23 April 2013, 03:41
SevastopolOld Weaver K2.5 vs. Less X
Hi. I Have An old original Ruger .44 Magnum Carbine that I'm replacing the bases/rings on. It currently has a Weaver K2.5 (likely original to the gun...'60s) and I was wondering if there is any reason to consider going for a scope with less magnification. I can't come up with a good reason on my own, so I would like to hear other's opinions/suggestions. It would be for hunting hogs within 50yds/m, maybe with opportunities to shoot them up close in palmetto clumps.
Thank you.
23 April 2013, 04:07
StonecreekIf 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.
23 April 2013, 05:14
Sevastopolquote:
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.
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.
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.
04 May 2013, 02:40
Sevastopolquote:
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.
04 May 2013, 02:43
Sevastopolquote:
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.
04 May 2013, 03:09
pigmasterDepending 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.
07 May 2013, 10:45
sambarman338If 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.
08 May 2013, 02:52
Sevastopolquote:
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.
08 May 2013, 02:54
Sevastopolquote:
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.
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.