Has anyone here used a fixed-power 1x scope (or a variable set to 1x) other than a Scout scope? If so, what was it and how did you like it? What do you think of it as a dangerous game sight? Thanks in advance, Okie John.

There is absolutly no magnification. You would probably be able to aquire a target (Dangerous Game)much faster w/ open sights.

I would suggest a 2.5X at the lowest.

Good Luck!

Reloader

The lowest power scope I have is a 1.5 Weaver. It is quick, much quicker than iron sights. A 1x would not be much different, but since the field of view with even a 2x (conventional, not "scout") is so large, there is really no reason not to have at least a little magnification. That said, there is nothing wrong with a non-magnifying scope.

BTW: Conventional open sights are the slowest of all sights since the eye has to focus on and align objects in three planes: Rear sight, front sight, target. Aperture rear sights are faster, since the eye only has to focus on the front sight and target (the eye doesn't actually focus on the rear sight, only peer through the aperture). A scope is the fastest of all since there is nothing to focus, just place the crosshair on the target.

Of course, if a scope is mounted so that your eye doesn't naturally align with the sight picture when the gun is shouldered or if the scope is poorly focused for your eye, then those shortcomings have to be corrected. You'd be surprised at the number of shooters who "don't like scopes" but don't understand why: Because of improper (usually too high) mounting and poor focusing.

The only problem I have with 1x scopes is that they are really .75x scopes. Every one I have ever looked through makes the objects appear more distant.
I have a 2.5x Leupold with a heavy German post reticle on my .416 and love it.

Best,

johnTheGreek

Funny how that is true? I have a Weaver in 1x3 on my Whelen, and on it's lowest power, things DO look smaller.

As far as fast, I would prefer the scope. The only thing faster would be shotgun sights (i.e. no rear sight and a perfect fitting stock). FWIW, Dutch.

Haven't you read the warning on the side of those 1X scopes John, "Caution, objects viewed through this scope are larger (ie CLOSER) than they appear!".

Chuck

I have a sightron 1x on my muzzleloader as it is the only thing allowed here in utah. It does kinda clean up the image and the thing it does best for me is sight picture, If you don't line your head up exactly the same you will be off with iron sights, we all know this can change depending on shooting posisistion and while hunting we may need to do something very quickly. This has been my experience. the 1x scope eliminates this as a variable. I am wanting to try a red dot scope soon to see if I like it better, I may be able to be talked out of my scope if the price is right.

I have a Leupold 1-4x20 on my 375 H&H. I like it for my moose hunting, often done in heavily wooded areas. I wouldn't have the same use for the scope if it was for example a 2-7.

Hey Okie John, I'm pretty sure all the "Red Dot" scopes I've used have been 1x or close enough to it that I didn't notice it being different. Never had one of my own, but have shot the ones that buddies had.

A couple were on some shotguns they were setting up for Turkey Hunting, but the stock was set-up for irons. So, your cheek was a bit high with the Red Dot sight which helped magnify the felt recoil.

And I've shot at least 2 revolvers and 1 pistol with the Red Dots. They did fine on the handguns. I never put one on any of mine because of the bulk.

As for using a 1x scope on Dangerous Game, I've no experience at all there. Some of the folks on the African Board might though.

Reloader and Stonecreek, I�m talking about shots so close that you want things to look smaller � feet, not yards. Last summer I was hunting feral cattle and got ankle-deep in piglets. I could hear the sow pop her jaws but I couldn�t see her. A long shot would have been about twice the length of my rifle.

George, that�s what I was thinking. What did you use for the buff?

I finally have a rifle that fits me well, and I don�t want to jump between scope and irons because of the different heights. That cost me a superb blacktail buck in 2002. I trained with a scope, but used a peep the last morning and missed at 20 yards. Muscle memory took over and I shot over his back. Of course I did it in front of a guy I can normally outshoot in my sleep, and he will tell that story until he dies. I laugh along with everyone else, but only on the outside.

I�m considering a Leupold 1-4 with a coarse plex. What do you guys think?

I have 2.5 leupolds on a few of my rifles and there supurb....much quicker than irons IMHO. I also shoot a 1-4 leupold on my .375 and that is good to. The leupold 2.5x comapct is one tough scope.

okie:
Will try this again. The last time, I got a message that there was server work being done so my post wasn't entered.
I use a Leupold 1.5 - 5x on my .338 mag. This rifle is my moose & elk rifle for Afognak Island. When traipsing through the thick stuff on Afognak, the scope is always set to the lowest power. I can assure everyone that you want a low power setting in this situation should you run across a bear. I also have open sights on all of my hunting rifles for use as a backup should something happen to the scope. Why more hunters don't have a set of open sights on their rifles as backup is beyond me. In short, the scope allows for much faster target acquistion even in close quarters. Just my opinion FWIW. Bear in Fairbanks