I also posted this on Lever Action. For a Winchester 88 Scope will be a Leupold but which one? 3x-9x, 4x-12x or 2x-7x compact?

Which 88? If it is a 308 I would roll with the compact.

wstrnhuntr--It is a .308. I gave my grandson another 88 in .308 and it has the compact. This one currently has a Bushnell Scopechief and I just don't trust Bushnell.

I'd go even smaller than 2-7x unless you see many long-distance shots likely.

Less is more when it comes to reliability and short-range hunting.

I like low power scopes. 2-7, 1-6 etc. You can mount it low on the 88 Win. Brian

You missed a very important one.

2.5-8

I have been using this on my 375/404 for many years.

4-12, but I am not sure what terrain you will be hunting. 99% of the time, I would never use less than a 3x9 where I hunt.

With that said, I am going on my Utah bear hunt next month and would be fine with the 2-7. As my range will be short, there is no need for anything bigger.

The modern tendency to bigger and bigger scopes and power multiples is basically marketing led, like the little Toyota that gets bigger with every new version of the model (which there leads to a new micro model coming in underneath).

Unfortunately with scopes, new smaller models don't often follow. They just get bigger and more complicated. Variables are not even necessary for most hunting but if you countenance powering up when a long shot presents, you need a lever to make it quick - and that adds to the bulk and vulnerability as well.

Townsend Whelen wrote that a 2.25x scope was adequate for big game out to 350 yards, and he was right. (You don't have to count the hairs on a critter's chest to shoot it.) He argued that field of view and long eye relief were much more important than power.

Magnification not only destroys our confidence in holding steady but requires fatter and longer objective bells. These stick farther out the front of the mounts and need higher rings, which makes bumps more likely to wrench the scope out of alignment.

I agree Sambarman. I find that compact scopes also tend to be great for providing an excellent FOV.

The Winchester 88 already has a fair bit of heft for a lever gun. My 88 just wears a simple 4X at the moment. It gets the job done and keeps the rifle weight down. I just bought a Redfield 2.5-8 for a lightweight M-700. I would like to get another just like it for my 88.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
wstrnhuntr--It is a .308. I gave my grandson another 88 in .308 and it has the compact. This one currently has a Bushnell Scopechief and I just don't trust Bushnell.

I was seriously considering getting a scopechief. They were very good scopes in their time, but most of them are pretty dated now. If I had one in excellent condition I wouldnt hesitate to use it.

A 308 with some of the light copper bullets can make a helluva nice rifle for shooting out to 300-350 yards. If you load and if you have the situation. An 88 with a Leupy 1-4x20 VX111 or VX3 on it would make a really nice deer rifle. I have a 336 Marlin with a VX3 1-4x20 on it that shoots 150 grain Barnes TSX into tiny groups at 2400 FPS with LeverEvolution powder. Inside 200 yards it does a very nice job on Bambi. Not much for low light work, but it's light and really quick.

quote:

I was seriously considering getting a scopechief. They were very good scopes in their time, but most of them are pretty dated now. If I had one in excellent condition I wouldnt hesitate to use it.

Yes, Japanese, but the ScopeChiefs were top of the line in the 1960's. If it appears to hold its zero then I wouldn't be in a hurry to replace it. That said, the 2-7X Leupold is an excellent and universal scope for game. If it's too far away to see it well enough to aim at it when magnified 7 times, then it's just too far away to shoot, period. Deer ain't chipmunks, you know.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
The modern tendency to bigger and bigger scopes and power multiples is basically marketing led, like the little Toyota that gets bigger with every new version of the model (which there leads to a new micro model coming in underneath).

Unfortunately with scopes, new smaller models don't often follow. They just get bigger and more complicated. Variables are not even necessary for most hunting but if you countenance powering up when a long shot presents, you need a lever to make it quick - and that adds to the bulk and vulnerability as well.

Townsend Whelen wrote that a 2.25x scope was adequate for big game out to 350 yards, and he was right. (You don't have to count the hairs on a critter's chest to shoot it.) He argued that field of view and long eye relief were much more important than power.

Magnification not only destroys our confidence in holding steady but requires fatter and longer objective bells. These stick farther out the front of the mounts and need higher rings, which makes bumps more likely to wrench the scope out of alignment.

Are there any scopes, less than 30 years old and more than 2X that you actually like? lol...

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
The modern tendency to bigger and bigger scopes and power multiples is basically marketing led, like the little Toyota that gets bigger with every new version of the model (which there leads to a new micro model coming in underneath).

Unfortunately with scopes, new smaller models don't often follow. They just get bigger and more complicated. Variables are not even necessary for most hunting but if you countenance powering up when a long shot presents, you need a lever to make it quick - and that adds to the bulk and vulnerability as well.

Townsend Whelen wrote that a 2.25x scope was adequate for big game out to 350 yards, and he was right. (You don't have to count the hairs on a critter's chest to shoot it.) He argued that field of view and long eye relief were much more important than power.

Magnification not only destroys our confidence in holding steady but requires fatter and longer objective bells. These stick farther out the front of the mounts and need higher rings, which makes bumps more likely to wrench the scope out of alignment.

Are there any scopes, less than 30 years old and more than 2X that you actually like? lol...

Well, Jason, Pecar continued making reticle-movement scopes until they closed in 2006. Their fixed power Champions came in 2.75x and bigger, and had constantly centred reticles. That was done by simply putting a field stop around the FFP reticle (like throwing a bag over something you want to hide) but the net result still gave less tunnel vision than most image-movement scopes made on the Redfield/Weaver concept.

More recently there have been the Canadian Elcan Specter OS, the Valdada M and QRTS lines and the March Genesis 6-60x. These are all tactical or extra-long-range scopes, eschewing image movement for weatherproofing, reliability or, arguably, peripheral-lens-dimming reasons. I also have some respect for the Burris Posi-lock idea of locking the erector tube after zeroing, despite Don's role in the decadence and some assertions that Posi-Lock is a bit fragile, too.

Thinking of scope fragility, I was given a Burris Fullfield 1.75-5x scope to wreck on Friday. It has no vulnerable front bell and had been the owner's favorite until he fell on the 38.5mm ocular. This destroyed the SFP reticle, something much less likely to happen with the old system.

The bending appears to have extended forward into the middle of 1" alloy tube, which brings me to another complaint I have about modern American scopes. In the old days when the Europeans made dural models, they usually added at least one mm to the diameter of the main tube and a mounting rail, which stiffened the body. The US and Japanese alloy scopes, however, kept to the same ol' one-inch tubes and I doubt that the lenses are any smaller.

No wonder things go wrong!

For hunting scopes, I agree with Sambarman: less is more.

Back in the day, I mounted an old Redfield 2-7x Widefield on my .270 (a pre-64 Mod. 70 FW) and an old Var-X III 2.5-8X Leupold on my Ruger .338 WM and haven't seen the need to change either.

Thanks BL.
Part of the reason small scopes are all that's needed for big-bame hunting relates to trajectory and sportsmanship. If we limit ouselves to ranges estimable without electronic cheats, 300 to 400 yards is pretty much it. Beyond that bullets drop so fast that distance and trajectory need to be known precisely and energy loss becomes important.

So, the large magnifications that can be useful in varmenting and target shooting are just not necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

Townsend Whelen wrote that a 2.25x scope was adequate for big game out to 350 yards, and he was right. (You don't have to count the hairs on a critter's chest to shoot it.) He argued that field of view and long eye relief were much more important than power.

Magnification not only destroys our confidence in holding steady but requires fatter and longer objective bells. These stick farther out the front of the mounts and need higher rings, which makes bumps more likely to wrench the scope out of alignment.

I think this is a profoundly important perspective, one I hope others take notice of.

I prefer these simple, low-power scopes because they are much lighter than the now-fashionable high-power, large objective scopes. I want my hunting rifles to be light and handy and if I were to replace my Redfield or Leupold with one of the whoop-ti-do modern scopes, my rifles would be more cumbersome than I'd like.

I do insist that my hunting scopes be fog-free and able to withstand downpours.

The only advantage of higher powered scopes is when sighting for groups!

In the real world if you can hit a paper plate at whatever distance that you wish to shoot------YOU ARE GOOD TO GO!!!

Hip

P.S. If using a variable I would rather have the scope set for a lower power (animal is further away---more time to reset) than a higher power---now the animal is too close---too late.

Yes, once more, BL.
The compactness of many old American scopes before constantly centred reticles was remarkable, particularly considering their having fields of view often 10 or 20 per cent bigger than similar powers today.

That was not necessarily gained from shorter eye reliefs, either. Some were quite long and flexible, like my 1947 Weaver K2.5, which has an 'eye box' and field blending redolent of a Nickel Supra. Leupold claimed eye reliefs from 2.5 to 4.5 and five inches in most of their scopes before 1960, with 35-foot FoVs in the 4x models - and all that from 7/8th-inch tubes.

Waterproofness was sometimes a problem back then but Leupold claimed to have conquered it, esp. in their Pioneer line, which, like Bausch & Lomb's, had no turrets at all.

PS: seeing your post upon 'publishing', Hipshoot, I can agree with those sentiments, too. I even see a mechanical reason not to walk around with modern scopes wound up to the highest powers: as with telephoto lenses on cameras most variables move the lenses forward to increase magnification. This will increase the leverage on the erector tube in the case of bumps and under recoil.

I turn the power ring up on my old reticle-movement scopes when at the range, because I can, and if sitting in a blind at the extremes of daylight; otherwise they stay near the lowest powers, too.

quote:

Originally posted by Hipshoot:

In the real world if you can hit a paper plate at whatever distance that you wish to shoot------YOU ARE GOOD TO GO!!!

Hip

P.S. If using a variable I would rather have the scope set for a lower power (animal is further away---more time to reset) than a higher power---now the animal is too close---too late.

Totally agree with both - paper plate and hunting w/scope at lowest mag.

A nice light lever gun needs a light fixed power scope like a Leupold 3x or 4x if you can find one.

Thanks for all the replies. I think I'll chance the Scopechief outlives me and any future problem with it will probably belong to a son in law.

If that Scopechief is truly old, having the Command post, it may not only be collectable but a good, sound sight. The early ones, at least, were made by Kowa and even after Bushnell went to image-movement avoided using the articulated erector tube.

Instead, the knobs moved a prism at the FFP, which weighed a fraction of what gets thrown around in most modern scopes. If I see one of these for sale over here, I'd like it for my collection.

Sam3338--no command post don't know what year they quit making command post.

Is the reticle constantly centred, carpetman? If so it might be earlier and also made by Kowa. I don't know where their production went afterwards but more recent Bushnells seem less well thought of. I bought a pair of their binoculars s/h to help a buddy about 15 years ago, and found them a disappointment.

In the 60's everyone I knew utilized a fixed 4X scope and were happy to have it. They were simply viewed as a huge improvement over the iron sights of the past. After that I never have been happy with the following trends towards huge lenses and increasingly heavier scopes. I find the typical European type eyebells to be gobby, awkward and cumbersome. Not a fan.

This thread reminds me of an old article where three gun writers had a little shooting competition. Long story short, Wayne Van Zwoll out shot the other two using a 4X scope. The others used a 3-9 variable.
I cant help thinking that with more and more magnification becoming the norm that something has been lost. Something inside of us. Kind of like the old "beware of the one gun hunter" saw. But I digress.
As far as Im concerned, compact scopes are the bees knees for hunting rifles.

I lean towards low power fixed scopes and the Leupold 3x fixed has served me well on many of my rifles and I also have a 2.5 Leupold Alaskan 7/8s tube that's a classic and wonderful scope. in variables I prefer a 2x7 or 3x9 Leupold compact in that order. I also have a few 4X Leupold's all of which I use on a 88..

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Is the reticle constantly centred, carpetman? If so it might be earlier and also made by Kowa. I don't know where their production went afterwards but more recent Bushnells seem less well thought of. I bought a pair of their binoculars s/h to help a buddy about 15 years ago, and found them a disappointment.

Sorry carpetman, I made a bad error in the second sentence there. It should read:

If NOT, it might be earlier and also made by Kowa.