Looking for a DG scope, one comes to the conclusion that there is no such critter. Some are good approximates, but – as far as I'm concerned – all fall short in one respect or the other.

On bolt actions, some existing scopes come very close to be "it", but on doubles they all have the serious drawback of being in the way when you need to reload fast.

So-called Scout scopes, designed to be mounted forward of the action, have a magnification of 2-2.5 and are unsuitable for truly aiming with both eyes open.

I have drawn a specs sheet of what would be a real DG scope the way I understand it (some features like waterproof, optical quality, etc. are taken for granted as high-end manufacturers do incorporate these anyway):

- Magnification, from true 1 to 4 (or 6 as Swaro is making now): The scope can then really be used for fast sighting with both eyes open.

- Eye relief, 200 to 220mm: The scope can be mounted forward of the action on bolt actions, and forward of the breech on doubles: it won't interfere with reloading, especially on doubles.

- Ocular diameter, 35-36mm max (like the Nickel Magnum): The scope can be mounted as close to the iron sights line as possible (in an ideal world, scope and irons should be on the same line of sight...)

- Illuminated Flash Dot (if it works it's there to help, if it does not work you still have a good scope)

- Reticle plane, I'd favour 1st plane as this is a simpler and sturdier internal set-up.

I'd like to have inputs from those who have also felt "I wish the darn thing was...", and those who have in-depth knowledge of optics, as this may be used to develop such a scope.

Thanks!

The Leupolds, 1-4, 1.5-5, illuminated or not, your choice.

quote:

So-called Scout scopes, designed to be mounted forward of the action, have a magnification of 2-2.5 and are unsuitable for truly aiming with both eyes open.

Actually, I have found that one of the major advantages of a scout scope is the ability to use both eyes when shooting. I believe that was one of the main reasons for their development.

I'm a real fan of the Leupold Vari X-III 1.75x6X, and never found anything with my 375 H&H that I couldn't shoot. Fast or slow, one or both eyes, it just worked every time. Used on 41 animals in Namibia. I haven't had the opportunity at DG (yet), but have no doubt it will be perfect!

Jim,

I have a Leupold FX 2.5x28, AKA Scout. Yes, you can keep both eyes open when aiming at a more or less stationary target if it's not too close, but it's much harder if you want to get something that is moving close to you.

I wouldn't want to have to point-acquire target-shoot at something big closing in fast with it. For that, I'd be better off with my XS ghost ring.

Blank, I also have a VXIII 1.75-6. Had it on a .375 for some years, and it's a great scope. But when in thick stuff, with things the size of a train liable to come crashing out from just-try-and-guess-where, I did not feel comfortable enough with it to leave it on. There is that fraction of second to acquire the sight picture, the thin reticle, in short it just does not cut it.

I also have a S&B Zenith Flash dot, and have tried Meopta, Swaro, Zeiss (even Tasco, once... Binned it after the first day of use, and decided to never waste my time again with bargains)

Any available variable today has too short an eye relief to be mounted forward of the breech on a double.

I'm not saying that there are no good scopes around, but I'm saying that they all lack a wee something to be right the ticket.

Any scope with 1 power is true two eyes open. The Burris Euro Diamonds are wonderful, esp. when you factor the price, but suffer from overly long eye pieces. Many of the european scopes do too but some models were addressed. If you want to spend that kind of money go for it but check the length of the eyepiece.

Philip A,
You might want to take a look at Leupolds heavy duplex. It addresses the slightly skimpy recticle of the standard Leupold nicely.

Showbart,
For me a 1x or 1.5X scope actually looks farther away than the naked eye. At 2.5X as near as I can tell my brain sees (processes?) no magnification at all. I have no trouble shooting 20 X varmint scopes with both eyes open. Some people with normal dominence can't shoot with both eyes with anything. I find it interesting how people "see" different things, when they are looking at the same thing. It does complicate recommending scopes for other people.

My gunsmith tells me he has mounted quite a few of the red dot sights like the Trijicon on doubles. No magnification and compact enough to stay out of the way when opening the action. I would like to see the new one by Zeiss. I understand it's a beaut!

A DG scope should be small and compact, have a 20 MM obj lens. It should not extend too far beyond the rings. Big scopes are easily knocked out of adjustments, if you don't believe this then shoot a group, knock the scope a lick on the front and shoot another. High power varibles continue to get folks into trouble on as they still end up on the higher settings at the most improper times.

MY favorite DG scope is still the old Leupold 3X, it still works in spades...I also like the 1x4 and 1.5x5 Leupolds, but again a fixed scope is still more dependable than a varible, and anyone that believes otherwise is ill informed, or a product of some creative advertisment.

I asked a very high ranking scope person, if fixed powers were more reliable than varibles, and he said that was a secret and laughed, but he did admit that they seldom got fixed power scopes back for repairs and they got a lot of varibles, I pushed a bit more and he said, "of course fixed are more dependable, they have less parts, and that's all I'm going to tell you, because you know the answer to the question, I'm buying what are you drinking?"

One more thing I might add is that I would just as soon shoot iron sights on a DGR for Africa, a shallow V or a non adjustable filed in Ghost Peep. Now that combo is 99% dependable.

Philip: Thanks for the real-world experienced comments. Have yet to hunt the densest of areas for the big guys, but can't wait for the opportunity. I also love the XS Ghost Ring sights, and am planning on ordering some for several muzzleloaders today.

I do the vast majority of my shooting at all game with fixed power 3X, 4X, or 6X scopes, and practice on Idaho jackrabbits. This way I stay practiced up on target acquisition. Like Ray says, a good 2.5 or K3 is pretty hard to beat if you practice a lot.

Leopold is advertising's a new tactical scope that is very interesting in this aspect. it is very compact.

http://www.leupold.com/tactical/products/scopes/

While we are on the subject of Leupold Mark 4 scopes, how about the CQ/T 1-3x with the vari-illuminated circle dot reticle? I have one on my new Wilson UT-15 but did not get it out to shoot it yet. It might just be the cats ass.

Els, that Leupold looks nice and compact, but it's a tactical, very short eye relief and fixed 1 power.

Ray, fully agree that fixed power are more dependable (no complicated zoom mechanism to knock off). But they are... Fixed. Too much, or not enough magnification, depending on what you want to do.

Also agree that a DG scope should be straight tube (20 or 24mm objective), as small and compact as possible.

Now, I'm not asking about existing scopes, since there are none that incorporate all the features I listed.

My question is, if a scope should be developed by a top-notch manufacturer, specifically for DG, then:

- Are the features I listed going in the right direction?

- Are there other essential features that should be incorporated?

I'm asking because the development of such a scope is a possibility, and preliminary info is needed for assessment.

The idea would be to have a scope that you could leave on in 99% of the circumstances, unless it's been trampled by a four-footed or four-wheeled creature.

It should be good for taking a duiker at 150m+, and facing an unexpected charge from 10m (I'm saying "unexpected", knowingly following a wounded beast in the thick is not on the agenda).

It should be as close as possible to the iron sights line, and it should not be in the way if you need to reload a double or a bolt action in haste.

It should be fine for warthog pickin' in the day, and leopard at night, and going back to camp on foot at dusk in lion country.

In short, I'd like to define the features that would make a scope 1st natural choice anytime someone asks "What scope do I want to take on my African hunt?".

quote:

Originally posted by Philip A.:
Els, that Leupold looks nice and compact, but it's a tactical, very short eye relief and fixed 1 power.

I'm unsure of a good mount system for this prismatic scope on a bolt rifle, but it does not have short eye relief at all. It has 5" of eye relief, a wide field of view and is suggested by Leupold to be the toughest scope they have ever made.

quote:

Originally posted by Philip A.:
Ray, fully agree that fixed power are more dependable (no complicated zoom mechanism to knock off). But they are... Fixed. Too much, or not enough magnification, depending on what you want to do.

I thought what you wanted to do was the scope should be a DG scope? Shouldn't that then be a low power fixed or low power variable??

quote:

Originally posted by Philip A.:
My question is, if a scope should be developed by a top-notch manufacturer, specifically for DG, then:

The idea would be to have a scope that you could leave on in 99% of the circumstances,

It should be good for taking a duiker at 150m+, and facing an unexpected charge from 10m (I'm saying "unexpected", knowingly following a wounded beast in the thick is not on the agenda).

In short, I'd like to define the features that would make a scope 1st natural choice anytime someone asks "What scope do I want to take on my African hunt?".

That doesn't sound like your talking about a DG scope at all. Like asking for the best stopping cartridge for DG, but it must be good for 99% hunting situations of non-DG and for longer range shots. Sounds like it should be "What should be an All-Purpose scope?".

GVA

This is it, for big bores. What more do you want? If you don't want lights then get the other but you go down to a 1" tube from 30mm.

http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/sc...x20mm-illum-reticle/

This is it, for medium bores. 1-4x24mm. All are 30mm.

http://www.burrisoptics.com/eurodiamond.html

Now, how much do you want to spend? I don't know that the high dollar scopes are better configured. In fact they are often alot like the Burris, hence the name of the series. But the eyepiece is TOO LONG and you will get knocked good in a DG situation. You can go to alot of trouble and expense to mount it extended forward but it will be in the way of the ejection port. Whether it gets you killed or not is up to you and the beast.

My favorite for years has been the 1.5-5x Leupold V-III with heavy duplex. It has excellent eye relief, is light weight, amd I have never had one fail in any way (mounted on 416 Rem, 375 H&H,6.5x55) during several safaris. However, there may be a better scope for DG--I just mounted one of the new Leupold V-7, 1.5-6x scopes on my remodled 375, and I really like it.

Pros: Excellent eye relief
Less critical position of eye relative to scope axis
Brighter optics than the V-III
Wider FOV
Better windage and elev adjustment turrets
Better light gathering in low light

Cons: Several ounces heavier than V-III
30mm tube--it's bulkier, but looks OK on a large rifle
Much pricier than the V-III

So far the range tests have been very good; I have not yet taken it hunting and can't verify its ruggedness. My preliminary evaluation is to keep it on the 375 because I may do a safari that includes a leopard, and the low-light issue would be important. I probably won't put it on the 416 because the V-III ain't broke and doesn't need fixin.

Should be great, it's a Leupold, I've considered one... and it cost exactly twice as much as tried and true models. What Leupold excels at it the length of the eyepiece. When this is not as crucial, as on heavy recoil rifles, then check out the Burris Euro. Same price class as VXIII and man are they bright and clear.

Phillip,
"to much or not enough" was your question..

With a 3x Leupold, I can shoot as well on big game with it at say 400 or even 500 yards as I can with a 12x. I proved that to myself many times..It is all in ones head if he thinks that is not enough magnification for big game. You simply put the cross hairs where you want them and pull the trigger, the difference in 3x and 12x in this case is nothing more than the size of the target, the sight picture is still very clear at that range with both powers..This applies only to big game scopes. Target and varmint scopes need power and need to be varible, as the target is very small in many cases, but even on varmints 12x is my limit as I don't like heat waves between me and the pinhead or rock chuck.

As to short range, I can use a 3x as well as a 1x, in fact I like the 3x better, even at point blank..Give a 2.5x or a 3x a test and see if it works for you. I don't like 1x scopes as they tend to minimize the distance to the target and I fear something coulld be on me and me not know it..

The problem is today the scope companies have hyped big scopes and varibles to the point that the masses have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker, IMO....The big scopes are in demand and the scope companies love it, its all about money.

BTW. the only scope tough enough for the .458 Lott and like calibers is the Leupold 2.5x compact, because the adjustments are all under the turret knobs. The other scopes work well up to and including the 416s...

What is most needed is for Leupold to reproduce the 3X, as it is long enough to mount on any rifle and to make it tough enough for the Lott and 50's..

The above is only my opinnion, it works for me and has for years, others may disagree or may not have hunted enough or had time to sort it all out. I know I went through all the phases of big scopes, little scopes in my lifetime. When varibles came out I had to have one and it was the size of a Mack truck, ugly as sin and I loved it, it was the latest, but alas it just did't work for me, and I went back and forth for several years..

I have been using the Leupold 2.5-8X on both of my 375/404 rifles for years.

They have been very reliable, and never needed any adjustment after I have set them at home.

I have found the larger magnification help quite a lot on the longer shots.

Saeed,
Darn it!!

I have a Burris 1 3/4 X 5 on my 458 Lott. I can see very clearly on the 1 3/4 setting out to 100 yds.

I like a scope if a variable to be as close to 1x as possible at the lowest end of the range. A true or close to it 1x makes shooting with both eyes open much clearer and quicker.

I find a post cross hair reticle better than the usual cross-hair with thicker cross-hairs at the edges.

Haven't tried an illuminated reticle but would like to. Probably an advantage in low light at dusk or dawn.

QD mounts and good iron sights which have been used as well!

fwiw ... I like the low power variables for dangerous game.

I used a non-iluminated Leupold 1.5-5x on the only buff I've taken. I've used the mil version of the S+B flash dot in other venues and I really like it.

Even though I've used red dot (Aimpoints) optics in other venues, I had not considered them for dangerous game. Thinking about them for a few moments, I do not see any reason why they would not viable. The Aimpoints (can't address any other brand) are extremely rugged, wide tube, and eye relief is not an issue.

This is the optic I'd most consider mounting on a big bore.

http://www.swfa.com/pc-1557-260-zeiss-z-point-reflex-sight.aspx

But I'd certainly leave the front sight on!

The best I have used so far have been the Swaro 1.25-4x24mm and the S&B 1.25-4x20mm. Both have 30mm main tubes and are very fast to use.

Thank you for your input so far!

What of the mounting in line with, or slightly forward of the breech on doubles?

Would this be a definite advantage?

On the few scoped doubles that I handled, I found the scope to be a real impediment when reloading. I wouldn't want to have to reload a scoped double fast-and-a-half with something pi$$d off running in my general direction with tongue dangling and tail wagging.

I have scopes on 2 doubles, a 9,3x74R and a 450/400, as well as 2 drillings.

They do not interfere with rapid reloading in any way.

The Zeiss Point would be a good choice, I have used one a little bit on a bolt rifle.

I will be testing some other red dot sights along with the Zeiss in a few days.

On doubles and other big bore rifles a red dot would be a good choice for a fellow who has problems seing the iron sights.