I'm looking for a new variable scope to mount on the Ruger No.1, 270 Win and I've been shooting Leupold scopes for many years. I use it for my deer and antelope hunting so it's dawn to dusk, from 100 to 400 yards.

I was looking at the new scopes and I think I want to go with the 44mm objective to fit the slimmer look of the No.1 rifle but am I losing a lot of light transmission not going with the 50mm objective? I do shoot it all the way to the first and last legal shooting light.

I wanted a 3x-10x or 12X but the VX-5 is 3x-15x by 44mm and the VX-6 is a 3x-18x in 44mm or 50mm but the VX-6 is also offered in 2x-12 by 42mm.

I can live with any of the above, but my questions are:

42mm, 44mm or 50mm objective lens size?

The VX-5 or VX-6? The price difference is not a major concern but is the VX-6 noticeably better than the VX-5?

Finally, am I missing something significant by not buying a Swaro, Zeiss or similar Euro scope?

The VX-5 and VX-6 scopes are quite big and will look big sitting on a Ruger No.1,

The VX-3HD is still right up there in optical quality and can be had in 3.5-10x40, the CDS-ZL Illuminated FireDot Twilight Hunter (30mm tube). Worth looking at.

I did a test with some scopes I have, and the difference between when I couldn't see well enough to shoot and when I could between a Leupold 2-7 x 32 and a Nightforce 5.5-22 x 56 was less than 5 minutes.

Of the scopes mentioned, I would go for the 2-12 x 42.

Hi Frank
Re Euro scopes, I have several Swarovskis. For picture clarity / sharpness they are the best I have ever used. Other Euro brands may be identical, I just donf know. Of the Leupolds I have, and use, the VX-6 models definitely have the best glass but I have not used any of the newer models produced in the last 10 years. The VX-6 models while not quite as good optically as the Swarovskis are nevertheless very close. I think dawn and dusk performance would be almost identical.
In very recent years I have also adapted to some illuminated scopes which I think quite helpful to my ageing eye(s). In those critical, dull, dawn and dusk moments young guys can probably still see the crosshair against the target but my eyes cannot any longer. For me now the small illuminated centre dot shows me the correct hold for taking the shot. Maybe give that one some thought too ... ?

Unless you are allowed to shoot by moonlight, you probably don't need the bigger objective. Not only do such scopes look oversized but bring a much greater danger of damage and being knocked out of zero.

Though 30mm tubes look a bit much, on their own they are a good thing, however, strengthening the scope against bumps and being bent when mounting.

So, I would opt for a 2-7× or European 1.5-6x36.

I just bought a couple of Leupold Mk5s.

2x-10x by 42mm and a 3x-15x by 44mm both with the firedot, duplex reticle.

The key here is exit pupil - or the diameter of the shaft of light that exits the eyepiece and shoots into your eye. Fully dilated your pupil will be a max of about 8 mm.

So, the larger the exit pupil, typically the brighter a scope is perceived to be.

Divide objective by power to get exit pupil

42 / 12 = 4.2 mm exit pupil

44 / 15 = 2.9 mm exit pupil

In theory the 42mm will seem brighter than the 44mm at the highest power. Of course exit pupil changes throughout power changes.

Glass quality and especially the coatings also affect the brightness perception. TP my eyes Leupold are plenty bright, Swarovski the brightest and Burris way dark. The old Nikon UCC scopes to my eyes were VERY good. I will say my two new VX3i 1.5-5s are much better than my older Leupolds.

quote:

Unless you are allowed to shoot by moonlight, you probably don't need the bigger objective. Not only do such scopes look oversized but bring a much greater danger of damage and being knocked out of zero.

Amen, lord, amen.

100 yards, my #1 270 has a 2x7x28 or a 3x9, both Leupolds, depending on my mood..but I never had any problem with my Leupold Alaskan 2.5X on my 7x57 in my Texas whitetail blinds..It seems to me were over thinking a kill on a 12 inch target, and who has used that outer 10 inches. Even irons work at 100 with 4 inches to spare..Just saying?

I bought a couple of Leupold MK5s.

The 2-10x42mm Firedot which looks great on the Ruger No.1 and the second is a 3-15x44mm Firedot which will go on a bolt gun.

I am kind of old fashioned I guess. I use a 6x42 Kahles with a #4 reticle on a Steyr .30-06. It works in very dim light and from 3 yds to 400 without anything to fiddle with

quote:

Originally posted by pacecars:
I am kind of old fashioned I guess. I use a 6x42 Kahles with a #4 reticle on a Steyr .30-06. It works in very dim light and from 3 yds to 400 without anything to fiddle with

I too used a Kahles 6x42 scope for several decades hunting with my 7x61 Shultz and Larsen rifle. It had a fine crosshair but worked well for bush to open alpine shooting, bright sunlight to heavy rain and snow days with night spotlighting thrown in as well. Never had to re-sight the scope except after completely stripping the rifle to refurbish the stock and reblue the barreled action. Had the scope out of the rings but first shot on target after reassembling the rifle and remounting the scope, went dead centre at 50m. Tweaked to half inch high at 50m and that was it.

Would I be wrong in thinking your old Kahles was reticle-moving, Eagle?

If so, yes, they were so tough I still can't believe it. I had a Helia Super 27 on my .338 for 33 years and it's still going strong now on a mate's rifle.

My son has a modern one on his .30-06 but it doesn't get out often enough to evaluate in tbat regard.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Would I be wrong in thinking your old Kahles was reticle-moving, Eagle?

If so, yes, they were so tough I still can't believe it. I had a Helia Super 27 on my .338 for 33 years and it's still going strong now on a mate's rifle.

My son has a modern one on his .30-06 but it doesn't get out often enough to evaluate in tbat regard.

Yes it was reticule-moving. Originally was mounted in Parker Hale rings with PH steel bases my father had fitted using the factory D&T holes on the receiver when he purchased the rifle new.
It was his rifle for years before I took it over after he got too old to hunt. I did replace the bases and rings with Weaver ones which I preferred.
The scope cross hair was always centred and didn't need any shimming etc. The POI never altered on the rifle.

It was good that you didn't need any shims, Eagle. It seems to me that a lot of the new rifles are so well aligned that they don't need shims or milling, either. This, with the Burris eccentric ring inserts, when needed, suggests that 'constantly centred' reticles are redundant.

I wish that Burris or some of the European brands would go techno-retro and make reticle-movement models, at least for DG rifles. Not only can they be made much stronger but with better FoV and no tunnel vision.