x28

I'm thinking of going with the weaver b/c of the big objective and the price seems to make it a good value. Also says they tested it with 10k rounds of 375 H&H! Sounds like plenty of durability for my '06. Wish it came in camo. Big Grin


Back to Top
wshive View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/11/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wshive Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 17:21
Oh, I forgot about the Sightron SII 4x32. Hmm... Sightron or weaver?
Back to Top
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 11814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote supertool73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 17:48
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

In my experience the only reason most deer hunters even "need" 9x or 10x on a hunting scope is so they can spot their shots on a 100-yard target when sighting in. And the only reason they "need" 3x is to feel better at closer ranges. Fiddling with the magnification ring also makes them feel more confident because they feel "ready" for any shot, even though when the shot comes most of the time they could have just left the scope on 4-6x and got it done.


That is the best comment I have seen in a while.  I have 3-9x on all my hunting guns.  But Very seldom do I ever shoot with it on anything but 3x as that is what I walk around with it on.  If I am sitting and am watching the game come in, that is a different story and I might turn it up a little. 

Good comment John.  Thunbs Up
Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack.

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."
Back to Top
John Barsness View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist


Joined: January/27/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Barsness Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 17:58
seattlesetters,
 
Thanks for a very good example. Here when we hunt thick stuff for elk here in Montana it's usually lodgepole thickets, and I find a 4x (or 6x) actually helps pick up elk (or mule deer) better because it helps differentiate horizontal elk parts from vertical trees. Plus the color of elk is very different than the trees. But I can see the problem with thick green vegetation, because I've also hunted elk in alders and willows in Canada and oak brush in the southwest.
 
I have nothing against 2.5 or 3x scopes and have them on several rifles, but do tend to go with 4x or 6x on animals taken in mixed terrain. Usually the 6x scopes go on rifles mostly used on deer, the 4x scopes on rifles used for bigger game. But even that is kinda nit-picky!
Back to Top
300S&W View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: January/27/2008
Location: Burlington,WV
Status: Offline
Points: 10592
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 300S&W Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 18:24
 wshive,that SII is probably a nice scope (I've got 2 Sightrons) BUT the tube length for mounting is only 4.4" which is why it's called a "Compact".  Something you might want to consider.  You'd not go wrong with that Weaver.
"I ain't got time to bleed!"
Back to Top
wshive View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/11/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wshive Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 20:55
Originally posted by 300S&W 300S&W wrote:

 wshive,that SII is probably a nice scope (I've got 2 Sightrons) BUT the tube length for mounting is only 4.4" which is why it's called a "Compact".  Something you might want to consider.  You'd not go wrong with that Weaver.

S&W, I didn't realize that--thanks for pointing it out. Hopefully that isn't a problem. I am leaning towards the Sightron but maybe my prefence will be moot if it doesn't fit!
Back to Top
300S&W View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: January/27/2008
Location: Burlington,WV
Status: Offline
Points: 10592
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 300S&W Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/17/2009 at 06:12
  wshive,the shortest distance between rings I can get on my long action S&W without going to a rail mount is 5 1/4". 
"I ain't got time to bleed!"
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.132 seconds.