Anyone have a Trijicon Accupoint 1-6 X24 on a big-bore (.458 WM or equivalent)?

If so...thoughts on it?

Since no one else wants to have a go, Lane, I'll move on from the themes mentioned in the big-bore forum.

Townsend Whelen considered a 2.5x scope was enough for North American big game, even out to 350 yards. IIRC he used a 2.25x scope on his .270, one of the flattest-shooting calibres of the time. His complaint about bigger magnifications was loss of field of view. He did not mention, however, the vision loss we suffer from all magnification, which is the scope's FoV multiplied by the power, minus the FoV - though tunnel vision in modern scopes can swallow that, too. Those losses are just the horizontal ones. The loss in two-dimensional terms, important to leopard hunters and in the hills, can be mind-boggling.

In the case of most dangerous game there is always the possibility another herd or pride member may be nearby. If it is fractionally outside the FoV, you might not notice if it charges while you focus on the target animal.

To what extent do we need variables at all? Well, they are a great help at the range and in poor light when it helps the twilight value to power up. In many other contexts, I fear variables are overrated and may prove a minus. I was showing a mate some new sambar country recently when two big hinds got up 200 yards away. Instead of taking a shot on 2.5x, he decided to use a higher power. Sambar are a big but very wary animal and that momentary delay was enough for them to get the message and clear off.

The erector set in a riflescope can be a very simple affair, in theory comprising a single lens. In a variable, however, it must have more lenses and these need to be moved back and forward by a scroll mechanism, which is usually made of brass because its greasy nature removes the need of lubricant. This all adds mass. In the old days this mass was fixed to the outer tube but, since constantly centred reticles, now has to be suspended against spring(s) and will bounce around pitifully on a big-bore rifle.

So, hear also what Atkinson said: get an old Leupold 2.5x compact. He was talking about the 458 Lott but the WM is close enough to be careful IMHO. Personally, I would look even further back to a very low-powered Nickel from before 1970 or Zeiss/Hensoldt or, maybe, a Swarovski scope made before 1975 (as long as the turrets still move).