I posted this in the Optics section, but perhaps it is more appropriate here:

As everyone familiar with optics is aware, every scope's Field of View is necessarily smaller than it could be in order to provide the scope with the requisite eye relief of 3-4" for most scopes intended for high-powered rifles.

But so much eye relief is not needed for a bench/varmint rifle in most .22 centerfire calibers, especially the dedicated ones with heavy barrels which dampen the small cartridges' modest recoil even further.

It occurs to me that 2 inches of eye relief would still be plenty for a scope mounted on a .204, .223, etc. Such a scope could have a substantially larger FOV than one with a 4" eye relief.

Now, that is only important to those of us who like hunting colony varmints and very much need high magnification, but also want to be able to call our own shots. Calling your own shots is usually possible with scopes up to 10X or maybe 12X, but at 16 or 18X the FOV is almost always so small that the shooter loses sight of the target due to recoil (even with a .223).

If a maker of high quality scopes were to offer, say, a 16X fixed with a 2" eye relief and the FOV of a 10X, then I'd quickly grab one to put on one of my dedicated PD rifles. Am I onto something, or barking up an empty tree?

I've tried fixed power scopes on varmint rifles and, as you posted, 12x is about the top end of usefulness. IMO, a good varible in say 4x16 but not higher than a 6x20 is about as good as it gets on a varmint scope. You can spot them with the low end power and then dial in on them. Even a 10x or 12x has a pretty restricted FOV. Let's don't forget mirage too.
Considering the niche market you're talking about, I doubt that any scope company is gonna swing into production. After they sell one to you and another to your buddy, where's the market?

The Leupold 16X target scope is the finest varmint scope there is. I have 3 of them on a T3 Lite .223, a 700 VSSF 22-250 and a re-barrelled Sendero in 6mm (w/ Harrell's muzzle brake). Mount the scope as far forward as possible and still have a good view with the buttstock firmly into your shoulder. The use of a solid rest helps a lot also, though I can do fine with just a Harris bipod and my Leupold binoculars turned sideways under the rifle butt (or use a small sandbag if one is handy). I also have a surveyor's tripod (credit to GHD here) that works extremely well with a sandbag under the buttstock and the rear of the folded bipod transferring some of the recoil(not much, but some) energy into the tripod. I have watched many smoked and lobbed chucks this way. I think the fixed power Leupolds are noticeably sharper in resolution to any variable scope that I've tried, including their own!

personally I want to try out a Bushnell 2.5 x 16 in their 6500 series, on top of one of my varmint rifles...

15 to 16 power is about as much as I want to go with...at least on a 223...

on a 22.250 I'd be tempted to try out the 4.5 x 30 Model...

Well, FWIW, I've tried Leupold 24X FCH and 36x FCH scopes. Any additional brightness is balanced out by the fact that they are a pain in the ass to fiddle with while Pdogs are out. I haven't tried one with the side adjustable AO so that may make a slight difference. But shooting at A groundhog is a whole lot different from shooting at a Pdog meadow where the target are multipule and the distance is constantly changing.

R. Brown: I agree that the 16X Leupold should be about the near-perfect prairie dog scope. Do they still offer it? Fixed scopes usually have a bit more FOV than variables, and they are also just a tad brighter due to having one less light-eating lens.

My point is that if you took that same scope and widened its field of view by shortening its eye relief a tolerable amount, then it would make it much easier to see your own shots.

Wasbeeman: Insofar as being a limited market with relatively low sales, that is true, but I'm flabbergasted at the number of scopes that Leupold (and others) already market to small niche markets (turkey plex, hog reticle, shotgun scope, lighted reticle -- the list goes on and on.) The dedicated varminter niche might be large enough to justify such a scope.

Like you, I once had a 24X fixed Leupold on an HB prairie dog rifle. Just finding the dog in your scope was often the greatest challenge!

And also like you, I appreciate the utility of a variable in spotting at low power then dialing up to higher power for the shot. But that still doesn't solve the problem of losing the sight picture due to recoil.

quote:

Originally posted by seafire/B17G:
personally I want to try out a Bushnell 2.5 x 16 in their 6500 series, on top of one of my varmint rifles...

15 to 16 power is about as much as I want to go with...at least on a 223...

on a 22.250 I'd be tempted to try out the 4.5 x 30 Model...

Seafire, I'd be interested in your experience with such a scope. There are all kinds of optical and physical compromises that have to be made in order to give a scope as wide a variation in power as 2.5-16X. I fear that you will find this results in both very critical eye placement and restricted field of view -- both of which I feel detract from a scope's utility much more than the wide range of power adds to that utility. If you do try one of these scopes be sure to report!

I don't know about losing the sight picture during recoil as I've only used .223s and 22-250s to varmint hunt with. With either one you can see your hits. BTW, NO muzzle brakes, thank you very much.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
I don't know about losing the sight picture during recoil as I've only used .223s and 22-250s to varmint hunt with. With either one you can see your hits. BTW, NO muzzle brakes, thank you very much.

I agree that using a muzzle brake would take ALL of the fun out of varminting. However, I disagree on losing the sight picture, at least insofar as reliably seeing where your shots land. With an 18X on a sporter weight .223 I cannot reliably see where my bullet hits due to the recoil moving the sight picture just far enough off of the target to obscure the hit. I have no trouble at 12X magnification.

Stone: Recoil.....another good reason to build a 17-222 PD rifle, that shoots 25 to 30 grain bullets. I put a Leupold 6.5-20XAO on this one. All hits are "seen".....unless the grass is too high. Kevin

quote:

Originally posted by seafire/B17G:
personally I want to try out a Bushnell 2.5 x 16 in their 6500 series, on top of one of my varmint rifles...

15 to 16 power is about as much as I want to go with...at least on a 223...

on a 22.250 I'd be tempted to try out the 4.5 x 30 Model...

I have one I am putting on my Tikka 204 when it comes back.

I have all vari power scopes on my varmint guns 4x12 4x16 4x24s 4x14 Th2 24s are great for sighting in abd shooting groups not much use in the feild past the frist couple of shots.

I kill a lot of p dogs on 8 to 12 x I think my 4 by 16 is the most use full.

Do do it over I would not have brought the 24s and went with 16 power at the highest

my 4x12 is on my 22-250 it works well also but when sighting in I like a bit more power.

There are Leupold 6.5-20X AO scopes on my 220 Swift and 243 Win varmint rifles. When shooting prairie dogs they are set at 18 X, because the feild of view(FOV) is to small for me at 20 X. The 22-250 has a old Weaver 12 X AO on it but I like a bit more power than 12 X but the FOV is good. The newer rifles ,a 223 Rem, 221 and 17 Rem Fireball has Leaopold 6-18 X AO scopes on them which are set at 18 X when shooting prairie dogs. I started using a 22 RF slide action rifle with a Weaver J 4 scope back in 1950 for shooting prairie dogs, jackrabbits, and other unwonted critters. Learned how to shoot running jack rabbits with that old 4X limited FOV 22 rifle scope but now I like a max of 18 X on my varmint rifles.

When I started varmint hunting back in the late 1960's there weren't many choices. The Leupold 3-9x, and Redfield 4-12x were on all my rifles. Then I tried a Unertl 2" Target in 20x, and a 1.5" with interchangeable eyepieces that gave 20x or 12x. They all worked fine on ground squirrels.

Today, I use whatever I can find on sale or closeout. Found a good deal on a Leupold VX-II 6-18x it works fine. Bought 4 Bushnell Elite 4200's on sale or closeout, three are 6-24x, one a 3-10x. Great scopes clear and bright. Picked up a Clearidge Ultra XP in 6-20x, just as good as the Bushnell Elite 4200 for $340. The Clearidge 4.5-14x sells for $310, a good buy. Bought a couple of 30mm Weaver Classic Extremes on closeout, one a 3-10x Illuminated, the other a 6-24x Illuminated, both kill everything I aim at. Bought two Nikon Monarchs one a 6.5-20x the other a 6-24x S.F. while not as clear and contrasty as the rest, they do the job. My hunting compatriot swears the Burris Black Diamond is the best for his eyes. Point being that they all work well, especially on rifles transported in hard cases, and then stored in a safe. Paying $800 to $1000 more won't really improve the picture or reliability enough to warrant the extra expense. I can buy to or three replacement scopes for the difference.

I use the highest powers for developing loads, then turn the magnification down in the field, seldom need more than 14x but it's there if needed.

When I discovered the muzzle brake it became standard equipment on all my rifles - yes even the .204's and .224's.

Just as important as the scope is how it's mounted. I found Ken Farrell one piece bases, epoxy bedded to perfectly match the receiver contour, along with Burris Signature Zee-Rings to be excellent. Of course all screws are fitted and torqued with a precision torque gauge.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Gullette:
Stone: Recoil.....another good reason to build a 17-222 PD rifle, that shoots 25 to 30 grain bullets. I put a Leupold 6.5-20XAO on this one. All hits are "seen".....unless the grass is too high. Kevin

That's a neat bench. Gives me some ideas. Tony