Alfs thread on bullets brought to mind my opinion that differs with many on scopes. I grew up using iron sights, every one did, and for that I feel blessed, and I still use them a good deal..Later in years my family went to scope use but none of them ever shot more than a 4X best I recall, and mostly 2.5 and 3Xs

I would be more than happy to use a 2.5X or 4 X fixed scope for all big game hunting, and for the most part that is what I do.. Ive used the big varibles, still have a couple, and never have found them anymore usefull than the low power scope and in many instance less usefull for many reasons. Never in my years of hunting have I needed more power, and Ive made some damn long shots with low power scopes, all the scope does IMO is give a better sight picture, the size of the target is of little value IMO. I can see an elk just fine to take a shot at 500 yards with a 3 or 4X under the same set of circumstances that I would take the shot with a 10X in that all your doing is looking at the cross hair in air over the elks back. This should make for some interesting conversation, as Im probably in the minority on this subject.

You can keep you're low power fixed scopes

I'll keep my 2.5-8, 3-9, 3.5-10 and 4.5-14 and be better off

Ray,
At your age and mine (I am tracking you!), the higher power scopes help quite a bit. I recently switched from the Leupold 2.5x8 and 3.5 x10 to Swarovski illuminated in the 3x18 and 2.5x15 size. You get the benefit of the lower power when close but also the better magnification at 150 to 300 yards. This is a real help in my experience.

Nostalgia likes the old fixed power scopes but I suspect if Jack O'Connor had access to a Swarovski Z6i 3x18x50 with ballistic turrets for his sheep hunts, he would have been all over it. Better optics means better quality shots and better accuracy....

Ray, sometime I think the whole world ran off and left us behind, but you are more right than wrong. My favorite hunting scopes for open country
are straight 6X's and 2.5x8's. I confess that I have succumbed to some higher powers but it sure as hell was not necessary. Ray and I remember when 30-06 and .270's were the big guns and 4x was the big scope! That was before deer and elk started wearing flac jackets.

I, too, prefer fixed power scopes. 4x was the standard for decades and is still good for normal hunting ranges. A 6x42 has an exit pupil of 7mm, the maximum cone of light your eye can let in. That's the same reason the 8x65 is so popular in Europe. But a good 10x42 or 10x50 with top optics can still put enough light in your eye for a bright clear picture.

The truth about variable power scopes is that most people either put them at the highest or lowest setting and they leave it there. Variables are more complex mechanically, tend to weight more, cost more, and tend to be more vulnerable to moisture intrusion.

There's nothing wrong with the KISS principle when it comes to scopes.

I like my variables.

On my dangerous game rifles they usually stay on the lowest setting (1x) unless I am shooting at a bit of distance, but being able to turn it up to 6-10x for a precision shot is nice when needed. Occasionally I will use them at mid power, but I admit if I had a 2 position switch that would be adequate.

I have used a fixed 4x scope on a couple of rifles and while, yes it can do most of what I need, it isn't what I like or want, especially when hunting dangerous stuff.

Sure a variable is a bit more weight and also a bit less robust, but who doesn't pack an extra scope on a overseas hunt if they use them?

So do we need them? No. but then we don't need a scope at all, either. It's all want and what yis u feel comfortable with

My preference is low powered lightweight variables. 2-7, 2.5-8, and 3-9 for NA and 1.5-6 for Africa.
What I dislike about the big scopes is the bulk and weight messing up the handling of the rifle and snagging on everything. Usually keep them turned down to lowest setting when hunting to give best FOV. Exception is on safari where it is usually set at about 3x in order to see a lane through the bush and turned down for follow-up.
Either way it is nice to be able to turn them up for longer shots when time allows.
I guess if you hunt out of stands or blinds the size and weight doesn't make as much difference.

quote:

Better optics means better quality shots and better accuracy....

I have all most all variable scope on my rifles some are 1x4s some are up to 24x

I don't think I well go back to fixed power scopes.

in short - Yes. My 50ish eyes require them.

Ray, My wife and I been very content with our 2.5-8 Leupold's since around 1990. But as we 're getting older, she wanted to upgrade to a 3.5-10 Leupold. So, we both got an upgrade, and got the CDS system. Put them in the Leupold QD 's, discussed in another post. Now the 2.5-8's are resting in QD's for back-up, zero'd and ready if needed! memtb

Ray, I am glad you are blessed with good eyesight. I grew up shooting open sights a lot also, and was very proficient at it. I ended up with glasses in the 4th grade and my vision got worse from there. At 45 my vision hasn't changed much in the last 20 years but open sights are almost useless to me. I only have one safari under my belt, but I am with CR, I used my 2.5-10 leica in a similar fashion. Most of the time it was on a medium to low power but I turned it up higher to make a precise shot at longer distance. It worked well enough for me I doubt if I would go to a lower power scope.

I bought my first 3-9x40 Leupold in 1976, that was the beginning of my scoping hunting rifles, fast forward to today and I still use dozens of the same scopes on my rifles.
I love being able to carry the scopes on 3 power in case I encounter an animal at short range, however I must admit I shoot most of my game animals on 9 power and I like having that power so I can pick an exact spot on the animal instead of a general area on an animal.
Everyone hunts under different hunting conditions and ranges and everyone definitely has their own opinions about equipment, my opinions of equipment suit my uses.

quote:

Originally posted by Blacktailer:
My preference is low powered lightweight variables. 2-7, 2.5-8, and 3-9 for NA and 1.5-6 for Africa.
What I dislike about the big scopes is the bulk and weight messing up the handling of the rifle and snagging on everything. Usually keep them turned down to lowest setting when hunting to give best FOV. Exception is on safari where it is usually set at about 3x in order to see a lane through the bush and turned down for follow-up.
Either way it is nice to be able to turn them up for longer shots when time allows.
I guess if you hunt out of stands or blinds the size and weight doesn't make as much difference.

+1

As in "Exactly." Perfectly stated.

That's my approach to a "T". My Pre-64 .270 Mod. 70 featherweight, and my Model 99 Savage F (.300 Savage) both wear 2-7x variables. My .338 wears a Leopold 2.5-8 VarX 3.

My preference is 3-9x40. The lighter the better. I am VERY fond of doing most of my hunting on low power. Better field of view and eye relief are a huge plus. But I find more magnification on tap to be extremely useful for spotting and identifying antlers and such. Do I NEED it? Not at all. Do we need any kind of scope for that matter? Open sights have their pluses too! I love the ease of getting on a moving critter with iron sights. But, I havent used them for big game in years. Need has nothing to do with it, preference is the determining factor for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
My preference is 3-9x40. The lighter the better. I am VERY fond of doing most of my hunting on low power. Better field of view and eye relief are a huge plus. But I find more magnification on tap to be extremely useful for spotting and identifying antlers and such. Do I NEED it? Not at all. Do we need any kind of scope for that matter? Open sights have their pluses too! I love the ease of getting on a moving critter with iron sights. But, I havent used them for big game in years. Need has nothing to do with it, preference is the determining factor for me.

Well said W. Binoculars and/or a spotting scope are for "identifying antlers and such."

"I am VERY fond of doing most of my hunting on low power. Better field of view and eye relief are a huge plus." Roger that on both counts W. :-)

I had a 3x9 Redfield Widefield on my BDL in 270 forever. It finally gave up, went to a Leupold 3.5-10 which was nicer. I gave that to my son. Ever since I got a 1.5-5x Leupold on my 500 Jeffery it's my favorite scope. Fast on target and enough magnification at 5x to shoot an elk at any distance I feel comfortable with.

Im with dogcat. I have the 3-18's in Leupold VX-6 Fire Dot Illuminated and wouldn't want to go back to the 3 x9 or 3.5 x 10. The better glass in them plays a role in this too.

I haven't shot anything with any of them on a very high magnification power like 15 or 18. But it is there if I need it and if the conditions to use the higher magnification existed.

With these scopes the wider field of view is there too if you are hunting in wooded areas or you could crank it up for a New Mexico or Montana or Namibia across the range shot should it be something you wish to do.

For me the benefit is really two fold. First is with these scopes on my magnums and Weatherby mags the rifle and scope package is ready for anywhere. The other is for range practice use at extended ranges on small targets. You know the Aim Small - Miss Small idea.

So it is just more options and more versatile with better accuracy with my now older eyes.

On safari a year ago I was set up on the sticks and the PH had his fingers in his ears. They were waiting for the shot. I am waiting too because a limb was right in the way of my shot through the hole in the brush. I didn't want to wound something. They look at me and I say theres a big stick right in the way. He raises the binoculars again and cants some and looks. He said it sure is. Anyway it all worked out. But with 4X or the older scopes I really doubt I would have seen that. Just an example.

I'll tell you - I recently went to Montana and ordered a nice Sharps replica rifle. I thought that I might instead order the 1885 Winchester style due to the fact that I may want to scope it too. As it was the 1874 style won out. But as my eyes get a little less year by year I also had it drilled and tapped for a scope mount later. Sure I have other rifles I can use. I was just planning ahead.

I'm with Ray A. I like the lightweight, simplicity, and ruggedness of fixed power scopes. 4 and 6 power is all I really need. You'd never see me shooting past 400 yards, though and likely not past 300. That's even with a high power variable. I'll risk long shots on varmints, but not big game.

I use 3x9x40 on my rifles for shots at 300 yards or more. On my lever actions, a peep or 1.5x5 or 2x8x32 to keep them the rifle from handling like a fence post.

I started my shooting career using relatively high powered scopes. My first varmint rifle was crowned with a Unertl Small Game scope in 6X, which was soon converted to a 1" scope by Unertl, this time in 8X. Over the years, my scopes ranged in power all the way to 12 power on my varmint rifles, but my first regular hunting rifle was crowned with a 2 1/2X Lyman Alaskan.

Where others talk about an occasional shot on game at long range, as a High Power competitor I have shot hundreds of shots each year at targets up to 1000 yards, using iron sights. This, despite the fact that I have been wearing glasses with corrective lenses since the fifth grade. I was ranked "Master" in four disciplines, High Power, Long Range High Power, Outdoor Small Bore Position, and Outdoor Small Bore Prone. Some of the High Power matches allowed the use of optical sights, as did about half of the Small Bore. Interestingly enough, there was almost no difference between the scores I shot with or without a scope. The main advantage to using a scope, in my opinion, was that I was relieved of the necessity of using a spotting scope.

Mirage is a problem with long range shooting using a scope. The higher the power, the greater the problem. For that reason, I have never used the 20X target scopes which some shooters prefer.

When I ordered my first double rifle in 1970, a Krieghoff Teck O/U, I ordered two sets of barrels, one in .458 Winchester Magnum, the other in .375 H&H. I had the two sets of barrels fitted with 2 1/2X and 3X Lyman All American scopes, respectively. The main reason for the different powers was so that I could instantly identify which scope went with which set of barrels. The 2 1/2X scope, with its huge field of view, was ideally suited for the .458 and did nothing to detract from its fine handling qualities or its effectiveness on elephant and Cape buffalo. The 3X scope on the .375 served me well on shots out to 250 yards, on non-dangerous game, such as kudu and eland, and at closer range on lion and leopard. The 4X scope on my Winchester Model 70 in .300 H&H was all I needed to take advantage of the cartridge's long range capabilities.

Today, I still prefer the low powered scope for its unobtrusiveness. I still have Lyman Alaskans on several of my hunting rifles, as well as Zeiss 2 1/2X Zielkleins on others, but I also have a few variables, primarily Leupold 1.5-5X Vari-X III's. My .250-3000 Savage is topped with a Leupold 1 3/4-6X, and I don't find it objectionable. I want the scope to be an appendage of the rifle and not the other way around.

German hunters, who tend to favor highly situated stands to hunt from, and hunt in twilight conditions, have the notion that scopes with very large objectives are the way to go. They are also under the constraint of positively identifying their target before the shot, since hunting regulations are very specific as to the age and trophy quality of the game animal to be taken. Under those conditions, they are probably right.

Yesterday, shooting from a ground blind, I took shots at two white tail does with my Model 1916 Newton rifle in caliber .256 Newton. The range was 50-75 yards. The shots were made more difficult from the fact that due to failing eyesight in my right eye, I am forced to shoot off the left shoulder. I was using a 4X Lyman All American scope with a post and crosshair reticle. My main difficulty was in lining up the shots from an awkward and uncomfortable position. The 100 year old rifle proved to be adequate to the task, as did the scope.

I do believe it is a matter of preference. I've had and used some good scopes, all fixed power and the highest power was 12X on a target rifle set up for up to 1,000 yards. I doubt I could have shot any better with more power. I never cared for variables or big objective lenses. Today I have one rifle out of 40+ that wears a scope, a Leupold 6X and it hasn't been shot in...at least 13 years and probably more. At almost 64 I have to use a couple tricks to still use open sights effectively but I recently fired some 1 inch groups at 100 yards with 100+ year old rifles, obviously benched.

You bet a scope helps but I don't want to go back to using them until I absolutely have to. They make my sweet little Mannlicher/Schoenauer's and pre-war Mausers clubby and I think they look goofy on my drillings, combination guns and double rifles the exception being one of my old drillings if I had the claw mounts and a 2X-3X old Zeiss or Hensoldt I'd keep it but doubt I'd use it.

All a matter of taste and preference. I'm glad they're out there if/when I need one. If/when that time comes it will be a low power, fixed power scope. I have a good pair of bino's for looking at and examining game and other stuff that needs lookin' at.

I have used up to 3.5x10 and liked it. I also remember when Colorado went to point restrictions on bucks and Bulls. Personally never pulled out a spotting scope when a bouncing buck or a fleeing bull went away through the cover. We were and largely still are meat hunters. At that point my beloved irons went to cow tag only status. 2x7. 1x5. 1.5x6 and 2.5x works just fine on the ks prairie. All but one have a PCH the 2.5 is a shotgun duplex diamond sort of thing. Sits on my 458 whitworth cast bullet deer rifle. However all good points above about clarity and accuracy at long range. There is a leupold pch 3.5x10 temptingly in the classifieds.

Do we really need rifles or hunting? Or we just want it?

I enjoy my Zeiss Victory 3-12x56.

Jiri

quote:

Originally posted by Jiri:
Do we really need rifles or hunting? Or we just want it?

Right. If we really wanted to be traditional we'd get together in small groups and run through the woods naked, chasing animals with sticks.

Ray has a valid point to make !
With the cost of good glass ( most times 2 even 3 or 4 times the cost of the rifle) I also wonder if we have not lost our way somewhat. What is abundantly clear is that speciality reticles drive cost ! It would appear on face value that speciality reticles add cost no matter what the brand of scope and in most for mainstream hunting purposes these are not really necessary ( but as usual anyone if free to choose their weapon and additions as they feel free to do)

For hunting rifles I now only buy 1.5x5's or 2x7's.
Still own a few scopes that go up to 10X but have never need the upper range.

Do we want something to aim with or just admire the game with. I have had situations when I found my 4 power's FOV lacking. For me it really depends on the situation. It's nice to have a choice.

Joe

My Savage 99 in .300 Savage, made in 1955, wears a state-of-the art variable scope: a Bausch & Lomb 2.5 - 4 power with no turrets, but external adjustments on the mounts. It's brilliant, literally. Hope Ray approves!

Went the route; open sights, 2X Weaver, 4X Weaver, 6X Weaver, Than 10X Weaver. All were for hunting. Now it's anything from 18X to 32X punching holes in paper and metal target Clinging out to 600 yds.Once in a while I shot open sights. If the two sights present a soled blur with the target in the middle I shoot. Don't do all that bad but nothing great. roger

I have 3 rifles with iron sights.
3 with fixed low power scopes - 2.5X to 4X.
3 with variables - 3.5-12X, 6-18X & 8-32X.

When hunting, the variables start out set on the lowest setting. Don't use'em for spotting game either.

However, on longer shots, there's usually some time to adjust the power up and have when it helped make the shot.

It depends quite a lot on what kind of hunting we do.

Where I live, hunting moose can mean shots from 5 meters to 300.
A variable 1,5-6x42 is by many regarded the ideal scope for such terrain.

Low light hunting for deer and boar (legal in many European countries), demand a different breed of scopes, often 3-12x56 with illuminated reticle.

It all boils down to what kind of hunting and what terrain one hunt.
To write of good scopes that can mean the difference if you get meat on the table or not, is foolish.

I too fall into the dinosaur camp. I do not like the miniaturized versions of the Hubble Space Telescope mounted on hunting rifles.

My largest scope is a Leupold VX-3, in 2.5-8x by 36mm. It is also my least favorite.

I really like my Leupold VX-3, in 1.75-6x by 32mm closely followed by VX-1 and VX-2 scopes in 2-7x by 33mm.

I despise the unproyected, giant, protruding, finger adjustable turrets. It takes more than the precomputed or standard come ups to shoot effectively and ethically beyond 400 yards.
Which comes to my thoughts on limits. 300 yards is my limit; in perfect conditions I may try to push to 400 yards. The effects of wind are seldom addressed to the extent that they should on such long shots; the wind may change in two or three directions throughout those long shots.

As was mentioned don't use your scope mounted rifle as a spotting scope. I hunt on the lowest power for great field of view and rapid target acquisition. If I need a closer look at the antlers etc. I will zoom up. I find shooting above 6 power is harder than it needs to be. The wobble is magnified as well as the image. 6 power is about the max power that I can comfortably hold steady in field conditions. As I told a PH in Africa, the center of the moon is the same size as the center of an aspirin; I don't need to see which two hairs I am shooting between on the animal's body.

Well those are my opinions and I will stick with them. I guess I may as well add that I am just as accurate with a Lyman 48 rear aperture and fibre optic front bead as I am with a scope 200 yards and closer.

We don't "really Need" anything- we could "get by" with open sights on a 40-65. So the question is: How helpful and what advantage is gained by using a large objective, high power potential scope, when applied to big game hunting? Some consider the size, weight and complexness of the scopes to outweigh their marginal benefits & so those users retain their smaller, lighter less powerful scopes and do just fine with them. Others see the benefits of the bigger scopes as outweighing the detriments and so they are quite happy with and do quite well with the larger scopes. One man shouldn't place their values on another- particularly when the other gets along nicely with their choice.

Need is rarely part of the equation.

The same could be said for any caliber other than ...

rumor has it that you can't hit what you can't see...

At least that's my rationale.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:
We don't "really Need" anything- we could "get by" with open sights on a ...

Not if I want to hit anything much beyond about 25 yards.

About 10 years ago I had Laser eye surgery to correct my near sightedness. Now I can easily see elk a mile or more away, but I need reading glasses to clearly see anything closer than about 10 feet.

A few years ago I saw a good price on a Win Model 94 .30-30, so I ordered it. When I got it home, I threw it up and both front and rear sights were a total blur. So much for 300 yard head shots with that rifle.

In the late 70s I decided that I needed more than one rifle, so I built a .22-250 mainly for varmints and a .257 Ackley for mainly deer size critters. I put a 10x Weaver on the .22-250 and a 6x Leupold on the .257. Both rifles still have those scopes on them.

I've used the .257 on everything from prairie dogs to elk, including dozens of pronghorn antelope, several bighorn rams, a Dall ram and a mountain caribou. I shot just about all of those animals at less than 300 yards, and I never felt I needed more than the 6 power scope.

That said, most of my other big game rifles and the slug barrel for a shotgun all wear variable scopes from a 2x7 Leupold on my .375 RUM to a 4.5-14x Leupold on my .300 Weatherby.

Most of the time when I am hunting I have these scopes set at mid or lower power.

Aim small, miss small.

It's an age-old debate but there's really nothing to debate. It's similar to solving a problem which doesn't exist.

Use whatever you want and I'll use whatever I want...which just so happens to be variable scopes of moderately-high power for hunting.

Hey, at least we agree on the 338!

Ain't freedom grand?
Zeke

Depends on the setting. In the African Bush, a variable power scope can get you into trouble. Too many times I have witnessed shooters cranking their scope power up to and beyond 14+. Then the animal takes a step and then you see the rifle muzzle frantically wandering all over the place attempting to reacquire their target. It can be a huge distraction when stalking. Most shots are within 100 yards so the need for 14X and higher is mostly useless.

A fixed 6X is a wonderful thing, but most American hunters want to carry a wide range of gadgets along with huge variable glass atop their rifles.

Sometime, simpler is far better...

Opus1, This may sound harsh, but, there is zero reason for a hunter to fail to reduce the power down to minimum until needed! Such as, "Gee officer, I forget to apply the brake" ! When one is in the field with a weapon, you must maintain situational awarness! Where the members of your party are, direction the weapon is pointed, "SAFETY" on until ready to shoot, ect. If that is unachievable, perhaps golf should be that persons sport!!! memtb

As Townsend Whelen said, big game tends to be large and we don't really need high-powered scopes to shoot them, even out to 350 yards.

He was instead concerned with maintaining adequate fields of view despite the long eye reliefs needed with high-recoil rifles, esp. for up-hill shots, and argued that 2.5x was about as high as you could go without sacrificing one or both.

Animal wariness is still evolving, making them harder than ever to approach, so I would not say it is unsporting to hunt them with anything more that rocks. However, we should have some thought as to when the use of technology takes us beyond fair chase. Personally, I think we should draw the line at adding lights to our sights and use of equipment that allows us to shoot animals beyond ranges where they are ever likely to spot or fear the hunter. I suspect some of the high-powered optics popular now only make sense when used with bipods to keep the target still.

As to using high magnifications to compensate for ageing or dodgy eyesight, a better idea might be get your spectacles updated - to help identify your target in the first place.

So, I prefer low-powered scopes except for shooting rabbits perhaps, where the 2.5x Nickel I have on my Anschutz .22 lacks something once the target disappears below the picket of the #1 reticle. I enjoyed xausa and HistoricBore's posts; they took me back to to the Halcyon days