Old Weaver K2.5 vs. Less X

If you've had no difficulties finding close targets in the K2.5 field of view, then there would be no point in less magnification.

One caution: I'm not sure why you are changing your bases and rings, but if the new set places your scope significantly higher (or perhaps lower) than your old rings then you may not be able to acquire the sight picture as rapidly due to the relative position of your eye. The old Ruger Carbine had a rather low stock, so your scope mount needs to place the scope about as low as possible for proper eye alignment.

The way the stock fits you and aligns your eye with the scope's sight picture is even more important to quick target acquisition than low magnification and wide FOV.

Posts: 13266 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001

Ignored post by Stonecreek posted

One of Us

posted

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
If you've had no difficulties finding close targets in the K2.5 field of view, then there would be no point in less magnification.

One caution: I'm not sure why you are changing your bases and rings, but if the new set places your scope significantly higher (or perhaps lower) than your old rings then you may not be able to acquire the sight picture as rapidly due to the relative position of your eye. The old Ruger Carbine had a rather low stock, so your scope mount needs to place the scope about as low as possible for proper eye alignment.

The way the stock fits you and aligns your eye with the scope's sight picture is even more important to quick target acquisition than low magnification and wide FOV.

I'll be ordering low rings, thinking they should be close to the flip-up ones that were on the rifle. Reason for new ones is half a cheek on one of the screws sheared off - just plain sheared off, not boogered.

Thanks.

Posts: 201 | Location: Florida, USA | Registered: 22 January 2012

Ignored post by Sevastopol posted

SR4759

One of Us

posted

With less magnification you will begin to see a lot more of the barrel in the field of view.
I really like 2.5X to 3X. Lower power is ok if you do not mind the barrel in the FOV.

Posts: 13978 | Location: http://www.tarawaontheweb.org/tarawa2.jpg | Registered: 03 December 2008

Ignored post by SR4759 posted

LJS

One of Us

posted

Give some consideration to a red dot sight. I put one on a double rifle and it is fast and accurate out to about 80 yards for me.

Posts: 3073 | Location: Pittsburgh, PA | Registered: 11 November 2004

Ignored post by LJS posted

One of Us

posted

quote:
Originally posted by SR4759:
With less magnification you will begin to see a lot more of the barrel in the field of view.
I really like 2.5X to 3X. Lower power is ok if you do not mind the barrel in the FOV.

I had never heard of that. Thanks for the tip.

Posts: 201 | Location: Florida, USA | Registered: 22 January 2012

Ignored post by Sevastopol posted

One of Us

posted

quote:
Originally posted by LJS:
Give some consideration to a red dot sight. I put one on a double rifle and it is fast and accurate out to about 80 yards for me.

I have one on a shotgun. Might be a consideration.

Thanks.

Posts: 201 | Location: Florida, USA | Registered: 22 January 2012

Ignored post by Sevastopol posted

pigmaster

One of Us

posted

Depending on your budget:

A 1-4 Leupold Shotgun scope or better yet

A 1-4 Trijicon with the big amber post

Nothing wrong with a K 2.5 especially with a post and crosshair but the Leupie and Triji are far more waterproof
and rugged than the old K.

Posts: 92 | Registered: 21 April 2013

Ignored post by pigmaster posted

sambarman338

One of Us

posted

If the old scope still works well, I would not bother replacing it. There are times when a little magnification can be invaluable for looking through brush when there's no time for the binos.

I take it you're not hunting truly dangerous game, about the only reason I can think of for needing a lower power.

Posts: 5166 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009

Ignored post by sambarman338 posted

One of Us

posted

quote:
Originally posted by pigmaster:
Depending on your budget:

A 1-4 Leupold Shotgun scope or better yet

A 1-4 Trijicon with the big amber post

Nothing wrong with a K 2.5 especially with a post and crosshair but the Leupie and Triji are far more waterproof
and rugged than the old K.

A 1-4X sounds perfect for a variable scope, but the consensus seems to be 2.5X is fine until it falls apart on me.

Thanks.

Posts: 201 | Location: Florida, USA | Registered: 22 January 2012

Ignored post by Sevastopol posted

One of Us

posted

quote:
Originally posted by sambarman338:
If the old scope still works well, I would not bother replacing it. There are times when a little magnification can be invaluable for looking through brush when there's no time for the binos.

I take it you're not hunting truly dangerous game, about the only reason I can think of for needing a lower power.

No dangerous game, so I'll be keeping it until it breaks.

Thanks.

Posts: 201 | Location: Florida, USA | Registered: 22 January 2012

Ignored post by Sevastopol posted

SR4759

One of Us

posted

quote:
Originally posted by Sevastopol:
quote:
Originally posted by pigmaster:
Depending on your budget:

A 1-4 Leupold Shotgun scope or better yet

A 1-4 Trijicon with the big amber post

Nothing wrong with a K 2.5 especially with a post and crosshair but the Leupie and Triji are far more waterproof
and rugged than the old K.

A 1-4X sounds perfect for a variable scope, but the consensus seems to be 2.5X is fine until it falls apart on me.

Thanks.

I have used an old 3X9 set on 3X for decades.
One of these days I will get rid of it for a 3X Leupold.

Posts: 13978 | Location: http://www.tarawaontheweb.org/tarawa2.jpg | Registered: 03 December 2008

Ignored post by SR4759 posted