Hi guys;

I'm working on an article for Gun Digest: the Magazine and need a favor. What scope do you favor on your muzzleloader? Is there a dedicated muzzleloader scope that has a following, or will any scope do the trick? I wanted to canvas a dedicated group of muzzleloader hunters/shooters and get some reactions, I'm a tradionalist that because of poor eyes has had to start using a scope on my frontstuffers. I wanted to hear from other folks that choose to use optics over open sights.
thanks in advance
Walt

Leupold Vari-IIc 1-4x20

BuckMT,

I'm sure you would find as many preferences as you do responders. Let me offer some generalities (these apply to my personal ML without mentioning specific brands of scope).

1. Low power variable in the range of 1 X 4

2. Quality scope $100+ with as large an objective as possible for low light

3. Must be waterproof!!! I have had BP smoke residue on both lenses. This material is a mix of carbonaceous soot and unburned organic compounds. These need to be washed off under WARM water and then cleaned with the lightest application of acetone on a soft cotton cloth.

4. Mounts should also be of substantial quality and not have gaps or grooves that can harbor corrosive residues. Caution should be used when drilling and tapping the barrel if it does not come so from the factory. BP recoil is more of a "shove" than a "shock", but it can be considerable at maximum loads.

5. Anticipated shot ranges (how many over 100yds) should also be considered. If many shots are to be taken at 50-75yds, one might consider a "shotgun" scope parallax adjusted to those ranges. This does not limit it to those ranges, just provides a better advantage at shorter distances.

Here's my setup on an older TC Renegade (iron sights removed).

1.5X5 mid value name brand scope in a TC 2 piece mount designed for that model (spring loaded so the scope and rings come off as one for easy cleaning). The scope is set to standard parallax - 100yds. It is a percussion gun in which I shoot both pyrodex and ffg.

I can't imagine mounting one on an old flinter (this would be like a rumble seat on a Vette). And some of the concerns w/scope cleaning may be lessened using in-lines. So more variables need to be considered.

While some may think that mounting a scope on a ML is not very "traditional", it leads to greater accuracy and more ethical shots at game. I don't want to foster a tradition of wounding or missing an animal due to poor eyesight or primitive sighting equipment.

Let us know when the article hits the stands.

Mike

Good stuff, Mike, and thank you! Code4 for the reply from down under! This piece is for the muzzleloading special from Krause, it will be out in the fall (my deadline is Aug 1). I always try to get my research done early and have time to physically examine a few of the items in question.
I started using a Savage ML10 smokeless last year, for an article, and even though I have always thought muzzleloader seasons should be traditional (actually I've always felt that there should be just a "deer" season, for whatever weapon you want to use) I have to admit that the Savage was a pleasure to use and fantastically accurate. The wife and I shot 9 deer with it, taking turns during the season. The only problem was it had a Simmons Blaser scope and it was terrible.
Keep it coming!
Walt

Since you can not use a scope with more than 1x in some of the states I hunt, that muzzleloader gets a Simmons Pro Hunter 1x32. Fir the rest, I use a Weaver V3 1-3x20 scope. Both have been reliable for me.

thanks Larry, I have heard some others say some good things about the Weaver.

Two of my White Whitetails are scoped, and both wear Leupold M8-4X. That is more than enough magnification for shots to 200 yards. One does not have any sights and it is for states which allow scopes with no power restrictions, short-range seasons, or general any-weapon hunts. The other is set up the same, but with Warne QD rings. It replicates the sight-in within 1/2", over and over. It has the fine Williams sights often required for open sight seasons.

Larry, et.al.

One of the things I'v noticed over the past 20 odd years of buying scopes is that there is a pattern that relates scope quality to price points.

Again, not wishing to cast aspersions on any one brand (I've had some "blue light specials" that have lasted years... for $29.95), I have noticed that brands that offer 3x9x30 (I use it as a benchmark) for, say $75 +/- are the minimum for quality. NOTE: I can't back any of this up w/scientific proofs. It just seems that the "brands" (not manufacturer - since there are actually only a handful of actual manufacturers) that offer these lower priced scopes do not increase their quality in proportiion to increases in $$.

A comment I've made in other posts deals with material integrity and construction as a cause for quality rather than just optics. The same quality glass that would have cost say $100 ten years ago due to its optics alone will now cost $20. Yes, there is a difference between the lower priced glass and a Zeiss, but if you look at the middle of that bell curve of quality (where most of us must shop), the real difference is in construction.

Most of us cannot determine the difference in such parameters as "barrel distortion", "chromatic distortion" or "coma" as we look through a scope (now, in photography... that's another thing). So unless you do side-by-sides under "field" conditions, the differences may not be readily apparent.

If you factor in such variables as customer service and warranty, you can see how a brand might bear a higher price. The "lifetime" warranty on the AUTO-RADAR-ZOOM-MOONLITE-LITE 3X30 RANGEFINDER, scope by Yugo might sound exciting if you expect the Yugo Scope Co. to be around next year. But even good brands that I recall from my youth...last millenium...have exchanged quality for volume in sales.

One can enjoy (and I plan to) shooting an ML year round under controlled conditions. Hunting season here in the UP is in December, the weather can vary from rain to ice to icy-rain to SNOOOOW!!!! (Snowing as I write this on 4/7...about 2" so far) so slipping and "clunking" a scope can be common. Also, a scope can go from room temp to -10 and back in a day, and that temp change is sudden!! A well constructed scope can handle that.

MIKE...QUIT BABBLING!!! Sorry lads, its been a long winter. Just some thoughts, always open to discussion. I will obey the little voices and close.

Mike

Thanks Mike, good stuff, once again. I have had the opportunity to look through/test on guns a great variety of scopes, some in side-by-side testing, and I feel that one gets what one pays for (yes, you can pay too much, buying a "name" etc). Nikon came out with the BDC muzzleloader scope a few years back but other than some television personalities, I can't find any "real shooters" that use it. Until my eyes started going south I used the T/C peep on my Renegade and open sights on my other traditional guns, then when I started using in-lines started out with the inexpensive scopes on them. What I found (for me) is that construction, light-gathering ability and reliability most often are associated with the more expensive scopes and these things are more important to me than price in a hunting situation.

Keep it coming!
Walt

Walt,

An open question to all who are reading this thread.

How accurate can a BDC scope be on a muzzle loader?? There is no STANDARD load for any caliber (that I know of). This seems to be an unethical "gimmick". Think of all the variables associated with shooting a ML!!! Unless you can standardize a load and customize the scope to IT, and never... NEVER I SAY! vary the load, it might work. One might posit that a scope of that sort would also be quite expensive.

I know they already exist... scopes w/video, computers, gps, etc. But when you put something like this on a ML - then I become a LUDDITE!!!

Mike

My set-up is a strait 4X 40mm Nikon Monarch with Leupold QR rings and bases. All siting on top of a Knight Disc Elite 40 cal.



.

Thanks Ted, your setup is very common, and a damn good one.
Mike, you are right on, I feel the same way; keep it simple! There are more gadgets out there that just take our money and pull in the suckers. Some of the modern smokeless guns are capable of 300+ yard shooting, it was only a matter of time before some company came up with a GEE-WHIZ scope and a bubba to hawk it. I say, buy good optics, learn your load/gun, shoot to your limitations.
More good stuff, keep it coming!
Walt

My first centerfire many years ago wore a Leupold M8-6X. We tend to "dance with what brung us", and now several of my White muzzleloaders wear Leupold 'straight sixes'. Maybe a bit too much at very close range, but extremely useful to me at 150 yards +. When I sight in (at 100), the 6X allows me to just see the edges of the 1" orange dot outside the center "x" in the crosshairs...

Doubless: I have a 6X42 Leupold w/heavy duplex on my .35 Whelen and it may be the perfect whitetail scope. I've considered putting it on the muzzleloader because 1)it's tough, 2) no fooling around with changing power, and 3) it works. An excellent choice in my opinion.

Still no BDC scope users for muzzleloaders?

Keep it coming!
Walt

Best scope I have on a Muzzle loader is an old Weaver K4. It is a fixed 4 power scope and works well in low light as well as the dark of a yooper cedar swamp. You will never beat the price with any scope on todays market either as I bought it at a yard sale for a whooping $5.00.
It is mounted on my T/C plains rifle useing T/C quick release system that cost 10 times what the scope did.
On the hawkins I use a peep site, as good as any scope for the short yardages it is normally used at.

Al

quote:

Originally posted by Michael A. Glass:
Walt,

An open question to all who are reading this thread.

How accurate can a BDC scope be on a muzzle loader?? There is no STANDARD load for any caliber (that I know of). This seems to be an unethical "gimmick". Think of all the variables associated with shooting a ML!!! Unless you can standardize a load and customize the scope to IT, and never... NEVER I SAY! vary the load, it might work. One might posit that a scope of that sort would also be quite expensive.

I know they already exist... scopes w/video, computers, gps, etc. But when you put something like this on a ML - then I become a LUDDITE!!!

Mike

Nikon makes a BDC scope specially calibrated for the 50 caliber Omega. I don't know if they give a specific load or maybe a bullet weight and velocity. I've heard hunters who have raved about it.

Personally, I can't see a reason for any BDC scope, on any rifle.

JPK

I shoot an Ultimate Firearms BP Xpress and have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14 on it. It is not at all "primitive", but it works for me.

Jeff,

That picture truly speaks volumes!!!!

Beautiful buck, beautiful rifle!! But dude... the hat??? Just kidding.

Let me speculate... this picture now sits on your desk (or some other prominent place), the head and horns adorn a wall and your freezer is full of meat. The deer was killed quickly and humanely (due, at least in part, to the technical quality of arm you used, but YOU had to decide when to pull the trigger). What's not to be proud of??? The picture says it all.

I have to ask... is that a muzzle break??? If so, I can only imagine what a shot must look like!!!! Now that would be a photo!!!

Well done, lad... well done!

Mike

Jeff, that's a great buck, and what looks like one very happy hunter! I have to confess my favorite brand of scope is Zeiss, but I try to keep that little bit of info out of my writing; but the Conquest scopes are wonderful.
Keep it up guys!
Walt

quote:

Originally posted by Michael A. Glass:
Jeff,

That picture truly speaks volumes!!!!

Beautiful buck, beautiful rifle!! But dude... the hat??? Just kidding.

Let me speculate... this picture now sits on your desk (or some other prominent place), the head and horns adorn a wall and your freezer is full of meat. The deer was killed quickly and humanely (due, at least in part, to the technical quality of arm you used, but YOU had to decide when to pull the trigger). What's not to be proud of??? The picture says it all.

I have to ask... is that a muzzle break??? If so, I can only imagine what a shot must look like!!!! Now that would be a photo!!!

Well done, lad... well done!

Mike

Mike,

I hate to even admit this, but I watched this buck for about 5 minutes before I decided to shoot him. He is definitely a great buck (weighed 245 pounds and gross scored just under 150"), but I only did a European mount on him. Since I killed a 178" buck on our place in 2004, I am pretty selective as to what I shoot, and I probably won't shoulder mount another buck unless he is over 160". I have had the BP Xpress for several years and am actually not very fond of it. It is too big and heavy, but it shoots great. It doesn't have a muzzle brake, but it would be a good idea.

Here is a picture of my 2004 buck, and I have a Zeiss Conquest on the Knight Disc rifle in that picture.

BTW Both of these bucks were killed in Alfalfa county, Oklahoma on my families land.


Next year is looking promising too. Here is a match set of shed that I found last weekend. One is 62.5" and the other is 68.5".

I have the Nikon/TC BDC scope.

And how does it do? Is the drop compensation accurate with your load? Etc, etc, etc,...

JPK

Jeff, fantastic deer, great hunt! Phoenixdawg, give us a report on the Nikon! 1) does it do what Nikon says it will do and 2) do you actually use it that way?
Walt

quote:

Originally posted by BUCKMT:
...and I feel that one gets what one pays for (yes, you can pay too much, buying a "name" etc). Nikon came out with the BDC muzzleloader scope a few years back but other than some television personalities, I can't find any "real shooters" that use it.
Walt

Well BUCKMT, I'm not sure what you call real shooters, but of our local 'gang' I can tell you several of us are High Master qualified riflemen, and I can assure you several others would be if they pursued the ranking. I would boldly say that last group could include myself--to the point, out of about 15, 16 guys who hunt avidly, 12 or 13 have the Omega BDC reticle 3x9x40 sitting on their various muzzleloaders.

I will tell you that a few of us lead the pack when it comes to what gear to buy, but the bottom line is that the scope works incredibly well. It is good across the board optically, and the ranging reticle matches up perfectly with the prescribed bullet weights and loads, and is actually 'tune-able' to a degree, the manual details how you set it up by varying the power during your sight in process.

In short, I would say through me, you now know a pretty good bunch of real shooters/hunters that use and give a big thumbs up on that scope.

Michael Glass, to your questions BDC's can be DAMN accurate, but as you iferred it has to be of a certain load, the load is specified in the detail in the manual, and again as I mentioned you can fine tune it a bit, but that is not necesasry in my Encore or Savage using two pretty darn different loads, the Savage is using smokeless, but matches up with the reticle beautifully!

I do really agree with optics you tend to get what you pay for as BUCKMT mentioned, and I actually feel at the price (around $250) the Omega is a darn good scope all around. I did have one fail, but am the only one of our gang who has, and Nikon repaired and returned it quickly, and I have had no further incidents with it, with way over 300 rounds through the rigs that wear it.

I also have a Leupold compensating reticle designed for ML'rs and it is great as well.

I think like the old Alka Seltzer commercial--'try it, you'll like it'--seriously.

Fish,

Thanks for a most enlightening and comprehensive reply!! I'm always looking for opportunities to learn through other's experience. Hope others can match your success with that scope!! It all comes down to bullet placement - and anything that can increase your ability to kill cleanly should be investigated, and if found worthy, added to your shooting "toolbox".

Nice to know that with a bit of work (which we ALL should be doing to increase our marksmanship skills) you can make the scope a reliable component in various shot-presentation circumstances.

Mike

Mike, I understand and agree with the price point comments about the scopes and value. The reason I chose the scopes I did were fully planned. The Simmons is simply an aiming point for old eyes that have a hard time with front to back sight acquisition for the regular open sights. I would rather use the fiber optic open sights, but I just don't see them as well as I used to. The new contacts don't help that much. With no magnification and no variable powers, the Simmons has provided a very clear consistant sight picture and the diamond reticule makes it easy. Would I put a variable Simmons on any of my other high power rifles....Nope, but this one seems built just for this application (as well as a turkey shotgun).

The Weaver came off a 30-06 that I put a Nikon 3-9 on and it has never given me any trouble either. Is it a Leupold VX-III 1-5x20, no, but again for the $$$ it works great.

Nice comments in this thread!

Hey Walt, Thanks for the taps the other day. My personal preference is the Burris FFII 3X9X40 with the Ballistic Plex. Zeroed at 300 with the 300 mark I am 1.5" high at 100 yds with the crosshair. The other marks are really close.

According to the sticker that comes with the scope the crosshair is supposed to be 125 yds, next mark 150, next 200, next 250 and finally the bottom of the narrow wire (where duplex gets fatter) is 300 yds.

I like the Burris' smaller marks better than the larger Nikons circles. Of course this is just personal preference.

What ever people chose they need to shoot plenty to get familar with the marks.

God Bless, Louis