This thread got me thinking about my own scope use. My rifles have low powered variables. I would set the power ring on 2 or 4 depending on the caliber of the rifle. I never changed magnification after the initial setting. Looking back, I would have been as well served with a fixed power scope with its reliability and a lower cost.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
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)

Ever heard of Leupold? A 3-9 x 40 VX-2 costs less than half of a good rifle and the LR reticle adds $20.00! Easily handle 99% of all shooting situations on this planet in a medium bore rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by nopride2:
This thread got me thinking about my own scope use. My rifles have low powered variables. I would set the power ring on 2 or 4 depending on the caliber of the rifle. I never changed magnification after the initial setting. Looking back, I would have been as well served with a fixed power scope with its reliability and a lower cost.

Dave

A variable power scope is self serving. You leave the magnification at 3x all the time for distances up to a couple hundred yards and have time to turn it up past that when needed. If a moose is at 300 yards you got time to take 3 seconds and adjust to 9x.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
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)

Ever heard of Leupold? A 3-9 x 40 VX-2 costs less than half of a good rifle and the LR reticle adds $20.00! Easily handle 99% of all shooting situations on this planet in a medium bore rifle.

Agreed- who says Swarovski's are required? Will you be shunned if you show up to camp with a VX2 or a Burris or even - Horrors!!! - a Simmons???

I almost made it thru 2 pages .
I grew up with iron sights, have hunted and killed almost as much game with irons as with an optic sight.
The most recent caribou that I killed was with my military 98 Mauser in 375 Whelan A.I. with the Williams reciever aperture sight with the aperture removed making it a ghost ring . And a sourdough post front banded base sight. At 135 paces. Off hand , no shooting stick. 1 shot , bang flop. The one before that was at almost 400 yards with my 6.5 Creedmoor that wears a 1-4×24 30 mm tube SWFA SS Classic scope. Set on 4 power . Standing using a willow stick I had cut for a rest. Hit it exactly where I planned to. Same with the 2 previous bou, same rifle and optic.

I have had a bunch of hunting scopes, 1" tube. Never again.
Fragile little pieces of poop. 20years ago , ok, scopes going bel)y up was to be expected. Nowadays with Tactical scopes built to stand up to 50 BMG recoil forces and still be precise instruments. It is none sensical to tolerate a scope loosing its zero or failing to be dialed to an exact correction, and the reticle actually moving the poa AND poi to those corrections.
Optics have advanced to the point that they can now actually be as generally reliable as rifle barrels and bullets are.
Yes, some of the best are very expensive . But many of them are worth it.
I'm not much on packing around a spotting scope and plan on mounting a top tier variable on my rifle asap. Which will be a while. Ideally a 3-18 ×50 ffp full on tactical scope mil/mil . Illuminated reticle. But possible 3-15 or 4-16


Believe it or not, it was bison hunting that finally convinced me that I needed a top tier rifle scope. Judging sex via horn size and shape is tough duty that most optics will fail at.
There also is an ethical issue to the sighting system many use . And it is not in favor of low powered or non magnified sights.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:
Ever heard of Leupold? A 3-9 x 40 VX-2 costs less than half of a good rifle and the LR reticle adds $20.00! Easily handle 99% of all shooting situations on this planet in a medium bore rifle.

Actually, now that the VX-I is available with the LR Duplex there is no real need to spend additional money for the extra "I" (or "2").

I agree with Dave in that we as Americans tend to judge all things especially scopes by cost..

I also like low power scopes and for my big game hunting I like the 3X and 4X Leupolds best except on my varmint rifles where Ive settled on the 3x9 Leupold..

BTW, I buy all my Leupolds in pawn shops and in used condition in Sporting goods and Gun shows,
usually at 10 to 25 cents on the dollar, have for years. The LLeupold guarantee is good for the life of the scope and they fix them at no charge.

I have some 2x7x28 Leupolds and a 2.5x8 and I like them but they are not my favorite..In my near 70 years of hunting, I suppose about 60 years of using a scope, I know of no situation wherein I felt the need for more scope, I know some friends that imagined they did, but I usually just told them to shut up and shoot, it always worked..

I'm not a OCD hunter..I know a powerful, heavy, and bulky $3000. European scope doesn't make one a better shot. I also like Weaver, Burris, and Nikons, and only if Leupold ever goes under (it never will). When a Weaver or whatever shows up at a real good price I buy it for future use, or sell it at a profit.

Another thing about Leupolds, Ive never had one fog up or have cold break the reticle..I just like them..