When you quote Townsend Whelen while discussing scopes you may want to rethink the wisdom in that, I don't believe he's peered through a scope in more than 50 years, I think he died in 1961.
Yes he was a great man and very knowledgeable but he knew nothing of todays scopes with their fantastic clarity and 5 plus inches of eye relief and absolute precision.
Just saying that to quote Whelen on modern scopes is akin to quoting Benjamin Franklin on internet download speed.
I understand some people like low power fixed scopes because they still don't trust the "witchcraft" of a variable scope, I get it. I on the other hand like my mid range variables and frankly I think they make me a better shot when I want and need the power.
We all have opinions.....
By the way my father ingrained in me to always have my scope on low power so I always carry it that way and turn it down immediately if I've ever turned it up, his words were " if you need more magnification there will always be time to turn the power up, there is never time to turn it down if you need it on low power nd carry it turned up".

I've read all the posts, twice, and I didn't read anyone disparaging someone's opinion or choice. By it's very content the question begs for differences of opinion. I must reiterate I believe it's a matter of preference, choice and taste. I don't want a variable, 30mm tube and a 56 mm objective with target knobs, AO and lighted, BDC reticle on any of my rifles but I can assuredly understand those who do and why. I know I'm a little vain about the appearance of my rifles and much prefer how sleek and easy to carry they are without a scope, of any kind. I'll use them that way until Father Time dictates otherwise. For those who like a scope such as the aforementioned I pat you on the shoulder and send you on your merry way wishing you good fortune in the hunting fields...and probably add "nice rifle and scope" as you head on your way!!!!!

Variables help identify obstructions. You can see proximal obstructions at the low (default) power. When you crank it up, assuming there is time, you can see obstructions to bullet travel close to the animal. Not an advantage on every hunt, but once in blue moon it has kept me from trouble.

Wing and clay target addiction teaches you to both point accurately and to effectively use binocular vision. This translates to rifles. You become confidently able to get on target quickly with higher magnification - even with stuff on the move. My SA 164 squirrel gun wears a fixed M8-8x and I do not think that too much magnification at all.

In general, though, I agree with Ray. Don't like bulky, large objective scopes on hunting rifles for reasons well-stated by many in this thread. In fact, we recently switched out a 3.5-10x50 for a 1.75-6x32 on a .300 Roy. Our two other .300s wear the 2.5-8x Leup.

Nice to see there are still a few fans of the fixed 6. I was beginning to think I was out in left field by myself there. The most limiting factor I find about mine, (Ive got 2 of them) is the inability to decrease the magnification. Otherwise they are great! Lightweight, versatile and solid as a rock!

For general big game, a 6X fixed will get you the shot 90% of the time. That last 10% is where a variable will shine. So, not often, but when you need 3X, you have it. Or when 9 or 10X is important to see a specific animal, or weasel a bullet between some branches.

I liken it to 4 wheel drive on the truck. I don't often need it. But when I do, there is no substitute.

Big objectives and heavy scopes though are not generally for me. Most of my scopes are 40mm or so. I have one 56mm Trijicon that I got specifically for a leopard hunt without lights at night. Never got the cat, but that scope was the right choice for that situation. It also worked superbly on plains game the rest of the time.

Scopes for tiny varmints, competition and and more specialized long range shooting is a whole other discussion and turd tossing contest.

Jeremy

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Nice to see there are still a few fans of the fixed 6. I was beginning to think I was out in left field by myself there. The most limiting factor I find about mine, (Ive got 2 of them) is the inability to decrease the magnification. Otherwise they are great! Lightweight, versatile and solid as a rock!

Back in the day (which was way, way back) I seem to recall that the 4X scope was deemed the perfect compromise power for a hunting scope. The 6X was often viewed as being too powerful for most applications.

I myself prefer a low-power variable for deer hunting and the like, 2X - 7X being my preference. But then, I'm indecisive.

My scope selection is a whole lot more varied than it used to be but there is still not a lot of BG hunting I would hesitate to undertake with a 4X scope....even today with variables of all types hung on rifles.

A pal of mine emailed me today saying he drew a South Baja permit and will take a 270 with a 4X scope. Since he has killed more sheep than most people have seen, I am not going to suggest he use anything else.

Just some observations from personal experience.

I put together my first centerfire rifle/scope combination in 1969. The rifle was a 670 Winchester in .300 Win. Mag, the scope was a fixed 6 power steel tube, El Paso made Weaver, I no longer have that set-up but with the exception of two rigs, all of my rifles that are scoped, have fixed 6 power steel tube El Paso Weavers.

The exceptions are my .300 Weatherby which had a 2.5x7 Weatherby Premier on it when I bought the rifle and when the scope bellied up I put a 3x9 Leupold on it.

The other is Lora's Model 77 Ruger UltraLite in .257 Roberts and it has a fixed 6 power Cabela's Pine Ridge scope on it.

My problem with variable scopes, really does not concern the scopes themselves, but some of the folks using them, especially inexperienced or low experience "Hunters"!

I have been on several hunts, where the hunter would have the scope cranked to 9 or 12 power, and they cannot get a shot off at a javelina at less than 50 yards.

IN asking many hunters over the years, the majority that use variables claim that most or all of their shots on game are taken with the scope set on 4-5 or 6 power.

It is all a matter of personal preference, but sometimes, especially with NEWBIES, they want to depend on technology to make up for lack of experience.

Again, just observations made over 45 years or so of trying to put game on the meat pole or helping others do so.

Don't misread my post, I think everyone should do as they please with caliber, scope, bullets and whateve else as long as its legal..

I have presently several 2x7x28 older Leupolds, a couple of 2.5x8s, and a 3x9. The are in my desk drawer as a rule..

Ive used the varibles a lot and don't disapprove of them, but just don't believe I need them, and the sight of a "big ole scope" on a "little ole rifle", does leave me cold as it defeats the purpose of a light compact rifle. My latest is a G33-40 sporting a 2.5X Leupold Alaskan..

I wear bifocals and my eyesight is good for 82 years, but at that age is sure ain't perfect, but a scope pretty much takes up where your glasses are, I can see and shoot just as well with or without my glasses with a scope, the scope makes up for my eyesight the same as the glasses...

For me a 4X or 3X is more than suitable for shots up to my max of about 450 yards and I don't need 18sx to shoot a 1500 lb. moose or 800 lb. elk, and actually a deer at that range, thus my feeling on scopes, I simply don't need a laser or moonscope to shoot an animal..I know all the reasoning for large scopes and they just don't hold water with me..

I also know the more scope that protrudes from the front ring, the more likely it is to get knocked off zero and Ive seen that a multitude of times..I know that I can see a deer at 1000 yards with a 3X or a 16X scope and its actually easier to hold on the deer with the 3X, and it also makes one concentrate more on his shooting and trigger pull in many cases..

Just my personal opine, and not intended to be more than conversation or entertainment, but I am making my case for the minority of todays hunters, has nothing to do with yesteryear, other than that's where I got my education as to hunting and shooting, and I wouldn't take for it..

Good points and post from all..

One aspect, and it may not apply to the higher powered scopes, but with binoculars or so I have heard/read, once a power level is reached, around 16 power or so, without a tripod mount the normal beating of a human heart effects the view that the glasses provide.

Atkinson, I have owned/used a few Leupold Vari-X II scopes in 2-7x 28mm and they were by far the dimmest scope I ever used at dawn or dusk and had very limited windage adjustment. The Vari-XIIc and newer 2-7x 33mm are at least twice as good. Try one.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
When you quote Townsend Whelen while discussing scopes you may want to rethink the wisdom in that, I don't believe he's peered through a scope in more than 50 years, I think he died in 1961.
Yes he was a great man and very knowledgeable but he knew nothing of todays scopes with their fantastic clarity and 5 plus inches of eye relief and absolute precision.
Just saying that to quote Whelen on modern scopes is akin to quoting Benjamin Franklin on internet download speed.
I understand some people like low power fixed scopes because they still don't trust the "witchcraft" of a variable scope, I get it. I on the other hand like my mid range variables and frankly I think they make me a better shot when I want and need the power.
We all have opinions.....
By the way my father ingrained in me to always have my scope on low power so I always carry it that way and turn it down immediately if I've ever turned it up, his words were " if you need more magnification there will always be time to turn the power up, there is never time to turn it down if you need it on low power nd carry it turned up".

Sorry, It's a while since I've hunted in America. Have all the big ones been shot, so that we need higher powers to see what's left?

Some of the old scopes have long, flexible eye reliefs, too, though winding the power up on variables tends to bring them in. I notice some modern scopes have more-constant eye reliefs through the powers but (in the Kahles Helia C compared with the old Helia Super, at least) at the cost of flexibility - move your head back from the sweet spot and all you see is the exit pupil.

What Whelen was getting at was the ineluctable geometric truth that long eye relief and wide field of view are impossible in one scope unless you lower the power or increase the diameter of the ocular lens spectacularly. That truth has not changed, no matter what the ad men tell you.

I do agree with your father about having the power turned down - but warn against having too high a magnification at the top end, just in case you forget to turn it back one day. I did that and had a critter jump out 20 yards away. Because the scope was only a 2-7, still set on 6x, I was able to take the shot. Things may not have been so rosy at 18x.

People resist change. There was a time, half century or so ago that a vehicle with an automatic transmission was somewhat of a hard sell. They break, expensive to fix, rob power, poor gas mileage-yada, yada, yada. There was some truth mixed into it. Nowdays there are lots of young whipper snappers that have never driven a standard. You think not wanting an automatic transmission was weird? Even air conditioning on cars was somewhat undesirable. Imagine one without it today. Variable scopes were expensive and viewed as troublesome. The big argument back then was mostly 4 power or 6 power. Lots of rifles wore either Weaver K-4 or K-6.(Weavers were the poor mans scope. B&L made in NY were the top of the line scope.) Lots of this preference seemed to be whether hunting open country or wooded. The variables were more of a specialty item and much more costly to make. Now days variables are the standard and fixed powers becoming a specialty. In my books, Leupold is now the poor man's scope.(must be the poor man's scope, that's what Saeed uses) I like the variables. I agree, carry them on low power and 2x-7x or 3x-9x is my preference.

I've got a 4.5-14X 50 MM scope on my .338/.378 Wea Mag. It is a special purpose rifle with a heavy 28-inch barrel for long range shooting. Premier Reticles installed a custom reticle with range-compensating-dots out to 800 yards. I've shot a lot of deer with it between 400 and 750 yards. On the other hand I have a 7X57 Mauser with a Leupold 1.75-6X short tube scope which has plenty of magnification for that rifle and it is easiest to shoot offhand set at 1.75X. I think the scope's power needs to match the purpose of the rifle. I know people who have 6-18X scopes on low-grade, light-barreled .22 rimfire rifles and don't think that makes much sense unless done to offset eye problems. I prefer low mounted compact scopes unless on a rifle that really needs a scope with a lot of magnification.

Airgun, I have tried them and I have two of them as stated early in this thread, I still like the 2x7x28, mostly for the smaller forward bell being 28 as opposed to 33..

I have on one occasion found it a bit dim, as you profess, on a very early wet foggy morning in a Texas deer stand, the deer wasn't clear as you stated, so I killed it anyway..How did I do that, I put the cross hairs behind the deers clouded shoulder and shot him in the heart..I have done the same on elk on a foggy morning in Idaho..If I can see them with my eyes, I can sure shoot them with a scope.

The only variables I use and feel they are needed is for small varmint shooting in Idaho, wherein a Rockchuck or a dirt squirrel might be 10 yards or 600 yards, its handy for the close shots.

I have seen on many occasions, particularly in Africa wherein varibles were accidently or from a lack of knowledge were set on high power and game walked off unharmed, it happens routinely..I had that happen to me on one occasion when a knocked a buck down, and I thought he was dead but he jumped up right under my nose and I couldn't find him in the high power setting on that scope. I had shot him at about 400 yards, sadly the buck got away only to be found 4 days later devoured by coyotes.

This post was to state your case to all who post, not change my mind!

Then I state my case

I like a variable......a lot !!!

I think that Ray's original question was whether we need anything other than a moderate magnification fixed power scope for hunting. By "hunting" is take it he means game the size of deer and up, and by "need", I take his question to mean something which improves your chances of making a successful kill.

With the exception of "trick shooting" at very extended yardages, I think that answer is that having a big variable does very little for your chances of success. You can center a deer's vital area with a crosshair at 300 yards just as well when it is magnified four times as when magnified 14.

That said, I mostly use variables on my hunting rifles and there is at least one advantage to them which no one has pointed out: You can crank them up to maximum magnification for zeroing and load development off of the bench, then set them wherever is appropriate for hunting.

As others have pointed out, the physical drawbacks to 50mm and larger objectives (weight, above-eye-line mounting, etc.) are a hindrance in many hunting situations, while I also suspect that more game is missed due to excess magnification than lack of magnification.

And despite what some might think, extra magnification won't compensate for imperfect eyesight -- in fact, it only "magnifies" the problem.

None of this is to say that a good variable is not a good choice for a hunting rifle; it is just to validate the points that have been made that a large, high-powered variable isn't likely to make you a more successful hunter in most instances.

The bigger point of this discussion, the one about Premium bullets, Controlled Round Feed versus Push Feed, Wood Stocks versus Synthetic Stock, Ad Infinitum all boils down to Personal Preference. If you have something that works for you, in your situations, stick with it but simply remember that others mileage will vary.

We should all be Thankful for simply having so many choices available.

Stonecreek,
your spot on as to the meaning of my post, that and I thought it might be an interesting subject and get a lot of replys and entertain a lot of folks, and that's why we,re here, isn't it!

Given a choice......and I am

I choose to have the ability to use 10x at 400 over 4x

Hence the reason all of my rifles wear a variable.....most, but not all of them top out at 10

Even my 9.3x62 wears a 2.5x8 and I wouldn't have it any other way

I prefer a mid-range variable, in something topping out at 9-10 power and 40mm most of the time. Millions of others seem to agree. It's not I hate fixed, as I also have several of those. Then there's the lower powered variables, and those in the 15 and 25 top-end as well. 50 and 56 mm lenses, illuminated reticles and turrets? Sure, got those too and they have their uses.

I don't like being confined to my own "most of the time", never mind someone else's "Most of the time".

I never doubted the big scope folks would win the race, after all they were born in this generation or nearly..Most grew up learning to shoot with scopes, they learned to use them and they are satisfied, that's a good thing, but some of us old curmudgeons grew up shooting irons.

My family moved to scopes when Bill Weaver, and Jack O'Connor, who hunted with us used scopes and impressed us indeed, and Bill Weaver sent all of us a 2.5X Weaver for our rifles in the Christmas of 1953, best I recall..Those scopes didn't shoot well at all, and dad told Bill Weaver, they didn't work..Bill asked, did you sight them in, and dad said "do what" Well we got passed that little obstacle with his direction, and the low power scope became the sight of the day..I have used the low powers since that time and yes Ive used the mid level varibles a lot, like 2x7 and 3x9 and even a 4x12 on a varmint rifle, but most of my go to big game rifles support a 3X or 4X Leupold, and all my DG rifles have fixed 3Xs on them...That's been my choice and never a instance wherein I felt underscope, but to each his own and all should use whatever blows their skirt up. I have to confess that I do have two hunting rifles with a 2x7x28, and one with a 2.5x8, and a couple of other varibles in my desk drawer, should the need arise...There is certainly a place for both. My choice is just that, my choice and I like the look of a 3X Leupold on a big game rifle, and it slides in and out of a saddle scabbard and doesn't bulge my leg out.

I understand that people can forget to put the variable powered scope back down and then not getting a shot at a close and/or moving target- but is there any advantage to a fixed power scope other than that? I don't even think that's really an advantage to the scope, just a user error, which seems to be more common than equipment error these days.

Other than that, what does the fixed power offer? Slightly better light gathering abilities? I guess that's true but how many instances are you going to be able to see an animal with a fixed power scope as opposed to a variable? Not many in my experience- and I do believe all of my big game rifles have variable power scopes on them. Other than that, I think a little more magnification won't hurt anyone. When you carry your rifle, be it a fixed 4x or a 4-12x, I would say it should be on 4x, and if you get a shot where you have enough time, crank it up to whatever makes you happy! If that's 4x, you are still good. With a fixed power scope, you just don't have the option. Variety is the spice of life, you know?

When smaller game is part of the bag, I like having the option of finding the [duiker] at lower scope power, then zooming up for the actual shot. Call me crazy...

(I think "like" is more accurate then "need" for me.)

It all depends on the topography and environment. I like 3x or 4x per 100m or so it seems. I happily hunt out to 180m to 200m with 5x. Longer on smaller animals I do like more. Bushveld rifles are a perfect match with 4x and even 6x can work if shots are mostly 80m and beyond. More X makes you a lot slower.

I like the set and forget of a fixed scope so I try to treat variables the same. Fiddling with knobs I avoid.

I've hunted smaller game out to 400m or so and felt better served with 10x to 14x. Those shots were not possible for me with a 4x.

Shootings gongs and game is not the same.

I have a really accurate 6mm rifle. My 300m groups shrank by about 1/4 moa and were more consistently good when l went up in magnification. The principle is the same for longer shots at game and the confidemce gained exceeds a 1/4 moa margin in my estimation.

I don't often use it but I like it. 14x seems the most I'm comfortable with. 10x will always be enough for me (current ability) to about 400m. By the way less X with good glass beats more X with disappointing glass.

I have a few fixed scopes (one 2x and one 4x) on my big game rifles, but almost all the others have variables that top out at 9, 10, or 12x. I like higher magnification in low light or when picking a shot in the woods. Ironically, high magnification doesn't seem like much of an advantage to me for long shots in the open.

If I had to, I could get by with iron sights. I'd just have to pass on a few more shots. Sometimes I do use iron sighted rifles, especially when I'm driving deer.

The way I look at it, rifles (and sighting systems by extension) are kind of like golf clubs... you could play a whole round with a 5 iron if you had to, but it's a lot easier with a full set.

I still use irons a lot more than most, I like them for shooting up to 200 yards and for running shots. All of my rifles have QD scopes usually in Talley or old len Brownell rings and bases and have iron sights.

A couple of pluses with fixed scopes are that they are clearer, all things equal, and they are less prone to breakage..A variable sighted in at 100 yards however one choses to sight them in, will show, in many cases, to shoot to varing degrees of POI as the power changes, granted a few will hold a zero or close enough to satisfy some, but many never know to start with because they never bother or thought to check that..so this post might be a wake up call to some, while others still won't bother...

BTW before you ask, I have talked to several manufacturers that I know personally as to durability of fixed vs. variable..The answer is they repair more varibles hands down..I ask is that because there are way more variables out there? to wit they had to agree, but they still felt because of less working parts the fixed was the better scope on that issue, as to clarity they felt like the advantage again went to the fixed power, but the difference was so little that it made no difference, and I have to agree with that...BUT Ive never had to return a fixed power back that I recall, but Ive returned a number of varibles back for repair over the last 70 or so years..but again I don't find that unusual in than anything built by man is subject to wear and tear. Lord knows Im hard on guns and scopes as I use them like a axe, a wrench, or whatever..

In the matter of whether to have a variable at all, I don't believe variables can be anywhere near as waterproof as a fixed power, esp. one like the old B&L Custom type with no turrets to leak.

Most variables, I suspect, have a large slot under the power ring, which allows the transmission of the turning motion from the ring to the scroll in the erector set - an excellent place for water to get in. Perhaps scopes where the entire ocular housing is turned to change the power avoid having this great hole.

For many years 3x magnification multiples were standard and anything higher than that was seen as some sort of miracle. Now there is a scramble to sell bigger and bigger ranges based on higher and higher multiples. Valdada of Rumania even sell image-movement variables with up to 10x multiples - yet recommend their fixed-power reticle-movement scopes to shooters with serious tactical purposes. I wonder why?

My suspicion is that these big magnification multiples are only possible by extending the power scroll farther down the erector tube, putting even more weight and inertia out there to be belted around under recoil, more leveraged than ever before.

Sambarman,
I think your spot on, that makes a lot of since to me, and coincides with my experiences with scopes.

One other thing, and Im sure of this, is the more scopes that protrudes the front scope ring, the more likely it is to get knocked off zero and it don't take much with big scopes..A 2.5X or 3X protrudes about 1/2 to 1 inch and its hard to knock off zero..

Its easy to test, sight your gun in, then wack the front bell smartly and shoot another group and check its POI..The harder you smack it the more its gonna move..

quote:

I don't believe variables can be anywhere near as waterproof as a fixed power

It is certainly true that variables have one more point that must be sealed against moisture than do fixed scopes. However, it is also true that manufacturers of quality scopes have pretty much solved this problem and their variables are probably 99% as dependable as their fixed scopes in that regard.

But the more complex a scope is the more things there are to go wrong with it. My long-standing belief is that there is absolutely no place on a hunting scope for an adjustable objective, a side focus, or open (uncapped) turret adjustments. When you introduce any of these into the equation the chances of a scope malfunction increase, and with each you add to a given scope you increase the chance of failure exponentially, not just arithmetically.

The KISS principle is one that serious hunters take to heart.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

I don't believe variables can be anywhere near as waterproof as a fixed power

It is certainly true that variables have one more point that must be sealed against moisture than do fixed scopes. However, it is also true that manufacturers of quality scopes have pretty much solved this problem and their variables are probably 99% as dependable as their fixed scopes in that regard.

But the more complex a scope is the more things there are to go wrong with it. My long-standing belief is that there is absolutely no place on a hunting scope for an adjustable objective, a side focus, or open (uncapped) turret adjustments. When you introduce any of these into the equation the chances of a scope malfunction increase, and with each you add to a given scope you increase the chance of failure exponentially, not just arithmetically.

The KISS principle is one that serious hunters take to heart.

+1

As I’ve said, I prefer low power variable scopes. None of my hunting scopes (mainly deer) have adjustable objectives or side focus. (My high-power varmint scopes do.)

But I wonder if the higher end, high-power scopes really are more vulnerable to leakage (water in, anti-fogging gas out) than fixed-power scopes.

Intuitively, I agree they should.

But snipers use high-end, high-power variable scopes, and I’d think that of any use a scope could be put to, that would be the one where scope failure would be catastrophic. And snipers have to be prepared to fight in the most extreme conditions of terrain and weather.

It just seems to me that with stakes so high as our snipers face, it is unlikely that they would be armed with equipment that wasn’t absolutely fool-proof.

Ray,
I think this is the first thread you have ever started that stayed on subject.
Way to go!

I appreciate all of the opinions and ideas. I have gone thru about 20 scopes over the years. I have settled on Swarovski in variable and illuminated. That red dot makes a huge difference for me. I like the ballistic turrets as well. In recent years I have made two shots at 500 yards I would have struggled with had I not had the adjustable turrets.

I like some technology and hate some, but I really like variable illuminated scopes and range finding binoculars.

Of all the "helps" out there, range finders are the best.

My favorite scope remains a 1.5-6x42 from Zeiss or S&B. I did use 56mm variable scopes in Germany in low light conditions or when night hunting from stand. My 9.3x62 wears a 1.8-5.5x38 Zeiss Conquest...perfect for my needs.

2.5x10x56 Trijicon, 10 for working up loads, 8-10 for when I have time to put my pack down and use it for a rest, 8 for moonlight shooting, and 2.5 the rest of the time. Not my only scope, but one of my favorites to use even though it seems a bit bulky on some rifles.

All the scopes that I now use are variables. I like the 1.1-4x24, 1-6x24, 1.5-6x42, 1.7-10x42 2.5-10x42 & 50mm's.
I really like my straight tube scopes but, the 1.5-6x42's are my do-all scopes.
The lower powered straight tubes, and higher powers with larger objectives both have their advantages in certain situations to me, with suitable reticles.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

I don't believe variables can be anywhere near as waterproof as a fixed power

It is certainly true that variables have one more point that must be sealed against moisture than do fixed scopes. However, it is also true that manufacturers of quality scopes have pretty much solved this problem and their variables are probably 99% as dependable as their fixed scopes in that regard.

But the more complex a scope is the more things there are to go wrong with it. My long-standing belief is that there is absolutely no place on a hunting scope for an adjustable objective, a side focus, or open (uncapped) turret adjustments. When you introduce any of these into the equation the chances of a scope malfunction increase, and with each you add to a given scope you increase the chance of failure exponentially, not just arithmetically.

The KISS principle is one that serious hunters take to heart.

Absolutely.

I think the long range craze has much to do with these developments. Many of the new big magnification scopes are extremely sensitive in respect of focus on parallax adjustments and these are essentially useless to me in a hunting situation.

I agree wholeheartedly on open turrets. I did some pretty long range hunting with a friend who stalked closer with the rifle in his lap with the turrets removed after dialing an elevation adjustment. The friction moved the adjustments, despite these being really high quality and positive clicks.

At any time I want to be able to shoulder the rifle and shoot it, not fiddle with it first.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Sambarman,
I think your spot on, that makes a lot of since to me, and coincides with my experiences with scopes.

One other thing, and Im sure of this, is the more scopes that protrudes the front scope ring, the more likely it is to get knocked off zero and it don't take much with big scopes..A 2.5X or 3X protrudes about 1/2 to 1 inch and its hard to knock off zero..

Its easy to test, sight your gun in, then wack the front bell smartly and shoot another group and check its POI..The harder you smack it the more its gonna move..

I agree with your sentiments about the susceptibility of large bells, Ray, and my worst loss of zero from a knock came with just such a scope.

In regard to my doubts about the articulated erector tube inside virtually all modern scopes (used to give the reticle the appearance of being constantly centred), some new s--t has come to light, as The Dude would say.

The erector tube in the Vortex Razor 3-5x42 Hd 'Light Hunter' is apparently made of some 'brass alloy', requiring a hardened steel ring around it and hardened steel pads on the turret screws to stop scuffing of the tube. While a lot of thought has obviously gone into that, it does invite us to consider the original problem and the additional weight (on top of the brass mini-me) required to fix it. I don't know what articulated erector tubes weigh but I bet it is at least 10 times that of the movable reticle in pre-image-movement scopes, and 10 times more affected by recoil.

While I have not found any malfunctioning modern scopes to pull to bits yet (they've probably all gone back under warranty ) I suspect that any used long enough on a big rifle are going to exhibit damage where the tube rubs against the windage screw on returning to battery after recoil subsides. Denting against the elevation screw might not be out of the question, either.

My worry about scopes with big power multiples being even worse in this regard is again conjecture, but I can't afford to pull a new V8 Zeiss to bits to find out. The erector tube on the Swaro Z6 line does not look all that long but still reminds me of a baby dumbbell.

Going back to that point about returning a scope to low power after the long shot, I think another reason might be because it appears that the scroll moves lenses forward in the tube to give the higher magnifications. If so, the danger of zero loss from recoil or bump inertia is probably greater when the power is turned up.

Lots of interesting input. I like mixing it up with rifles really. Sometimes I just want to shoot my 45-70 buffalo special with peep sights, and sometimes I want to shoot my 308 with a 10X scope. However, I agree completely with those who prefer smaller, lighter scopes. I am NOT a fan of the mombo-Euro style eye bells or mombo 50mm + objectives. 40mm objectives are plenty big for me with most variables and even smaller for lower power/fixed scopes. Stonecreek made a great point about sighting in @ higher magnification as well. I always sight in at the highest magnification. I also agree that adjustable objectives dont mix well with hunting. The one exception for me is my varmint rifle, but in retrospect I would actually prefer a non AO for even that.. Simplicity and hunting go together like peas and carrots, which is why I still like iron sights, from time to time, in spite of the advantages of using a scope.

Zero shift with magnification change has barely been mentioned here, and perhaps that's because scopes from quality manufacturers seem to be very good about holding zero as the power is increased/decreased.

However, lots of less expensive variables can wibble and wabble as the power ring is turned. I always warn people away from cheap variables for this (and a number of other reasons). Good optical glass is relatively cheap in this day of automated manufacturing, so lots of cheap scopes provide a surprisingly good image. But when you complicate them with cheap internal mechanisms that image may be pointed a bit different direction at different powers. The higher the magnification the greater the probability of zero shift with cheap variables.

But if you take out the variable factor, I've found that even the cheapest fixed power discount store scopes are quite serviceable (in circumstances where such a scope fits your needs.)