The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Medium Bore Rifles How many use a 4x or 1.5x6, 2x7 for hunting?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| How many use a 4x or 1.5x6, 2x7 for hunting? | Login/Join |
One of Us |
Leupold 2x7 handles all my hunting needs now. | |||
|
| one of us |
Depends on what I'm doing. Decades ago, when the ears worked, walking about was a reasonable proposition. Now, to have any chance I need to be still, probably in a blind. What's too much magnification from a blind? Dunno, but 10x is not too much, and kinda nice at times for assessing. Also nice for recognizing obstacles close to the animal. Not saying I need more than 4x to hit a deer at 400 yds. But 6x is no handicap at 25 yds. 90% of my shots in recent years were taken at right on 6x. Surely have no need for less. If all my rifles had Leup 6x42s or 6x33s I'd be just fine. But more magnification doesn't hurt. Nobody makes a 6-12x, so a 3.5-10x or 4-12x suits me. Have some rifles with 2.5-8x and they're good enough. I tried the now discontinued 1.75-6x VX3 and ended up selling it. Killed stuff with it, but I never turned it below 6x, so it didn't make sense. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have a 1-4x on my 45-70 and a 2-7x on my 375 Ruger. My other rifles have 4-12xs and a 4-14x. BH63 Hunting buff is better than sex! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have a 1-4xs on my 45-70 and 416, and a 2-7x on my 375 Ruger. My other rifles have 4-12xs and a 4-14x. BH63 Hunting buff is better than sex! | |||
|
One of Us |
Leupold 1-4X on my 6.5 MS Leupold Illum 1.5-6 on my 416 Rigby CZ Kevlar Leupold 2-7X on my Tikka 222 Rem Leupold 2-7X on my Simson M98 9.3X62 A basic 4X on my Brno 22 "When the wind stops....start rowing. When the wind starts, get the sail up quick." | |||
|
one of us |
Although I've used variables of many different powers over the years, since the new 2-10x and 2-12x scopes have come out, I think this has given me the best of both worlds. The higher powers are used for sighting in and load development while the lowest power is what my scope is set on when hunting. As I was once told, "there is always time to turn the power up, but never enough time to turn it down." .395 Family Member DRSS, po' boy member Political correctness is nothing but liberal enforced censorship | |||
|
one of us |
that is what I have been buying, have 2 3x9 x40's too. | |||
|
| One of Us |
prof- I shoot far more at the range/rocks in the desert than I get to hunt. I have been using my bigger variables the way you describe for years. if I know I will be getting to hunt, I will put a smaller/lighter lower power on to hunt. I just swap scopes as I'm sure many folks do too. I once had an Afrikaner ask me why Americans seem more "into" shooting/reloading,etc than the Europeans he sees, and I said its because we have such short hunting seasons. If we enjoy the sport (riflemen) we have nothing else to do the other 51 weeks of the year!  | |||
|
| one of us |
Jim: I often go out in the desert and shoot rocks at very long range. The rocks have a flat face and are fairly large (at least one MOA wide and high but I prefer two) with a distinct aiming spot like a black mark. Normally I can see where my bullet hit but the other day I was shooting in the middle of the day with strong winds. I just could not see many of my bullet hits due to mirage, so I hiked on up to the spot where I was shooting at three rocks 780 to 808 yards away maybe spread out 100 yards. It was really difficult to find those rocks once I got up there. I often have that problem. Once I shot a deer at long range on a steep slope. What looked to be flat was anything but flat once I got down there. You can help yourself by taking an azimuth (you know the range because you measured it before you shot) and then determining the spot using a topo map app. Why rangefinders don't have a "find it" feature (using an internal GPS) is something I have always wondered about. | |||
|
| one of us |
The scopes I use vary on where and what I am hunting. I hunt deer in MN with a Rem Mod 7 .308; it wears a 2-7. My all around rifle is a .338 Win Mag that wears either a 4-14 B&C reticle or the same scope but 3.5-10 with illuminated reticle (I used it to shoot a leopard last June and have not changed it). My .416 wears a 1.75-6. Two .375s wear a 1.75-6 and a 3-9. My 500 yard gong rifle is a .308 with a 4-16. My .223 Mini 14 has a 2-7; my .204 has a 4-14 as does my .223 700. My Ruger RSI .243 has a 2-7. My long range rifles mostly wear Nightforce 5.5-22 or 5.5-25 ATACR scopes. i have a lot of old Leupold 6.5-20 scopes but most are now sitting on a shelf. You don't need a lot of power to shoot game, but if you shoot a lot with higher power scopes (and/or dry fire every day) it isn't hard to find what you want to shoot. | |||
|
One of Us |
I have by far more scopes in the 3-9 or 3.5-10 power range than anything else. When I got my first scope in 1975 it was a Leupold 3-9 and I haven't strayed far. I have a few 2.5-8's and a few 2-7's but none lower. I find myself turning the scope "up" in most situations for the shot as I like to place my shot exactly where I want it. I always carry my scopes on the lowest power. I understand that you can "hit a deer" at most ranges with a low power scope. I have no interest in that, I want to place my bullet exactly and precisely on the animal so I use the higher powers when making my shots. | |||
|
One of Us |
I've used mostly 2.5x, 4x and 2-7x scopes but now have an old 1.5-6x36 Nickel Supra on my 338WM, which I keep on 2x for most forest use. I have technical and philosophical reasons for not wanting scopes larger than six-or-seven-power on big-game rifles but they take a chapter to explain. PM me your address, Jim, and I'll send you the book, free*, which lays them out. *much cheaper than 'for free' | |||
|
| one of us |
We live in a world of varibles, and today the bigger the better seems to rule. My all time favorite scope is the 4X Leupold, I like the 3X Leupold on the really big bores..the 4Xs go on my big game NA hunting rifles.. I have a few 2x7x28 Leupolds, a 1.5x5, couple of 2.5x8s, some 3x9s, mostly kept in a draw. I like the 3x9 and 4x12 for varminting I suppose..I keep my options opened and the right to change when the notion occurs to me.. The option should be what works for the hunter, or what he is happy with is more likely..but if I was allowed only one power for all my guns it would be the 4X Leupold, Ive yet to see it fail under any reasonable circumstance, not counting contrived ideas of what causes failure. It's not which one is best, its which one suits you the best..I hate bulk on any rifle, so that's my main gripe..as far as killing the animal they all work most of the time, but the smaller the scope in size the less likely it is to fail, of that Im sure. Ray Atkinson Atkinson Hunting Adventures 10 Ward Lane, Filer, Idaho, 83328 208-731-4120 rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com | |||
|
| one of us |
High power is 1.75-6 for me. Mostly the only reason for a high powered scope would be PCP pellet gun hunting at extreme ranges. Be Well. Packy | |||
|
One of Us |
The lowest I have is 2x7. There is simply no reason to not have the flexibility. Why not have the option of 9 or 10x if that 350 yard shot over your pack from prone with you jacket as a rear rest presents itself. Mike Legistine actu quod scripsi? Never under estimate the internet community's ability to reply to your post with their personal rant about their tangentially related, single occurrence issue.  What I have learned on AR, since 2001: 1. The proper answer to: Where is the best place in town to get a steak dinner? is…You should go to Mel's Diner and get the fried chicken. 2. Big game animals can tell the difference between .015 of an inch in diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, and 150 fps. 3. There is a difference in the performance of two identical projectiles launched at the same velocity if they came from different cartridges. 4. While a double rifle is the perfect DGR, every 375HH bolt gun needs to be modified to carry at least 5 down. 5. While a floor plate and detachable box magazine both use a mechanical latch, only the floor plate latch is reliable. Disregard the fact that every modern military rifle uses a detachable box magazine. 6. The Remington 700 is unreliable regardless of the fact it is the basis of the USMC M40 sniper rifle for 40+ years with no changes to the receiver or extractor and is the choice of more military and law enforcement sniper units than any other rifle. 7. PF actions are not suitable for a DGR and it is irrelevant that the M1, M14, M16, & AK47 which were designed for hunting men that can shoot back are all PF actions. 8. 95 deg F in Africa is different than 95 deg F in TX or CA and that is why you must worry about ammunition temperature in Africa (even though most safaris take place in winter) but not in TX or in CA. 9. The size of a ding in a gun's finish doesn't matter, what matters is whether it’s a safe ding or not. 10. 1 in a row is a trend, 2 in a row is statistically significant, and 3 in a row is an irrefutable fact. 11. Never buy a WSM or RCM cartridge for a safari rifle or your go to rifle in the USA because if they lose your ammo you can't find replacement ammo but don't worry 280 Rem, 338-06, 35 Whelen, and all Weatherby cartridges abound in Africa and back country stores. 12. A well hit animal can run 75 yds. in the open and suddenly drop with no initial blood trail, but the one I shot from 200 yds. away that ran 10 yds. and disappeared into a thicket and was not found was lost because the bullet penciled thru. I am 100% certain of this even though I have no physical evidence. 13. A 300 Win Mag is a 500 yard elk cartridge but a 308 Win is not a 300 yard elk cartridge even though the same bullet is travelling at the same velocity at those respective distances. | |||
|
| One of Us |
No reason not to. I am shuffling things around now. I will end up with just 2 scopes; the 4.5x14 Timberline ( a surprisingly small scope) and a Vortex Razor 1.5x8, another small scope. I "almost" went with another 1.5x5, but saw the Vortex and got a good deal. Good deal is pretty high up in my reasoning right now, ha. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Got the Vortex in and man, it is really clear with great resolution! Not to mention, the wide FOV it affords. The retical may take a bit of getting used too, but still, very useable for a snap shot. Its the one with the "almost German #4 but with a tiny dot in the middle, with Ballistic dots underneath? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Is the Vortex illuminated Jim. I have heard good first hand reports of them. DRSS | |||
|
| one of us |
ONe reason is I can kill an animal at 350 to 400 yards with a 4X as well as I can with a 10 or 12X. and I dislike bulk in a rifle..At long reasonable range I tend to pay more attention to the sight piciture with a 4X and I get less wiggle in my X hairs as that movement is not magnified by 10 or 12X...Ive tried it both ways and made my choice. One should try it both ways and make up his or hers own mind..I have a favorite for deer hunting and its the 2,5X Leupold Alaskan on my Marlin 25-35, it just fits the caliber. Add to that is fixed power scopes are less likely to break as they have fewer working parts, are more waterproof etc, etc. I know its argueable, but its my reasoning based on my personal experience..   Ray Atkinson Atkinson Hunting Adventures 10 Ward Lane, Filer, Idaho, 83328 208-731-4120 rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
At the risk of offending a number of contributors to this thread, I have to say that it seems to me that this preoccupation with high powered scopes is part of the effort to substitute technology for training. The US military is as guilty of this effort as anyone, with its effort to substitute the "point and fire" AR and it's progeny for intensive and repeated marksmanship training. Again, in my opinion, there is nothing more confidence building than creating the feeling of certainty than one can hit what one is aiming at under the most stressful of conditions. This feeling can only be created by long hours of practice under realistic conditions, for which there is no substitute. Long range target shooting is one way of creating that confidence. The more proficient one becomes with iron sights, the more one realizes that a scope is merely an auxiliary means of sighting which enhances, but does not replace, proficiency without it. Hitting a six inch "X" ring on a high power rifle target at 600 yards using iron sights is not an impossible goal, but one within the reach of virtually everyone willing to devote the necessary time and effort. Once that goal is achieved, then aiming with a scope of any power is that much easier. Consider this: the more bells and whistles added to any device, and a rifle scope is no exception, simply multiplies the likelihood that something will go wrong. Adding variable power to a scope increases the risk disproportionately, when using the scope with a rifle of more than moderate recoil. There is no way of predicting when something might go wrong, so the safest course is to reduce the number of factors which can go wrong to the absolute minimum. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The terrain that I hunt limits me to 200 meters. My animal sightings are usually under 100 with most closer yet. I use 1/1.1- 4/5/6x straight tubed and 42mm 1.5/1.6/1.7/2.5- 6/8/10x. I have some 2.5-10x 50mm's, though not really use. I can rationalize use for each group.
| |||
|
| One of Us |
So taking that logic to full extent ideally you would solder on the scope mounts so they can’t move, only use a fixed power with elevation only as the wind age is in the mounts, and if indeed you wanted to use a variable it should be FFP so the erector mechanism couldn’t possibly contribute to a wandering zero. Or you could accept that CNC machining has shrunken tolerances and our gear isn’t being bashed about that badly. And I write this after missing two easy shots with a borrowed Ruger rifle and 3-9 Leupold. The misses may be due to the rifle being abused by being thrown into the bed of a truck driven quickly through farm paddocks, or my lack of familiarity. I probably would have been more successful with my old BRNO and it’s 6x42 Doctor but I’d say that’s just a product of spending more time at the range with it. Formerly Gun Barrel Ecologist | |||
|
| one of us |
I agree. For most people it’s about immediate satisfaction and throwing big glass makes it easier. Go to any range in Michigan the week before deer season opens and you will see some guy with a brand new 300 Win Mag topped with a massive scope. They’ll spend enough time to hit a paper plate at 100-yards and call it good. Picked up an old Winchester .22 with a peep-sight and was quickly reminded how much fun it is to plink and punch holes in paper, which is how I learned to shoot in the first place. Also helped me with my G&H 7x57 with a Lyman 48. My scopes: Ruger M44 Weaver K1.5 post retical Rem 700 7x57 Leupold 4x Rem 700 3006 Leupold 2.5-8x LMT AR. 5.56 Leupold 2-7x JDG | |||
|
| One of Us |
As a matter of fact, one of my favorite scopes is the Lyman Alaskan, a 2 1/2X scope of which I have a number of examples and use regularly. It does have windage adjustment, so it is not quite as "primitive" as you describe, but it does not have a centered reticle and it is up to my ingenuity to correct that. The Buehler Micro Dial mount goes a long way toward solving the problem, as do Griffin & Howe side mounts with windage adjustment. One of the virtues the Alaskan shares with the Noske Field Scope, another favorite, is an exceptionally long eye relief. Most of my Mauser Sporters, of which I also have a number, are fitted with just the kind of scope you describe. No windage adjustment. I have not found this to be a problem at all, except in the case of one, which has no windage adjustment in the mount either, and moving the front dovetail is the only way of changing windage, a tedious process. I have a variable power scope or two, mostly confined to rifles with mild recoil. Most of the shots I fire from my heavy recoiling rifles are aimed at game, since I use reduced loads for practice. I have never shot long strings of shots with my .505 Gibbs, off the bench or otherwise. What I have expressed is my opinion. You are welcome to yours. I have around 65 years of shooting experience to base mine on, and I am satisfied with it. | |||
|
One of Us |
All low power for my hunting rifles: M70 .308 = L 4 power All lever rifles have some form of iron peep sights Both double rifles have express sights plus QD L 1x4 set on 1. A mixed bag for plinking rifles (.22, 223, 22 Hornet, .243,etc) It should be obvious that I like to take close shots. NRA Life Benefactor Member, DRSS, DWWC, Whittington Center,Android Reloading Ballistics App at http://www.xplat.net/ | |||
|
| one of us |
You may indeed be correct that marksmanship training is lacking in general. Connecting skill deficiencies to use of higher magnifications - among people you do not know - comes across as crudely gratuitous. And the idea that higher magnifications provide no benefit in the field, regardless of circumstances, is not rationally defensible. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Xausa - good to hear you practice what you preach. I still have a preference for the old 6x42 and 8x56 for rugged reliability and light gathering, and a habit of only using a FFP variable if I’m shooting at something I have to pay a trophy fee on. However to earn the $s I have to use what work issues and that can and does mean embrace the 21st century Formerly Gun Barrel Ecologist | |||
|
| One of Us |
Great magnifications seem to have a place in target shooting, but I believe xausa has been no slouch at that either. They are also of use in varmint shooting but neither of those pastimes require constant walking over rough terrain or confronting critters that might 'bite' back. I suppose there might be some fair-chase scenario where a high magnification really is justified for big-game hunting but old-timers like us find it hard to imagine. The downsides of big scopes, on the other hand, are all too obvious. | |||
|
| one of us |
I outlined just some of the reasons I like magnifications up to about 12x. Have not taken anything (large or small) below 5x in decades. People who shoot binocular are not as handicapped by magnification as those who cannot. Moreover, completely understand why folks hunting in open country have no need of magnification..and said so. As for xausa being no slouch, have no problem with that, nor the notion that marksmanship training is in trouble in the US...and said so. The fact remains, his remarks were gratuitous. He knows he ventured off topic to insult people he does not know. When someone prefaces a remark with "I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but....." that means he's giving you a hard time. The preface does not excuse the insult. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Samuel, I've just reread xausa's posts but can't find anything in them meant to insult anyone personally, and I know he is not someone with a malicious nature. My objections to using high powers on hunting rifles cross those he has mentioned but include the dangers posed by shrinking the field of view drastically while actually hiding acres of country that might contain someone or something we should see; the danger of big objective bells being bumped, wrenching the scope out of alignment; and the need for objective focusing once powers get much over 6x. A recurring theme I have noticed in these discussions is of hunters going to higher powers because their eyesight is diminishing. This is letting the tail wag the dog. If we can't resolve failing eyesight with a new pair of spectacles, the first problem I mentioned above becomes critical and the hunter a danger to others outdoor. | |||
|
| one of us |
I think that theme is more going to optics then higher power ones. | |||
|
| one of us |
Sambarman, Appreciate the well-thought response. I do get the weight/bulk arguments. You surely realize not everyone would be bothered by a large objective and a few extra ounces....especially when walking short distances to/from stands. Xausa's remarks seem(ed) too far OT to be anything but gratuitous. Would rather believe your assessment, though, and if his remarks were not so intended I apologize to him and to you. You make it clear some really believe magnification to be a hindrance to good shooting. I find that odd as people who shoot silhouette feel very much the opposite and nobody would question their skill level. Up here we're more likely to encounter someone - the week before season opens - who can't shoot into 6 MOA from a bench, yet will claim to be deadly off-hand. As if. Lower magnification does not make them more safe or accurate. FWIW, I do a fair amount of position practice with M-16A1 irons (age 64). Am more accurate with more magnification. We all hunt in different covers under different conditions. Not everyone is hindered in any way by a large objective and higher magnification. Will take all the magnification and light-gathering I can use out back. Out west on a horseback hunt would fully agree with Ray and, probably, with you and Xausa. Anyway, thanks again. | |||
|
| One of Us |
My remarks were certainly not so intended and I happily accept your gracious apology. Far from insinuating that only incapable marksmen use high power scopes, I should have said just the opposite. Only capable marksmen can get the benefit of a high power scope. Lt.Col. Lones Wigger USA(ret), perhaps the greatest target shooter of all time, used a 20X scope shooting smallbore three position, which is an event requiring strings of fire from the standing, sitting and prone position. Keeping in mind that the ten ring of an international indoor smallbore target is the size of the period at the end of this sentence and that the match is shot at 50 feet, being able to hold a rifle steady enough to take advantage of such a scope in the standing position is superhuman. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...n-rifle-shooter.html Good marksmen understand this and balance the limits of their capabilities against the advantages of increased magnification. It was not about them that my remarks were made. Thanks to you, too, Paul, for your kind words. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Thanks Samuel and xausa, as I stated way back in this thread, I have no problem with high magnifications in target and varmint shooting. I realise the accompanying parallax/focus adjustments can inform your evaluation of wind through mirage. The biggest scope I own is a 4-16 Nikon Monarch I used on the 270 WSM for tahr hunting - but it did not work for me. The big objective got a bump against a soft mudbank, which knocked it 12 MoA out of zero, causing me to miss a chamoir only 120 yards away. Conversely, no bump in 30 years of hunting rough country with my Kahles Helia Super 27 had ever knocked it more than 2 MoA out of whack, not even using it as a brake to stop me sliding down a greasy, dry cascade. The Nikon's clarity is great but its field of view at 4x is a pathetic 25 feet at 100 yards and a minuscule 6.3 feet at 16x, yet that 16x magnification and the impedimenta of modern image-movement scopes blocks out 120 feet (and and an area up to 14,000 square feet). The BDC reticle is in the second focal plane and so only works effectively as a rangefinder at 16x - but I wouldn't carry it around the mountains at that power - and cranking up when needed, along with twiddling the parallax adjustments, was a waste of precious time beyond my thoughts when a big-enough critter appeared. And so I follow the Townsend Whelen outlook, which considered even 2.25x adequate for big game out to 350 yards on flat-shooting rifles. | |||
|
| one of us |
That is because an even old 2.5 that works is a vast improvement over open sights. And Townsend didn't have access to the modern scopes we have today. | |||
|
| One of Us |
That's true, obviously, but he was not ignorant of high magnification, seeing value in 8x (or 12x?) scopes with big objectives for army snipers because they allowed the soldiers to pick out enemy marksmen hiding under logs. His reasons for preferring scopes like the 2.25x Zeiss Zielklein for hunting was because big game tended to to be big and he thought a large field of view and long eye relief was more important than high magnification. | |||
|
| One of Us |
My Vortex is not Illuminated pard. Sorry to be late in getting back to your question. I have been writhing around on the floor with this sorry hip, ha. I finally get in to see the sawbones tomorrow. He is either going to have to suggest some kind of new PT, give me some opiods, or shoot me in the hip joint with a small caliber handgun, double-tap me in the butt cheek while he's at it! I gotta have some relief, ha. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Colonel Whelen discusses high power scopes in his 1944 book "Telescopic Sights", and makes it clear that he favors high power scopes where appropriate, on the rifle range, for example. He states unequivocally that his preference for a scope in small bore shooting is one of 20 power. In the book "Mister Rifleman", which features photos of the rifles in Colonel Whelen's possession at the time of his death, there are depictions of a number of Unertl target scopes described as 10X, and one of the varmint rifles is equipped with a BalVar 24, one of the first American made variable power scopes with higher magnification. Colonel Whelen was a passionate benchrest shooter and there is no doubt that he recognized the value of high power scopes on the rifle range. His book is well worth reading, but his observations on hunting scopes can be briefly summarized as follows: the most important features of a hunting scope are (1) a large field of view, (2) long eye relief, and (3) a large exit pupil. Only a relatively low powered scope can offer all these attributes. | |||
|
| one of us |
XAUSA: I shoot at 500 yards several times per week at my local range. Indeed, one guy who shoots three position and wins a lot of ribbons and cups shoots unreal groups at 500 yards with metallic sights. But let's be honest, tandem aperture sights shooting at a circular target gives a level of precision that is impossible to meet with "open sights." But I do agree that most guys use more power than they need. I hear the complaints about big bulky objective lenses, but the only time I knocked my scope off was when my sling stud came loose (and it wasn't a big obj). For LR shooting, I love high magnification. For general hunting, lower power scopes work fine. | |||
|
One of Us |
Leupold 1.5-5x on my 500 Jeffery. Leupold 2-7x Firedot on the 375 Weatherby, 4-12x Zeiss on my 270 Weatherby Regards, Chuck "There's a saying in prize fighting, everyone's got a plan until they get hit" Michael Douglas "The Ghost And The Darkness" | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Medium Bore Rifles How many use a 4x or 1.5x6, 2x7 for hunting?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia