Just trying to get some learned opinions on this subject.

I need to acquire a scope for a new .270, and was mentally debating power which power range to get.

This rifle is a bolt action that will see well over 90% of its time hunting Northeastern Whitetails. The problem, if you can call it that, is that I hope to someday use it to pursue things like caribou and antelope which can be taken a longer ranges.

So, I know the 1.5-6 is probably best for the East, but would you feel handicapped with a 6X max shooting at game over 300 yards? I've no experience there, so would appreciate any comments or first hand experience.

As an aside, I don't have a lot of loot to blow, and would like to buy just one, nice scope for this rifle and not look back.

Thanks!!

Bob

If that critter looks small at 6 X one of you needs to get closer to the other one!
My son has had a 1.5 to 5 Leupold on his '06 since he got it as a little boy (he is 38 now) and he had never wanted to change it. We live and shoot in west Texas.

While a higher power is nice when sighting in from the bench, as Harry says, if it looks too small at 6X, then you need to get closer. In short, no, you won't in any way be handicapped with a 6X upper limit variable (and may find the very wide and fast 1.75X low range extremely helpful in some Northeastern hunting situtations).

I spend alot of time hunting in our wide open deserts for desert mule deer, pronghorn, varmits, etc. The 6X is plenty. I've made long shots (over 300 yds.) on lots of things with everything from 4X's to the 6.5-20X. I can't really use anything over 6X any better than I can use a 10-20X glass. I've tried. Shooting position and trigger control are far more important. After that, you need range information and the ability to make a good wind call. E

i have a B&L 4000 1.5-6 on my business rifle. in the bush I leave it at 1.5 but then I hunt moose at a max of 200yds.

Not only no , but hell no . Myself , I do not feel handicapped with a 3 or 4 power in open country .

No. - Dan

Bart: I agree with the rest of the guys. A 1.5-6x scope would be just fine for your .270. I have a 2-7x on my .270 & leave it on 4x most of the time unless I'm at the range. This rifle is used for more open country for sheep & caribou, etc. I don't use it for moose in heavily wooded areas. Since most of your use is in the Northeast, you're going to want a wider field of view. Bear in Fairbanks

If this tells you anything, I had a fixed 4 power on a .300 Win mag for years. No complaints.

Bart... your chioce in power, with a variable power is as good as it gets.

[ 03-18-2003, 01:25: Message edited by: smallfry ]

4x or 6x fixed power. why confuse yourself?

k4 weaver with flat-top post and crosshair reticle: that's the ticket.

or a leupold 4x or 6x with german-style reticle.

kiss: keep it super simple

don't think you could ask for a better match for a 270 and northeast deer hunting

Killed my first antelope with a .270 and a 1.5x5 scope. I do the load development for my various hunting rifles with a 6x24. Then I switch to something reasonable: 1.5x5; 2x7; 3x9; or a fixed power. That way you're not tempted to start sniping at an animal at a distance that exceeds your ability.


[ 03-18-2003, 05:13: Message edited by: beemanbeme ]

Well I hate to crash this party, but I'd go with a 3x9 for a couple of reasons. They're better for load development on paper. And for some reason known only to shiney shoed marketing men, they are cheaper for the same quality glass. The Zeiss Conquest comes to mind. At $400 vs Leup 1.75x6E VariX III @ $450, I think it's a better deal. Of course this assumes that 3X is low enough for your Eastern woods. It only weighs 1.6 oz. more than the 1.75x6E. You can always turn it down to 6X but the opposite ain't true for the 1.75x6.

Elmo

1.5-6 on a 270?!?! I said to hell with all those damn high power variables with their obnoxious objectives and topped my 25-06 varmint/deer rifle with a 6x Weaver. I've never been happier!! In other word's you'll love it!

My 300 wby is scoped with Zeiss 1.5-6X42 and I find this combo very convenient. Power 1.5 for thick brush hunting and for shooting driven pigs and roe deers on the run, power 6 for long range steady shots, it works.

I own several 1,5-6x42 scopes I'm used to. On my .300 Win Mag's, I opted for a 2,5-10x42 and a 3,5-10x50, thinking about the Scottish Highlands and the long shots they offered. While I liked the 10x for bench work, I found myself using the 6x in the field. It just seemed to bring distances, surroundings, wind, etc. into the right perspective. I don't believe you'd be undergunned with it.

Absolutely not. A 1.5x to 6x is great. I don't really like anything over 6 power, and with the 3x-9x scopes I do have I never even use the higher powers when hunting. I keep them turned down to the lowest power possible in case I jump something unexpectedly up close, on long shots I go to about 4x.

Not at all, I hunted with a .270 for years with a weaver K 3x and never felt handicapped. Longest shot on anything (this a South Dakota mule deer) I made with the .270 and the K#3 scope. I won't say how far it was, no one would believe it, but the guide said it was the longest shot he had ever seen in 20 yrs of guiding on the Trask Ranch and it is wide open country.
.

Elmo, sorry, but load development is not a reason to permanently put a Cyclops on your rifle. If you feel you need the additional magnification for shooting paper, it's easy enough to swap in a bench scope for load development, and then put the hunting scope back.

OTOH, it's pretty easy to print a target sized to match a 6x scope perfectly, and there is little improvement to be gained. Guys in HBR shoot scary little groups with their 6x scopes..... JMO, Dutch.

Wow! Thanks for all the input!

I would call that a pretty much landslide victory for the low power choice.

I really appreciate the input from y'all regarding the long distance shooting. Round here it is hard to find a range longer than 200 yards let alone a game animal that far away, so I value to the opinons based on experience with this greatly.

Bob

Hi BlackBart

I've a variable or two and they all seem to end up around 4x. Got the message and so my 8x68 carries a Leupold 4x. Lighter, less hassle, more compact - never felt like changing it for one of the variables.

But, just to pick up on a comment by Eremicus
"Shooting position and trigger control are far more important" This is the heart of preparation for a successful hunt.

While range time is important, how often do you practice shooting from hunting positions rather than from a dead rest or prone position? At the one club that I belong to all shooting, other than sighting in, is from normal hunting positions - sitting, kneeling, off-hand and any other hardship that they can dream up.

Still, if one is honest, blasting away with one of the heavy recoilers is no great fun. Years back I invested in an air rifle. (I had reared an Eagle Owl and needed to collect a wild pigeon every evening to feed him) This lives under one of the back windows with a box of pellets on the windowsill. About 35' from the window there is a pile of gravel, so every now and then when I pass that window I pause and fire 5/6 pellets in an attempt at moving that gravel pile a little further from the house. This exercise keeps the hand, eye and muscles in good training - and eventually that gravel pile might get moved. As an alternative I try shoot off a selected leaf from the mulberry tree.

For trigger control I can think of no better exercise than a weekly diet of 20 shots deliberate fire, at 1 shot/minute, on the pistol range. If you own a 50m free pistol with a set trigger so much the better.

For what it's worth - use it - don't use it - it works for me.

cheers edi

Buddy of mine and i hunted for many years with the custom Contenders, and XP's with the old Burris 2-7X, and i often used the little 4X Leupold, and never felt "under-magnified" even at ranges beyond 300 yds.

i had a short tube leupy in 1.75x6 on my 270 for a few years. i shot a nice 8 pointer at 235 yards offhand. it was crossing the same trail i was on so i had about no time to decide if he was a shooter. at 6 power all i could see was a large and dark horns over both ears. outside both ears. that was good enough for me. the 6 power let me know that it was a shooter and that was as far a shot off hand i will probably ever try. i think if i had a 9 on the tube i might have tried to "look" a little to long and miss my opportunity. if your walking with the gun then a 6 is more than enough. it will let you see as far as your gun will shoot.
woofer

All right boys, now ya got me all riled up!

Seriously now. How many folks here are gonna be seriously overburdened by 1.6 ounces of extra weight and 8mm of extra objective diameter. And who here would rather take a 350 yard shot from a field rest, with a 6x than 8 or 9X. Now don't get the idea that I don't like low power variables. I've got a 1.75x6E Leup on my .376 Steyr and it's the perfect tool for that job. For a .270 the 3x9 is a damn good fit and there's a 6x hiding in each one.

Elmo

Ksduckhunter
I'm sorry I made fun of your shoes.

Not in the slightest !!

I think it would be an absoulutely excellent choice.

I think you would be fine, but my choice is the Leup. 2.5x8 for most of my big game rifles. I have shot/hunted w/ their 1.75x6 & thinks it's fine for most big game out to 300yds.

Not just to be different, but I do think so.I use a 1,5-6x42 as one of two scopes for my .375 where its perfect. But for a fast smallbore I would prefer at least 9-10 at the top end. Not at least for range work, and for hunting at longer ranges firing from a rest. I�ve shot deer at 200 yards with a 6x without problems but they did look a little small for precise shot placement.

Tron