Iron sights have be out for me for ten+ yrs. so I'm shopping for a replacement scope for my 30'06 brush gun for deer. I need a scope with plenty of eye relief on the gun because it's quite light. It's unlikely I use the gun at over 150 yrd.s and 50-75 will probably be more normal. I want a variable with a min. mag of @1.5X to and a max mag. of @5X. I need an objective that will let in enough light for my eyes. I want to keep the scope to less than 17 oz. The no. of choices is bewildering priced form $200 to $1,200. I'd like to keep the scope and rings to under $650-700 if I can get what I want. I've usually leaned toward Leupold, for their ruggedness, but I don't want to rule out something that might better based soley on my ignorance. A buddy has had two defective Schmidt & Bindres he had to return so they're out. I like Bausch & Lomb's but they're short on eye releif for this application, I've got the bruise to prove it. They're out.

Burris, Leupold, Khales, Nikon, Swift, Tasco and others make scope in the general catagory. Anybody got an informed opinion as to how I ought to rank them?

Choices include several brands of scopes I have no experience with.
The Sightron 1.5-6x42 looks interesting. Anybody used one?

The IOR 1.5-4x26 looks interesting. Don't know if the 26mm objective will work for me. Anybody used one?

I'm curious about the Trijicon's because they seem relatively light - I don't know if the 24mm objective will work for me. Anybody used one?

I can't imagine a smaller objective working.

Comments?

holzauge,

How about a Leuopld 1.75x6-32MM. I've one mounted on my brush "assault rife". Sako custom AII in 358 Win, 22 Shilen Barrel, Leu/sako rings, Var X III 1.75x6 (pre-E) w/ Heavy Duplex. D&R Wholesale has them on sale for $392.

Sounds like it will fill the bill.

Bob

The Leupold V.-X III, 1.75-6x is a great scope. I mounted one of these on my son's .30-06, and could not be any happier about it.

On the cheaper end of the scale is the Swift 2x7x40 a buddy uses and swears by. It has about 4"s of Eye Relief that he likes with his long skinny neck on a 6'5" frame. I see them on the 'net in the $115/$130 range. You will hear that Swift is not a Premium scope and that is true judging by the price but the 4x12 I have used on 300wby and now on a 270 has given me no pains unlike the the same buddy's new in the box he bought last month Leo VXII 3x9x50 he had to send back because the power ring would not turn. Might be worth a look/see.
Ron

I really like the leupold 1-4x20 and I fi I had the money all my rifles bar varmint style ones would have this scope or a 2.5x compact.

I 2nd PC on the Leup. 2.5comp. For a bit more mag. their 1.75x6er

I risk sacrilege but my thought is a Millett SP1 red dot sight. About $100, battery life 40 hours+/-, rugged as far as I can tell, and waterproof. No eye relief issues, no parallax, 3 MOA dot, and I've watched two different guns beat MOA with them off a rest, mine being one of them. It is mounted on a Ruger S/S 77/44. I shoot 300 gr paper patched bullets with it. Very confusing gun, chronologically speaking. They are extraordinary in low light, weigh about 4 oz., and are easy to shoot with BOTH eyes open. They offer no magnification. Aimpoint has one that has magnification but costs an arm and two legs.

Oh yeah, they are incredibly quick on target.

1st Choice: Khales 1.1-4X with 30mm tube...once you use the 30mm tube you won't go back!!! $600

2nd Choice: Leupold Vari-X III 1.5-5. $410

3d Choice: Leupold VX2 1-4 $260

You don't need or want a big bell objective on a brush scope. It adds weight and increases the profile of the scope/rifle. Straight tube scopes can be mounted as close to the bore as you care to go... They also go in and out of a saddle scabbard easily.

Thanks guys.

I'm still collecting and processing the info I'm receiving. I'll admit I'm attracted to the light weight and low profile of the 20-26mm objective scopes, but for me the thirty minutes on either side of dawn and dusk are my best times of day for whitetail deer. One of the ugly truths of getting older is that one needs much more light to see. I'm wondering if the 20-26mm objectives could let in enough light for my 55 yr. old eyes.

Has anybody got any experience with silver haired hunters using compact scopes?

They let in enough for my 65 year old eyes. I have a 2x weaver on a squirrel rifle and a 1.5x5 burris on a 300WM. I used the 300 for hunting elk in timber. Usually set on 2 or 3. I personally like the looks of scopes with no front bell.

You may well like the eye relief and small size of the smaller 20mm scopes, but in dark timber I'm pretty sure you may not have quite the twilight performance you seek. I would suggest something in the 30mm objective sizes.
Whatever you buy, I strongly suggest a heavier than normal reticle. That will help more than fancy multicoating or a larger objective.
On a light rifle like that the toughest scopes are the best value in the long run. John Barsness found in his testing that the Leupolds, the Weaver Grand Slams, the Sightron scopes and the Bushnell Elites hold up the best. To my knowledge, he hasn't done his extensive recoil testing on the Nikons or the Burris scopes. The Swift and the Tascos can not be expected to hold up nearly as well as the other brands mentioned. They have an extensive record of failing well before the other brands listed.
In a light rifle, this is very important as they are hard on scopes, particularly the larger, heavier scopes. So is eye relief. Which, BTW, is often less than quoted in the specs.
Some models, like the Weaver Grand Slams, have the euro style focusing system which some prefer. But some scopes so equipped require higher rings on some rifles for proper bolt clearance. You should check for this requirement.
I wouldn't rule out a good 4X either with a heavier than standard reticle. Leupold, Kahles and the 4.75X Weaver Grand Slam would be in this catagory.
I use a 6X42 with a 4a reticle for such work. Works alot better than you might think. Another choice. E

The scopes that have no objective bell don't let in enough light for me and in the forest it's darker than in the open.

I just ordered a Leu VX11 2-7 matte for a light rifle that will be used in the woods. This scope weighs 10.5 oz which is not heavy at all and is about 11" long.

I considered the Leu 2.5-8 but it's price and size are both against it.

Savage99, Emericus, Do you really believe that just because a scope has no "objective bell" that just that condition makes it lack low light performance? There are many 20mm objective scopes that transmit more light than 33mm, 40mm or even 50mm scopes. Ever heard of exit pupil and twilight factor? Just curious, maybe your eyes are different than anyone else. I've used the Leupold Vari-X II 1-4x20mm for two decades of jumping bucks on beds and I can't see using much else.

[ 10-20-2003, 05:12: Message edited by: jackfish ]

Lens quality also comes into play. Many of the cheaper scopes have larger objectives but the light transmisson factor is lower than that of the small, straight tube scopes from Leupold or other high quality manufacturers. Money really is a good indicator of quality with optics. It is at first/last light and on overcast, cloudy or rainy days that these differences are most evident.

Personally, I use Leupold 2-7s and 1-4s on my brush guns. On my old Savage 99 I just use a Redfield receiver sight.

Holzauge, I've got a 1.5-6x Burris Signature on my 308, 3.5-4" of eye relief, FOV is 71' @100yds. on 1.5x, very bright scope, shot a deer at 90yds. using 1.5x the first year I used it, excellent scope for in the woods, I paid $212 for it 11yrs. ago, they sell for just under 300 now, highly suggest looking at this scope, can't think of a better close range woods scope, you don't need to spend alot of money on a scope for what you want, Jay

Jackfish:

Please name ANY 20MM scope objective lense that transmits more light than any similar coated lense scope with a larger objective at the same magnification. Hint: you can't so don't waste your time trying.

PS: I'm not saying its the brightest or even the best, but when you factor in the cost vs. performance, the VXII 2x7 Leupie is hard to beat. There are better but they cost a lot more.

I am just pointing out that it is not just the objective diameter that determines light transmission, it is a function of objective diameter, magnification and optical quality. Granted, in scopes of similar magnification and comparable optical quality, the one with the larger objective will be brighter.

I use 1x4X, 1.5x5X and 3X fixed scopes on all my rifles..I like the 1x4 or fixed 3X the best...and I use these scopes for all hunting..I like the 20MM objectives and these low power scopes have served me well and they never lacked for performance under any conditions...

I see a scope as a means of putting the cross hairs on the animal and pulling the trigger..I like a lot of eye releif, and light weight...I see no advantage to big bulky 30 MM scopes, hi power scopes...I know I can get a good sight picture on an elk or deer at 1000 yards, but I don't passed 400 yards...

The baby boomer pention with large powerfull scopes relates directly to advertisement, gun writter articles, and hype...The are not needed in big game hunting of any kind IMO.....The big scopes are also more problematic..The smaller ones can take a lick'en and keep on tick'en...I see this every year in Africa...

At best, I would never use anything bigger than a 2x7 or 2x8 for big game...and I don't normally use anything that large....

A light slim rifle with a 3X scope accompanied by a real good pair of binoculars is the way I go, unless I'm using iron sights, then I still want the binocs. Works for me.

yup!

I've never had a problem with the Leupold VXIII 1.5-5 with heavy duplex crosshair, even on late-day hogs in the brush. Mine's mounted on a Ruger .44 carbine; a friend has one on a Rem 760 30-06 and is completely pleased with it, both up close and at longer ranges.

Well i haven't been able to tear myself away from my peep sights yet. But as my eyes get older maybe sometime in the future i'll go with either a leupold 2.5 fixed or one of ther low varible scopes I also like the aimpoint compM2 red dot . that one i may try next year on my deer rifle.

Tanoose:

Peep sights are something I just started using this past year. I grew up using scopes. I am amazed how accurate peeps can be. I also like the fact that they are not affected by rain like scopes are. I can get on target very fast with a peep which makes it my current favorite for hunting in heavy brush. I have peep sights on my Savage 99 and my knight muzzleloader. If I can find someone that makes them to fit the Browning A-Bolt I will put them on my 375HH.

Ray:

Well said! I have low powered variables on most of my big game rifles that are scoped. Never had any problems shooting out to 300 or 400 yards with them even when set on the lowest setting. Other than 2-7 or 2.5-8 Leupolds the higest powered scopes I have are 4-12 and fixed 12s on my varmint rifles. I also dislike the large oblectives currently in vogue. I prefer 40mm as max.

Thanks for the imput guys. I can't use peeps anymore and I've decided against red dots because I just don't shoot at deer on the run enough to trade speed for magnification.

I started with a list of about a score of scopes. Now I'm down to my final four; a Leupy, an IOR, a Nikon and a Burris.

Does anyone have personal experience to allow them to compare any of the following, or know of a good comparison test that compares any or all of the following, to a Leupold VX III 1.5-6x32E?

An IOR CTR 1.5-4x26 (looks great on paper)? A Nikon Monarch Gld 1.75-5x32 (resistance to recoil?) ? A Burris Signature LRS reticle 1.75-5x32 (clarity? light transmission?)?

Sei wach!

i would try the vx1 in 2-7. light, great glass and plenty of eye relief. i just took a 1.75x6 shorty off my 350 mag and put one of these on. honestly, there isn't a whole lot of difference. it is a great scope for 2 bones and is of the same quality as the others. save yourself a ton of cash and try one. you wont regret it...
woofer