quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I hear the complaints about big bulky objective lenses,

Some European scopes are so overwhelming it raises the question as to whether the scope is an attachment for the rifle or the rifle an attachment for the scope.

Colonel Whelen raises the point that although a high power scope may be useful for a stationary target, you never know when that stationary target is going to move, and using a high power scope to shoot at running game is another matter altogether. A variable power scope would not solve the problem, since there would be no time to change the setting.

Another point sambarman338 makes about variable power scopes in his book is that parallax changes with changes in magnification and at long range the change can be significant.

quote:

Colonel Whelen raises the point that although a high power scope may be useful for a stationary target, you never know when that stationary target is going to move, and using a high power scope to shoot at running game is another matter altogether. A variable power scope would not solve the problem, since there would be no time to change the setting

I killed a lot of running game with variable powered scopes.

You carry them on the lowest power setting.

If you have turned the scope to a higher power because it is a long ways off. one has plenty of FOV to pick up a running animal. Up to 9 t0 12x

Done it many times.

Even shot some close range running animals on the higher settings.

It is all about proper rifle and scope set up.

The majority of my rifles have 2-7’s with a couple 3-9’s a 1.5-5, a 2.5-8, 3.5-10,3-15 and 6x for good measure.
They all have their place.

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I hear the complaints about big bulky objective lenses,

Some European scopes are so overwhelming it raises the question as to whether the scope is an attachment for the rifle or the rifle an attachment for the scope.

Colonel Whelen raises the point that although a high power scope may be useful for a stationary target, you never know when that stationary target is going to move, and using a high power scope to shoot at running game is another matter altogether. A variable power scope would not solve the problem, since there would be no time to change the setting.

Horses for courses.

Does Whelens book include a picture of him with a wild boar he shot in Germany at midnight in a forest clearing under nothing but moonlight? Or perhaps a leopard he shot from a blind?

Also keen to know how many US hunters still hunt the same way as Whelen

quote:

Originally posted by GBE:

Also keen to know how many US hunters still hunt the same way as Whelen

One, at least: me.

I have never shot a wild boar by moonlight, but I have shot a leopard from a blind. I didn't have to follow him up, either.





A 3X Lyman All American Perma Center scope on my .375 H&H Krieghoff O/U double rifle.

Shooting by moonlight is illegal here and in most places I am aware of in the United States.

What’s the saying: “it’s not the arrow, it’s the Indian.” Sounds like most who have responded don’t rely on magnification in hopes of compensating for a lack of trigger time or skill but that’s not really surprising given the make up of this forum.

Nice cat

Given the increase in feral pigs in the US and their pest status rather than game status in places like Texas the regular daylight hunting regs and tactics may soon be overlooked. Swine hunters will find themselves with a choice, embrace 21st C technology and the rapid obsolescence each annual upgrade brings in thermal or NV scopes, or look to Europe and realise that a big exit pupil requires a big objective lens and twilight factor is not just a number to pad out brochures.

I could also bore you with wildlife management politics in Australia but suffice to say not all of us quit hunting and return to camp before the sun goes down

Try this, put a big 4x12 or whatever on your big bore sight it in, thenwack the crap out of it with the palm of your hand..shoot a group and see how far out of zero it is..the more scope that sticks out the fron't ring the more vunerable you are. The try the same with a 3X Leupold or Weaver, whatever..Do this test right,don't cheat....

the 2.5 and 3X take in more light, and have that all important field of view, I doubt that some of you have ever looked at a deer at 800 to a 1000 yards, guess what? you can still see the deer well enough to shoot and can hold the cross hairs on the small sight picture of the animal..Ive made some seriously long shots on deer and plainsgame with low power scopes..

Legal hunting times in this state and most others I am aware of is from one half hour before sunrise to one half hour after sunset. That's about the time frame in which deer can be clearly seen in my experience.

I am 80 years old, have neuropathy in both feet and can no longer aim with my right eye, but I still manage to get my deer. My preferred method of hunting was to walk through the woods, pausing from time to time at a likely spot and waiting to see what transpired. I can no longer do this, but I can still shoot, albeit from the left shoulder and I accounted for four deer last season, the fewest in a long time.

Like RIP, I have a MISSION, which is to take deer with as many different calibers as possible. So far I am up to 27 different calibers ranging from .22 Savage High Power to .400 Whelen and hope to add to that number again this year.

Good for you Xausa, keep up the good fight. I'm another low power advocate, mostly 2.5x to 6x with a couple of low power variables but nothing greater than 7x.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Try this, put a big 4x12 or whatever on your big bore sight it in, thenwack the crap out of it with the palm of your hand..shoot a group and see how far out of zero it is..the more scope that sticks out the fron't ring the more vunerable you are. The try the same with a 3X Leupold or Weaver, whatever..Do this test right,don't cheat....

the 2.5 and 3X take in more light, and have that all important field of view, I doubt that some of you have ever looked at a deer at 800 to a 1000 yards, guess what? you can still see the deer well enough to shoot and can hold the cross hairs on the small sight picture of the animal..Ive made some seriously long shots on deer and plainsgame with low power scopes..

Ray that may have been the case when scopes were new and gimmicky and fragile but it is 2019 now not 1950.
I am not a scope expert but I don't think your 28mm objective 3x or 2.5x scope is gathering more light than my 3-9 Leupold with a 40mm objective or 2.5-8 x36 or 2-7x32, just a hunch.
And like I said previously those low 2.5 and 3 power scopes yes you "can hit a deer" at 300-400 yards but with a higher power scope you can place your bullet exactly where you want on the "deer" not just a "hit" but real bullet placement.
In your post above you are talking about seeing the "deer" well enough to shoot at 800-1,000 yards with a 2.5 or 3x scope? Really? I think that borders on full blown irresponsible. I'm not taking that shot on 20 power.
We definitely disagree on this but my 2-7 and 2.5-8 Leupolds work very well on my Big Bores (and Medium bores for that matter) they hold their zero perfectly through thousands of rounds. I will continue to trust them, hunt with them on low power and crank them up when I need them and accurately place my shots where I want them not just some body hit on an animal.

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I hear the complaints about big bulky objective lenses,

Some European scopes are so overwhelming it raises the question as to whether the scope is an attachment for the rifle or the rifle an attachment for the scope.

Colonel Whelen raises the point that although a high power scope may be useful for a stationary target, you never know when that stationary target is going to move, and using a high power scope to shoot at running game is another matter altogether. A variable power scope would not solve the problem, since there would be no time to change the setting.

Another point sambarman338 makes about variable power scopes in his book is that parallax changes with changes in magnification and at long range the change can be significant.

This thread has really moved along since I looked at it last!

I agree about the need to keep variable powers low when walking, xausa, and, though throw levers make quick changes easier, the need to always see a target at optimum size can be a distraction that lets things get away. I recall my hunting mate spotting a large sambar hind about 200 yards away; instead of just quartering the chest and shooting, he had to power up. The deer, meanwhile, decided to power off.

My main thoughts about parallax in big scopes are that once you get much over 6x, target focus begins to be problematic and that the obvious way to fix it is via parallax adjustment. The parallax itself may or may not be worse with these scopes but, because high magnification tempts people to shoot at greater distances, it can become a bigger problem.

As I have mentioned, elsewhere if not in this thread, the parallax adjustment in many good-quality scopes does not necessarily coincide with target focus or the range printed on the dials. If these things did all agree, there's be less need for battery-powered rangefinders - you could just focus the target and read the dial.

What can happen with second-focal-plane-reticle variables is that changing power might change the bullet impact. This used to be a big problem in the early days of constantly centred reticles but the makers say they've fixed it now. As with claims of their scopes being shock-proof - they would, wouldn't they? I can say that a friend has a modern Simmons scope that suffers from this problem. He said it improved if he got the reticle into the centre of the optics - but that laughs at the whole point of constantly centred reticles.

Atkinson's reminder of the vulnerability of big objectives is also a good point, well made.

Thanks AnotherAZWriter,
Would you mind updating your quote of my post?

While you replied I added another paragraph (and other corrections) to my post, which may go unread otherwise

I have a few 4x36, 6x42 and 1.5-6x42 scopes and prefer them as standard hunting scopes.
on occasions I will use a 2.5-10x50 particularly for the 50mm bell and illuminated retical for twilight hunting or a 2-7x36 for Mountain use.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:


Exactly why US Special Forces use 3X scopes on their sniper rifles.

I believe this is severely outdated information you are dispensing, I'll attach a link that lists all the sniper platforms used by special forces and others and I don't see ANY fixed 3x on there.
Sounded like you knew what you were talking about and that usually fools half the people....
For instance the M40 rifle used by Special Forces Snipers utilizes the ◾Schmidt & Bender 3-12x50 Police Marksman II LP scope
see for yourself, I am no expert but I think nearly all the posters on this thread are quoting outdated information and frankly living in the past when variable scopes were fragile and unreliable.
Try this link scroll 75% of the way down to Sniper rifles.

https://www.americanspecialops...special-ops-weapons/

They have not use a 3x for decades.

The 3x9 redfeild was use in Vietnam after that they used other variable's

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Knight:
Remember when 4x was considered "about perfect" for all around hunting, or maybe a 6x "out West"? I know we have better optics now, but there is something to be said for long eye relief and large field of views "for hunting big game" (deer and up) I've killed a lot of game on 1x to 8x and more in between. A handful on 9x to 10x, but mostly, 3-5. So why carry the bulk of a higher end variable? Just wondering?

Unless you're a semi-blind Fuddley McGoo who needs 'Coke-bottle' glasses just to tie his shoes, an optic of 1.5-5x magnification is more than enough to take big game animals out to 400 yards.

That assumes, of course, the scope is properly zeroed and you've actually practiced enough with the rifle, shooting in typical field positions, not to 'shank-the-shot' when the animal appears in your crosshairs.

The McGoo who thinks he needs a pricey 30mm 4-16x to shoot an elk at 200yds will probably miss anyway, at which point the guide, with his compact fixed 3x, will kill the elk for him with one well-placed shot.

The McGoo will wonder why having the scope cranked up to 12x resulted in a miss. After all, he was able to hit a target at 100yds with three consecutive shots off a comfy bench.

At that point, client McGoo will slip his guide several crisp hundred dollar bills in exchange for his discretion in keeping his teeth together once they return to camp. McGoo doesn't relish the idea of the other hunters laughing him out of town as the 'Francis Macomber of Elk Camp.'

AJ Hydell
Do you ever have anything pertinent to add to ANY conversation?

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
AJ Hydell
Do you ever have anything pertinent to add to ANY conversation?

Snotstorm
Did you actually read my post?
Highly relevant to the topic as well as instructive.

Large objective scope advantage in twilight at extended range. Hate to pass up an opportunity. But at the cost of weight and bulkiness.

I read it AJ. another insult filled post. If you want to be heard, you have to have people who want to listen. What your doing simply won’t work.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Thanks AnotherAZWriter,
Would you mind updating your quote of my post?

While you replied I added another paragraph (and other corrections) to my post, which may go unread otherwise

I deleted my entire post to make it easy; I was being facetious anyway when I said "Exactly why US snipers use 3X scopes."

They don't. They use big bulky scopes.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Thanks AnotherAZWriter,
Would you mind updating your quote of my post?

While you replied I added another paragraph (and other corrections) to my post, which may go unread otherwise

I deleted my entire post to make it easy; I was being facetious anyway when I said "Exactly why US snipers use 3X scopes."

They don't. They use big bulky scopes.

My apologies, I misunderstood I didn't note the "sarcasm".

When I go to 24hrcampfire, I understand that I will sometimes see name calling and insults being traded. When I come to AR, I'm expecting intelligent and more polite discussions. This thread certainly turned into a disappointment.

I personally prefer fixed power and low power variables. I hunt in relatively short range circumstances, 325 yards being the longest range to take a deer in 60 odd years of hunting.

If I was into the long range shooting sports, then I'm sure my taste would be for large, powerful, highly technical telescopic sights. I cannot imagine shooting extended distances at game, but if I did the long range target stuff, maybe I would gain enough confidence to try long shots.....or not!

I originally bought this Burris Timberline 4.5x14x40AO just for a range scope, or for prairie dogs. It is pretty compact, for its power range, which I like. I don't like to weigh a rifle down, and change its handling characteristics. Now, I have a hunting buddy who has used the same BLR .308 for almost 50yrs now. Last time I got to hunt with him, he had a Burris 4x12 but it had a 50mm obj lens. He hunts in the dark timber or edges and he loves the light gathering it has. It is one heavy, bulky, long scope. It "completely ruins" the lines of the little BL...but he loves it! So, whatever cocks a mans pistol is fine with me. I was just surprised at how "little it takes" in size/weight to change how a rifle feels in my hands. I find I like small, lighter weight and put up with any optical "compromise" they bring. This 4.5x14 Timberline is "right at my limit" of weight (15oz) and bulk. It reminds me more of a classic 3x9 is why I tolerate its smaller fov. The eye relief is just fine.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Thanks AnotherAZWriter,
Would you mind updating your quote of my post?

While you replied I added another paragraph (and other corrections) to my post, which may go unread otherwise

I deleted my entire post to make it easy; I was being facetious anyway when I said "Exactly why US snipers use 3X scopes."

They don't. They use big bulky scopes.

My apologies, I misunderstood I didn't note the "sarcasm".

Yea, the sarcasm was intended to say if big bulky scopes lose zero so easily, why do military snipers use them?

quote:

Yea, the sarcasm was intended

Some times the /S/ is really needed.

Snelstrom. Please explain to me in terms of physics and science how glass GATHERS LIGHT??????

"Light gathering ability" is an expression now hopelessly ingrained among shooters. No, scopes do not gather light. But larger objectives do increase light transmission to the eyepiece. A larger exit pupil may just matter, depending on circumstances, age of shooter, light, etc.

"Light gathering ability" is much like "direct gas impingement" (when used to describe Stoner's in-line piston design) or "clip" (when referring to magazines). Manufacturers have about given up trying to correct the errors, and I've seen all three terms used in advertising and by writers who ought to know better.

Kinda hypocritical to then take offense when the media refer to semi-automatic rifles as "assault weapons".

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I deleted my entire post to make it easy; I was being facetious anyway when I said "Exactly why US snipers use 3X scopes." ...

Thanks for that. I'm surprised no one has picked me up for my misreading of the post regarding small illuminated sights.

quote:

Originally posted by packrattusnongratus:
Snelstrom. Please explain to me in terms of physics and science how glass GATHERS LIGHT??????

Pack rat before you try to get smart and back me into a corner look at my post again, I said "I am not a scope expert" so the physics of the common term "light gathering" are lost on me.
I am smart enough to know that scopes don't "gather" extra light but some scopes are more effective at transmitting the available light than others.
Also refer to my post where I was merely responding to Rays comment "the 2.5 and 3X take in more light" and refuting that claim. I believe it is fairly common knowledge that scopes with larger objectives efficiently transmit more of the available light than scopes with smaller 28mm objectives for example.
You have no argument with me so no reason to try.
I'm not surprised the way this thread has moved along, so many people are still afraid of variable scopes for reasons now unfounded but those concerns were valid in the early day of variable scopes, (1950's ?) today we have moved beyond that and variable scopes are a strong, reliable, valuable tool when used correctly. Operator error not withstanding.

As I stated above, I tend toward fixed power 4X and 6X scopes along with low power variables because of the way I hunt and shoot. I just have no interest in shooting long range or hunting beyond 300-350 yards. A good example of my interests is the rifle/scope I am working with as we speak. About 18 months ago, I bought a 1903 Mannlicher-Schoenauer stutzen. It was built in 1939 and wears a Hensoldt 4X scope in Akah branded claw mounts of that same era. I found a 1939 Stoeger catalog that listed both the rifle and the scope for sale, so if the scope wasn't mounted at the rifle's purchase, it was likely installed soon after. The soldered on scope ring covers the scope's serial number.

The stutzen is in beautiful shape and shoots like a dream. The scope was mechanically sound but was foggy and the post and crosshair reticle was 'fuzzy', probably from particles on it from deteriorating internal seals or rust. The combination worked well in good light but visibility went to squat in low light conditions. I hunted with it in the midday last season and managed to shoot one small buck at about 150 yards at 4:00 pm. By then, I could barely see the buck.

After our season went out, I sent the scope to Iron Sight Inc. They got to it much quicker than I was expecting and the scope was in yesterday's mail. They cleaned the internals and front lenses. The rear lens had to be replaced as did the reticle. Then they collimated the adjustments, purged the thing with nitrogen and sent it back. To say I am tickled with it is an understatement. The scope is clear as a bell and the new post reticle is as sharp as a tack. The claw mounts snapped down into the bases on the rifle perfectly (something I was a little concerned about getting out of alignment), and the zero was only off about 3" or so. This afternoon, I fired 3 three shot groups, two of them less than an inch and one just over.

This rifle and it's scope will never be a target rifle. It will never be a long range hunting rifle. It is a 0-250 yard deluxe deerslayer! Most hunters today would likely scoff at using such a hunting rig, especially the scope. The plastic stocked Creedmores with high end variable scopes and their ilk are wonderful shooters and hunting rigs, but they don't hold a candle to this M-S stutzen and it's scope in my eyes. Each to his own....

2-7's on my .308 and 9.3x62.

Hook
That is a really nice rifle, I'm sure it excels at its intended purpose for you.

Hook that is a magnificent little stutzen. I see we have similar tastes but, a 2 3/4X is ample for my use.

Yessir! Ain't they a hoot to hunt with!

Beautiful little jewel pard! Wasn't the 6.5x54 used more in Africa than the 6.5x55 Swede? I remember reading an old Outdoor Life artivle about a fellow who took a copy of your rifle, with the 160rn and slayed Alaska moose and such!

Yes Jim, the odd-ball 6.5x54 had many fans, including EH and Karamojo Bell, who shot many elephants with one.

Beautiful rifles and settings, Hook and Joe Dean. I recognise Hook's Hensoldt Dialytan, but not your scope, Joe.

As Atkinson and Snellstrom contend, modern scopes tend to be reliable for most usage. Trouble is they are like the proverbial sausages - it's best not to know how they are made.

Many hunters enjoy old rifle technologies just for the nostalgia and challenge of using them. When it comes to scopes, though, I use certain old ones because they are mechanically better. They might take a bit more setting up but have internals that stay rock solid under recoil, not flop around like a bell clapper when you touch off a big calibre.

MOstly I judge a scope by how long it holds a zero when riding in a saddle scabbard every day, or to a lesser degree in a pickup truck across country pastures day in and day out, not in a gun cabinet or just off a bench rest..I have never seen recoil as an issure until you go to the Lott and bigger..

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Yes Jim, the odd-ball 6.5x54 had many fans, including EH and Karamojo Bell, who shot many elephants with one.

Beautiful rifles and settings, Hook and Joe Dean. I recognise Hook's Hensoldt Dialytan, but not your scope, Joe.

As Atkinson and Snellstrom contend, modern scopes tend to be reliable for most usage. Trouble is they are like the proverbial sausages - it's best not to know how they are made.

Many hunters enjoy old rifle technologies just for the nostalgia and challenge of using them. When it comes to scopes, though, I use certain old ones because they are mechanically better. They might take a bit more setting up but have internals that stay rock solid under recoil, not flop around like a bell clapper when you touch off a big calibre.

I don't know about being mechanically better; perhaps in the same way a M98 is mechanically better...except no one shoots them if they are purposely trying to build a rifle with the utmost accuracy.

If modern scopes have issues maintaining zero, I sure have not seen it.