Hi
When I buy Nikon lenses for film, I buy fixed power. The reason is the cost is way cheaper, the quality way higher.

Does the same hold true with rifle scopes?

I'm looking for sniper scope quality, but not the price tag.

anyone use the B&L 10X fixed?
This is on a 22. The hunting rifles get 3X9's.

gs

Fixed power scopes are not higher quality for the dollar, infact the opposite is usually true.

I am not being biased towards the variable scopes. All the scopes I own are fixed power, mostly 4X. I am not some crusty old codger who is stuck in the past either. I am 26 years old and I use fixed power scopes because their simplicity outweighs their ability to make an animal look larger.

Jason

I like the versitality of the variable. But Mine is only a 1-4 Leopold. Most of the time it's at 1X for brush hunting. But I like the option, if that long shot is offered. Quality, with this scope, a Vari X II on a 338WM has never been an issue.

I have really come to like the leupold compact 2.5X's I find that for off the shoulder shooting the low power is all I need I have one on my 45/70 and one ready to go on my .585. I am also thinking of purchasing one for my .416 Rigby.

I have variables and like their versatility, so they go on my versatile rifles, the "go to" guns for new areas. Even then these scopes are low powered, 1.75-6 or 1.5-5.

When hunting my old haunts though I have found that since the bulk of my hunting is short to medium range in brush with either a .35 Rem, muzzleloader or 12ga slug gun that low, fixed-power scopes tend to be more useful.

When I look into a special purpose rifle I look into a special purpose scope, and that usually means fixed power.

For good quality without the high price look into the Weaver 6x40AO, this might apply to your uses.

Good Luck,
Bob

Most of the ancient, forty-year-old complaints about variable scopes are no longer are valid. The variables that vexed Jack O'Connor into a bought with the "vapors" back in the early 1960's are not in any way comparable to the fine variables we have today. In fact, the best lenses, the best lense coatings, and the best adjustment systems are reserved for variable scopes these days, with Leupold being a prime example.

Don't get me wrong, a fine fixed power is still a good scope, especially something like Leupold's 4X. I've hunted with them a lot. If you're on a budget and can find a top-end fixed power in mint shape and at a favorable price, well, that's a good reason to go with a fixed scope.

But today, based on simon-pure performance considerations, I simply can't see a good reason to select a quality fixed power scope versus a quality variable. In spite of many successful hunts with rifles wearing fixed power scopes, all of my principle hunting rifles wear variables. They are better optically, they have the best adjustments, the tube assemblies are machined as one-piece, the lense coatings are better, and these scopes are more versatile as well. Good reasons NOT to select a fixed power.........

AD

[ 07-24-2002, 16:51: Message edited by: allen day ]

Just for the purpose of information the fixed power scope has got to be more water resistant, have and wider field of view and also less likely to break.

I also question the statement on optical quality and I will put a Lyman All American 4X up against any Leupold VX-111 or less set at 4X.

Also I can't stand the "plex" reticule which was a cheap solution to the shrinking and growing reticule problem that changing the power brings on.

All my most important game rifles have a 4X.

Just like everything else in life, you get what you pay for. Quality costs money. Here are some more thoughts....

Not sure what you mean by "sniper scope quality", however, if you are looking for mil spec scopes, they cost more money over regular scopes because they meet a higher ruggedness standard. Furthermore, you don't slap $1,200+ mil spec scope on a $200 .22 rifle, or at least most people don�t. (Ninja mall snipers are the exception to this rule)

Since you are not dealing with punishing recoil, tactical shooting situations, dangerous game hunting, long range bench work, almost any scope which holds zero is acceptable. You certainly won't be doing any serious 300+ yard work with a .22, so a 30X power is not required.

Fixed power scopes provide improved light transmission and clarity over variable power scopes. This is due to the fact there is 30-50%less glass in a fixed power scope. Unfortunately, fixed power scopes are not in high demand so many manufacturers don't offer a lot of selection. Another benefit with fixed optics is you don't worry about POI changes with magnification. Even the best variables can alter POI as you alter the magnification of the optics. This still happens today even with very high quality scopes, however, most folks don�t bother to test their scopes.

Bushnell, Tasco, Simmons all carry scopes in the $100 price range. Nikon is in the $200-$400 range, Burris is in the $250-$500 range, and Leupold is in the $250-$900+ range. Cabela�s carries a line of scopes called the Pine Ridge which have multi-coated optics in the $50 - $100 range. They have a 6X matt finish (perfect for .22's) for $60. You might want to check them out at www.cabelas.com

(Why is this thread in the "Big" Game Forum? Aren't we just talking about a .22? )

[ 07-24-2002, 18:45: Message edited by: Zero Drift ]

Don, I live within a forty minute drive of Leupold's Beaverton, OR plant. I wish everyone had the chance to tour that facility, simply because it's state-of-the-art, and it'll forever change anyone's mind about what goes into riflescopes.

Actually, the fixed Leupold scopes are much less rugged than the Vari-X III scopes. With the fixed 4X (for example) there is a joint at the juncture of the objective bell and the front main tube. There is then a joint at the juncture of the front main tube and the adjustment turret. Then there's a joint at the adjustment turret and the rear main tube.

On the Vari-X III scopes, none of these joints exist, and the scopes tube, turret, and objective lense housing is machined from a single piece of material! So the fixed 4X I sighted as an example is at least three times as likely to leak or break at these key junctures as is the Vari-X III! Not to mention the fact that the lenses and lense coatings simple aren't as good on the fixed scopes and there is no ability, in any event, to increase the twilight factor simply by increasing the magnification!

One of the ongoing feel-good theories is that variables simply aren't as rugged as fixed power scopes (more O'Connoresque Holy Writ from 40 years ago), which (if the comparisons are fair) is in my mind a bunch of hot air. As a "living" example, my now retired Glen Pierce .300 Winchester Model 70 was mounted with a Leupold 2.5-8X Vari-X III from the beginning, and it still wears that scope. That rifle and scope has lived through just about everything, and the scope has never changed zero or caused any problems of any kind. It's been strapped to backpacks in Alaska, it's live through rockslides, horsewrecks, 100'F plus temperatures, -17'F temperatures, snowstorms, duststorms, gullywashers, tens of thousands of miles on airplanes, hundreds of miles in Landcruisers and 4X4s, uncounted miles slung over my shoulder, and four score of big game animals on the ground. What the heck else it needs to prove in the way of ruggedness, performance, or durability is simple beyond my comprehension.

But I know, Blessed Tradition dies hard..........

AD

[ 07-24-2002, 19:19: Message edited by: allen day ]

According to Leupold and all the scope companies that I have visited with when push comes to shove will tell you that fewer fixed power scopes are returned for repair than varibles, simply because there is less to go wrong...and this is by a huge margin..Thats from the horses mouth..

That said, the varibles do hold up quite well, but I am a crusty old codger and I prefer a 3X or 4X Leupold, albiet I have several 1x4's and 1.5x5's and a 2x7 and a 3x9...

I have returned a lot of varibles over the years and I am convienced beyond any doubt the fixed is a better hunting scope, it's like a good dog it always works, a varible is like a beatifull woman, really nice to have around but, she may just up and twist off on you tomarrow.

Big objective lens are the bain of a hunting scope, they cause of all manor of problems on a big game hunting trip......Don't believe that then just wack the heck out of one and then shoot a group. Try the same on a 1x4 or a 3X with a 20 MM obj. lens...

Joints don't need to mean weakness at all. In fact what you describe is plumbing! I see plumbing joints all the time that don't fail and don't leak. It just has to be done right. Of course more joints mean more weight and bulk in theory but I don't think anyone will say that a variable has less weight than a fixed power!

In fact if there is going to be a leak it's going to come from the variable's power adjustment ring. This is quite obvious. There can only be seals here where a fixed power is sealed by high compression.

When the B&L 2.5 X 8 came out a buddy got one on a nice .243 Featherweight. That was a nice rig and he could really shoot that rifle. He also shot on the rifle team then and got a perfect score (except for some small detail) at the gallery match in New Haven in Winchesters range.

He spotted a buck walking away and put the scope on 8X to check the horns and then put it on 2.5X to shoot. I asked what happened? He said the buck walked over the hill!

"Indian build fire, keep warm. White man build big fire, keep warm carrying wood."

A lot of strange notions seem to circulate.

If you have need of only a single magnification (which is true 90% of the time -- it's that 10% that gives most of us the hang up), then a fixed power scope, all other things being equal, is by definition, marginally superior to a variable.

Again, all things being equal: (1) The fixed power will have a bit better light transmission due to less light dispersed traveling through additional lenses, (2) there will be no chance of impact shift with change in magnification, (3) the field of view and/or eye relief/alignment will be less critical. In many of today's high-quality variables, these fixed-power advantages are so minimal as to be insignificant. Also, a fixed power should be priced lower than a variable.

Oops, forgot to mention that a fixed power will be slightly lighter and more compact than a variable.

In something like a Leupold, I don't think there is any real difference in the performance or reliability characteristics of fixed vs. variables. However, as scope price and quality go down, the fixed power models in the "cheapy Asian" scopes are MUCH more dependable and serviceable than the variables.

[ 07-24-2002, 19:57: Message edited by: Stonecreek ]

Guys, keep in mind we are talking about a .22 paper puncher here, and not a .450 Dakota or .460 Wby DGR.

I find that the less expensive scopes don't even work at the higher powers, often times.

The story about the variable scope, and the buck walking over a hill is kind of my feeling.

I get frustrated trying to get the darn scope focused at the range, at high power. I would like to have the scope close at the range I want to shoot at, whip it up, site and pull the trigger. KISS principal for me

I'm going to give a look at cabalas right now.

I was going to swap a 10X B&L for the Simmons, and some money, today.

More on that later.

gs

On more than one ocassion I have tried to think of a circumstance, and being honest to a fault with myself where I made a shot with a varible on higher power or with a powerfull scope that I would not have made with a 2.5X or 3X....I cannot think of but one possible and that was a eye in the bush at 150 yds. and I doubt that the 7X helped all that much, maybe....This is literally a thousand or so head of big game I suspect.

I can turn that equation around and honestly say varibles and high power scopes have cost me game that I would have gotten with a 2 or 4x....I have lost a couple of animals by having it on 9 or 10 and the animal was too close and I have seen this happen on many ocasions to others....I have seen these big scopes knocked of zero more times than I care to count...I have seen other things take place that should not have happened....

Bottom line is I'll take that 10 percent or whatever when a fixed fails, if it even exist..I have never seen a fixed power Leupold fail but one time and the cross hair broke from recoil and that was because the rifle was tied down...I have had Weaver K models and a Redfield fog up on more than one ocassion, in the early days.

The only scope that has ever broken down on me is a 3X Leupold. I guess too many shots from a 500 A-Square and 450 Dakota? I sent it to Leupold and they fixed it free, good service.
Are those old 3X models as clear and bright as the new variables or fixed powers? Mine aren't by a long shot, but they "fit" on my big rifles because of their long tubes, so I continue to use them.
For all other hunting rifle applications I'll take the variable, be it a Leupold, Swarovski or any other premium scope. I learned early on to keep it turned down to 2X or 3X so getting caught with one set on high power has never happened to me. Been getting by with those "inferior, weaker and less reliable" models for about 30yrs now.

As it applies to this particular discussion, Zero Drift is absolutely correct, of course, we're talking a scope that's appropriate to a .22.

But to keep things going........

Don, if you think that those screwed-together joints are "just as strong" as the machined, one-piece main tube, I suggest that you consult with the engineering department of your nearest university. You've still managed to sidestep the lense coatings issue and you've also avoided the twilight factor issue, not to mention the internal adjustment issue - but heck,traditional theories often defy rational explaination, right???

Leupold does indeed service more variable scopes than fixed power scopes: It sells at least ten times the number of variables as compared to fixed power scopes, and at least tens times the number of Vari-X II (now Vari-X I & II) scopes as Vari-X IIIs -complete with the old multi-piece main tubes, the old adjustment system, etc.

Apples and oranges!

AD

[ 07-25-2002, 01:02: Message edited by: allen day ]

I was infromed by the leupold rep that once one gets into the really big kickers .458 lott & up that the scope which will be the most reliable on them is the 2.5 compact leupold. I think Ray might have said it is the strongest scope in regards to recoil around.

I know this is for a .22 but it is still an interesting thread and topic of conversation.

[ 07-25-2002, 04:29: Message edited by: PC ]

Allen,

Where I hunt the hours are 1/2 hour before sunrise and 1/2 hour after sunset. There is plenty of light at these times for any scope.

As far as internal adjustments go I don't know what better means in that application. I suppose your information is correct and there is some advantage.

I don't have enough information on lense coatings to comment.

However fixed powers have a greater field of view for the same resolving power, are more reliable and stronger, weigh less and are also easier to mount. Some variables require the rings to be close together which cannot be as good a support.

I just got two rifles out and went out in the dark back yard. One has a Lyman 4X All American on it and the other a Leupold 2X7 Vari-X 11c. I suppose this is a fair comparison or at least it's what I am thinking of. I cleaned the dust off of each lens and looked at the same tree that was illuminated by the light on the garage. The fixed 4X has far more resolving power than the Leupold 2X7 no matter magnification the variable is set on. Enough of this. I knew it would turn out this way. That's why the fixed powers are on the .358's and .375's.

So I stick with fixed powers for my favorites and I use variables on plinkers.

I wish the fixed Leupolds were lower in price.

When I was younger,I was an agressive Hunter,and I hunted some rough places;The Adirondaks and the Catskills. I needed a rugged battery,and so I chose a Springfield Krag and a Weaver fixed power K2.5 scope.
Fifty years later,I am using a cute little Winchester lever gun,and a cute little Leopold 1x-4x variable scope.
Neither one is as rugged as my former battery,but they don't have to be.I hunt a lot easier now.
I believe that a Hunter should tailor the type of scope that he uses to the type of hunting that he does.Just the same as he should tailor the power of the scope to type of hunting that he does.
Frank

Allen,
I am aware they sell more varibles and I should have know someone would come up with that factor, in fact I thought about it but I had allready punched the button....At any rate that was not a factor in my conversation with some scope engineers...they said varibles are more prone to breakage any way you cut it. I agree with that.

I like the qualities of both, it just depends on what situation your in, albeit you can't use both scopes at the same time, but you know before you go out what your situation calls for. I really do like my Luepold 2x20LER on my .308 scout rifle,it's good for shots up around 250yrds or so. The variable just brings'em up close and comfy and makes you a little more sure of your shot.

Don Martin,
Field of view is not dependant on whether it is fixed or variable scope. I looked at the specs on several manufacuturers and on most when extrapolating the fov for say 4 power on a 3 to 9, it was the same or nearly so. The field of view is dependant on the focal length of the lenses, the objective diameter and geometry of the scope.

I don't know what you mean by "resolving power" in your test. You should make sure that the objective lens is the same in anything like that or you are into an apples or oranges thing again.

Field of view is NOT dependent upon objective lens diameter...

From Leupold's website:

quote:

---

The Leupold Answer Guide
Objective Lens vs. Field of View
Does a larger objective lens give a wider field of view?

No. The larger objective lens will increase the diameter of the exit pupil, but will not change the field of view. The magnification level of the scope and its optical design actually determine the field of view.

---

If I remember correctly from their little pamphlet ocular lens diameter and thereby eye relief has more to do with FOV than anything except popwer.

I will research this more when I'm done feeding the little one.

Bob

[ 07-25-2002, 19:31: Message edited by: Gunny Bob ]

Customstox,

The objective lenses in each of these scopes is close to each other in size. Resolving power to me is the ability to make out a detail just like a eye test.

Also the variables that I see and even the Leupold fixed 4X that I have seen don't reach the power that they are rated for. The Lyman All Americans I have seem to be a true 4x and in the final analysis they have a wider field of view with the same magnification.

In fact this is the only reason that I make something out of this topic. It's because with a fixed power I can see more and with greater detail.

The other issues are important also but that issue of resolving power and field of view are vital. When Allan D. get's into "better" coating and adjustments I don't see a direct connection to actual use or perfromance as the fixed powers that I have outperform the variables in the field. At the range it's nice to crank up the power of course.

Around here the old Lyman All Americans go for about $125 used. Sometimes one can be found for a very low price. I have one extra one in the drawer right now. The really old ones without the "Perma-Center" <--- plex reticule have a much blacker, easier to see reticule but that's another issue I have with the plex reticule that I have mentioned here that I don't like either.

Given equal materials and construction a fixed power scope is going to be better than a variable. However, most optics companies have decided that nobody wants a quality fixed power scope so they refuse to build it. Of course the truth is that the average shooter today wouldn't buy the solid, reliable, high quality fixed power but would, for the same money, probably go for the bulky,glitzy, variable with the gold lettering. Today's shooter will buy a scope with a 50mm objective lense to shoot gophers in broad daylight. He will buy the 30mm tube with it's increased range of adjustment to shoot no further than 500 yd.
I can't help but think that it would have been so much better for Leupold to address the shortcomings of the old M8 fixed power scopes rather than to put all the development into the Vari-xIII "yuppie" scopes. Make a one piece tube. Incorporate the best lense coatings. Utilize a decent adjustment system that is actually repeatable.
My longest shot on a big game animal (well over 400 yd) was made while looking through a K2.5 weaver scope. All of my hunting rifles have fixed power scopes from Weaver, Lyman, and Bushnell. One K-4 has been in constant use since 1971 and has always served me well.
Even in the area of target scopes the manufacturers have seen fit to offer primarily variable scopes. For long range shooting the variable scopes feature less adjust ment range and more weight. Add to this the fact that the variable power feature is absolutely unnecessary and the shooter is paying for something he doesn't need.
I have a variable that I use for testing rifles and for shooting gophers. For the gophers it works well. For testing it gets used because it was cheap. It's big objective lense means it has to be mounted way too high and if the rifle was to fall over the first thing to touch down would be that objective bell. I don't really like the scope but use it because I don't want to use good scopes as test mules.
So I think that fixed power scopes could be better and would be better for most uses if the companies were to offer them but it isn't likely to happen. Longrange shooters would be well served by a good fixed 20x like the older Leupolds but thay ain't going to get it. A real good, rugged fixed 4x could be the best and most attractive hunting scope available but we ain't going to get that either. Instead we will get even more of the 2.5-10x50mm variables dressed up with graphics that would look at home on a pimp's BMW. Aarrgh! Regards, Bill.

A rifle scope is not a binocular, it is not a camera..I believe too much is made over some of the assets such as clarity, resolution and on and on....

If it is sufficient then thats enough, if you can see the cross hairs and the animal, nothing, absolutly nothing else is required...Most of todays better scopes will fill the bill any way you cut it, thats why I use a Leupold as opposed to a Ziess, Swaroski or whatever...For the difference in price and they work just fine in the field. nothing more is required by a hunter...

this scope thing reminds me of the Supreme Court and our Federal Court system, right or wrong has nothing to do with the case, only the technicalities count....

Interesting point Gunny Bob makes. I was looking at a new scope for a 416 today at a gun store. I was looking exclusively at the Leupold 2.5x and 1.5-5x. The salesman kept arguing -- "you should put one with a bigger objective on it, so the field of view is wider" and I kept telling him it didn't matter, field of view depended on magnification. When he tried to show me an EER handgun scope, I left! I guess I could mount it on the front sight ramp...

I can think of numerous instances when I have used the higher settings on my 3x9s to sort out horns from bushes and pick out other detais but being partially colorblind may be one reason I find that so helpfull. I consider it a luxury and employ it regularly but usually my scopes are kept on the low settings for quick aquisition.

Its also well known in the world of mechanics that it is the moving parts that wear out and develop problems more often than not, not many of them on fixed scopes. It all depends on ones needs IMHO. I have both and will continue to use both for different purposes. Actually fixed scopes might hold up TOO damn well, they usually seem to become obsolete before they go south and I have to hide them from the wife to jusitify my next variable.

I have 2 scopes for my .22 but just decided to go with the iorn sights on it recently, its much more challenging (fun) and one less thing to worry about.

Bill, that was a good post... I absolutely agree about the "pimpish" look of many (most) of today's scopes... they're inscribed with gaudy "logo's" and useless ornamentation (Is anyone as tired as me over "in your face" company logo's on everything and everywhere?).

Of course, as the saying goes, if you want to make money don't overestimate the taste of the American public. I suppose the same goes for Canada!

I would include every European scope I've seen in the ugly category... I also disagree with a lot of the sentiment abpout EU scopes, most (not all) are overly large and heavy.

The finest looking scope, IMHO, is the plain-jane Leupold Vari XII... aesthetically, a scope is not supposed to be an end to itself... it should "blend in" to the entire rifle, not draw atention to itself. I also am not convinced that a one-piece tube makes any difference in the "rugedness" or reliability of a riflescope.

I also agree with Ray... I think too much is made about the optical quality of the scope. To me, the Vari XII is good-nuff'... especially now that Leupold has upgraded its coating a bit and has installed click adjustments. I say all this as someone who is a bit of an optical freak... In a riflescope, I've not found the need for the same optical quality as in spotting scopes, bino's or camera's.

Rambling,

Brad

I haven't owned a fixed power scope in over 35 years, and don't intend to buy one in the next 35. They offer nothing that a variable can't give me except a lack of versatility, which I don't want.

Gunnybob, you are right, thanks for the correction. I was trying to find a discussion about eye relief on one of the sites and I believe it was Zeiss but they did not explain it well even there. I remember the "widefield" redfields that were wider in the front and it may have been more scam than reality but it stuck with me. I have one of those Redfields that I took in a trade and I just looked at it. Lo and behold, it is the eye piece that is wider. Duh, proves exactly what someone else said about field of view and eye peice diameter. Should have done this before I posted, lol. There is a reverse relationship with field of view and eye relief from what I remember.

DonMartin, I think you need to examine more scopes to come up with a good analysis. But to be honest with you, field of view is something I have never even taken into consideration. And I need to look at some of those Lymans also. Some of the shows I go to have a lot of used scopes. I have bought 4x Leupolds for as little as $80 and the most has been $125 and I may have been bypassing another good one. I also like fixed powers and probably a third of mine are fixed.

The new Leupold is according to their literature has a power of 4.0 but the 2.5 is actually 2.3 and one of the 6's is actually 2.5.

Like Ray was saying, I think we expect too much from our scopes, or we do when we spend a fortune for them. I have examined different scopes at those twilight times on a few times on a yearly trip in Idaho and will do it again in the future. Often we have some of the high ticket scopes from adjacent camps that we can sit down and compare. What we have found is that at that last part of the day, any of them will work. And the $500 difference in price doesn't show up. I posted this on one thread here and was asked what my qualifications were to test the scopes. I guess being able to make a judgement along with 7 or 8 other guys isn't enough. Well you run into those types.

I know that the market is not there for fixed powers as Bill stated. Leupold is very aware of that. Mike Slack of Leupold said that his favorite scope is the old 6X compact and it is a gem. I begged him to make them again but he said they never did sell well. He did say he has a drawer full of them and he isn't selling.

Chic

[ 07-26-2002, 06:26: Message edited by: Customstox ]

I like the 3-9 variables; at 9X for target work they provide enough magnification that you can see the bullet holes at 200 yards without a spotting scope. Then set them at 3X for hunting.

Bill, you say "yuppie scopes" ?

Well dear me, let me tell you a story about the value of "yuppie scopes".........

The place is the Mlele North game control area of Tanzania, and we were hunting lions in an area where we knew there to be a pride with at least one large male. We set a bait (sable) the afternoon before, then built a blind.

We spend the night in the blind, and about 3:AM we heard crunching noises coming from the bait site, which was about 100 yards away. At the very crack of dawn, my PH peers cautiously over the top of the blind and comes right back down. He whispers, "There are two LEOPARDS on the bait, with a large male on the right and we're going to take him! Very carefully and quietly, take a look!"

I saw the leopards all right and they are acting nervous, but it was so dark that I only saw images, not clear aiming points. Even so, it was time to get to work. I had my .300 Winchester with it's 2.5-8X Leupold set at 4X, but I couldn't make out a clear spot to shoot at. The male leopard was now sitting on his haunches, tail waving, looking directly at our blind. It was clear that he was ready to take off at any moment, and I needed to hurry up and shoot or forget it. I turned the scope up to 8X, INCREASING THE TWILIGHT FACTOR, and now I hand some very clear aiming points to reference. It was like turning on a small spotlight in its effectiveness. At the shot, the leopard pitched forward on his face, then I shot him again just to be sure.

This cat was huge and ancient (over 190 lbs.), and he resides as a lifesize mount in my reloading room right now. If I would have been using a sacred, time-honored, blessed-by-O'Connor 4X instead of the 2.5-8X, one of my all-time greatest trophy animals would not be in my collection right now.

Top quality optical glass is a blessing - not a libility, and experience has taught me to take all of the optical performance that I can get.

I was visiting with Jim Carmichel about his famous David Miller .338 Winchester one time, which was built in the late 1970's and which has worn the same 4X Leupold scope fromthe beginning. I asked Jim what he'd change about that rifle if he was having it built today. His answer: "I'd put more and better glass on top, that's for sure!"

AD

Well, all made great arguments, and points.

I bought the CZ 452 to alternate with my 375, so I know I'm flinching. The stock is similar in design, if not weight, and, I realized I was going to spend about 80% of my time shooting the 22, when you consider recoil, ammo cost, etc.
Since I have 3x9 Bushnell(or B&L 3200 elite scopes on both my 30-06, and 375, and, I got a great price on the two of em, I decided to spring for another one on the 22.

The cheap scope just wouldn't focus,Simmons at 9X.I looked at the Bushnells compared to the VERY expensive scopes, and the difference in visual quality just didn't justify the difference in value, at least to my old eyes.

So, I have the same 3200 elite on every rifle. Hopefully, in all my practice, I will become comfortable with the scope adjustments, and they will become instinctive. If they don't, I am going to sell em, and replace all three with fixed
scopes. Problem is, I like the 9x for target, and the lower power for general use...

s

Allen,
It may be that you would have been able to make the same shot with a good 4x or even a 2.5x scope. We will never know. I quite sure if Leupold put some of their development money into improving the M8s you could have had a brighter, clearer fixed scope than is available now.
I think today's variables are very good scopes but I regret the passing of the good fixed powers. I think they work good and I think they look good. They've got class. To me a 4x Lyman All American just goes right on a pre-64 M70 or a FN sporter in 30/06.
Now I ahve had times where if I had been able to crank the scope up in power I would not have had to resort to looking through binocs. I have also had times when a client couldn't find the bear because he had his damn scope cranked up to 10x.
For myself I probably have enough scope to last the rest of my life as far as hunting scopes are concerned. Target scopes are another matter and I really do think there is a vacuum where the 20x scopes used to be. Regards, Bill.

The rifle I hunted with for 14 years in Alaska, Washington state, Wyoming, Idaho, and Texas wears a 4 power M7 Leupold and this scope has never given me any problems or changed zero. It's optical quality has certainly been adequate and I cannot imagine a reasonable hunting scenario for big game that this scope would not do it's intended purpose. I now use it as my old reliable, the backup rifle that stays sighted in with 180 grain Speer spitzers and is ready for anything still. It's a 30-06 O3A3 built to fit me and If I were a reasonable man I would need no other rifle.

I am sure we all have stories where our scope saved the day, and cases can be made for both sides..but it all comes down to "choice" and that is what makes a horse race...There is no pat answer to the question..

I personally don't want one of those big awkard pipes on one of my rifles, they don't look good to me and if it ain't "purty", I don't want it on my gun, if it don't work I don't want it on my gun. I do know that 20 MM objective lens are harder to knock out of whack than those big ugly 50MM objectives where the scopes are too long..

Maybe I'm at a disadvantage with my 3X or my 1.5x5X but I know it will hold its zero at least most of the time, and it has mostly worked as far as I can remember, if not I have forgotten so who cares...

I believe the bigger a scope is the more problems you will encounter with POI...sight it in, then wack it with the palm of your hand real hard and shoot another group, then you decide...

The bottom line is the final choice is yours and you have to live with it..I can live with my choice and thats all that counts. If I missed a big Leopard or elk, it wouldn't end my world, but just make the experience that much better, if we got every big animal we saw and they pull a fast one on us from time to time, then hunting would become shooting and be terribly boring...I can remember those failed shots and misses better than the B&C trophies on my wall....and its exhilerating!