Ladies and Gentlemen:

I did a full search here and in the optics section of this forum, but am not satiated.

I am building a 35 Whelen Ackley on a k98k Mauser for bear and moose hunting in Alaska, and would like to use a low power scope on it.

Presently, I have B&L (now Bushnell) Elite 4000's and 4200's (1.5-6x 36mm 4000) and (2.5-10x 40mm 4000 and 4200) riflescopes that I am and will be using on my other rifles all with the duplex reticle. I am used to the duplex reticle.

For those of you who have had Alaska bear and/or moose hunting experience, I have the following questions:

1. Is it necessary to have an illuminated reticle?
2. What size objective bell works best for the lowest light conditions and still be portable: for example 24mm, 36mm, 40mm, etc.?
3. What reticle works the best in low light when bear hunting?
4. Is an iron sight back up necessary?
5. What results if any have you had with the Trijicon Accupoints with the amber or red triangle and/or the german #4 dot illuminated reticle?, and
6. What scopes have taken a beating, and kept on ticking?

At present I have a 2.5-10x Elite 4200 with the rainguard finish that I could use. On the other hand, I am interested in the Trijicons, but have no experience with an illuminated reticle. Also, I have a line on a discontinued 1.5-6x Bushnell 4200 with rainguard that might fit the bill. Lastly, the 1.5-4.5 Elite 4200 with the battery powered illuminated 4A reticle looks interesting.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

i'll start....
irons are not necessary, they actually work worse in low light...
big OB lenses dont' really help low light that much, the leupold 2.5-8 36 has been the best low light scope i've ever seen, seems weird.
Never needed illuminated anything if its that dark, i'm not shooting cause there other factors that need to be considered then.
trijicon take some getting used to but they are a scope and shoot just like the rest, i suppose if you can get used to using one you might like it in low light.
i used a luey 1.5-5 on my bear gun and never wished i had anything different.

I 2nd what fourtyonesix has said regarding leupold scope. They are the scope of choice by most seasoned guides.

I like iron sights and scope with QR mounts, after the shot, I usually take my scope off, it makes the rifle lighter and easier to carry, more then once I have used my unloaded 375 H&H as a walking stick while packing thru tussocks or getting off the mountain

Scope is either a Leupold 1.5x5 or 2x8 compact depending hunt, both have QR rings

My .338 is used for both moose and large bears. We hunt moose in relatively thick cover with the possibility of longer shots on the rivers/sloughs. In addition, the area contains grizzlies whose season happens to run concurrently with moose. My rifle is a laminated Ruger in SS with open sights. My scope is a Leupold Vari-x III, 1.5 - 5. The crosshairs are the simple old duplex. One thing my 40+ years of hunting Alaska has taught me is the "KISS principle". That's why I try to have a set of open sights on all of my rifles. Illuminated crosshairs? Not KISS. More crap to go bad & if'n it's that dark you shouldn't be shooting.
As to question #2, it's answered by the size of my scope (1.5-5x). Not very large. Regarding scope power, I prefer keeping the power levels relatively low. My main hunting partner had a 6x scope on his .338 and the "pucker factor" went way up one time when we jumped a brownie on Afognak Island while elk hunting. None of my hunting rifles has anything larger than 2-7x on them. I've never needed more and have never understood the fantasy that many have with scopes of larger magnification. What do I know tho? I've only been hunting Ak. for 40 + years. Bear in Fairbanks

i guess i should add, i have QD rings on my gun as well with back up peep sight. my .338 is a smooth barrel but i don't guide with that gun anymore, just my .416.
i'll take my scope off when guiding deer hunters or if i have to do much hiking around after the kill is made...as mentioned before makes the gun lighter and easier to use as a secondary tool.

Are you hunting Coastal Brownies on streams in the fall where they suddenly appear at 20 yards or less? Are you hunting in low light conditions inside a heavy tree canopy? Or are you hunting mountain Griz over a moose kill where you can see for 200 yards or better? The application should perhaps dictate the scope you choose./ Chaz

I'd go with the trijicon 1.25-4 that post with lighted tip really works well in low light.

What I have found out with lighted reticles it is very easy to wash out the sight picture with them. So all one sees is the reticle and nothing beyond it. I don't use them any more on my tactical or hunting rifles for that reason.

I find that it is not good when one really has to shoot something and not being able to see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Thebear_78:
I'd go with the trijicon 1.25-4 that post with lighted tip really works well in low light.

Trijicon 1.25-4x24 Accu-Point Rifle Scope
I would also go with this scope. I've heard a lot of good things about it. It does cost a little more than the VXIII 1.5-5X20, and I'm don't think it has quite the eye relief that the leupy, but I doubt you'll have a problem with the 35. You'd have to decide on the amber or the red triangle, though.

I forgot to add that I think I've heard problems of the tube being a little short and needing offset bases to fit a standard length action.

Howzabout the Busnell 3200 Elite and Firefly reticle?

Chris,

Ziess, S&B or perhaps USO/NF, 1,5-6x42 with an illum reticle are the choices that you have for real,

do you need higher max X, then a 2,3-10x42 is a great choice or the NF straight tubed version.


You are making a great rifle, it needs a great piece of optics on it.

BTW- firefly reticle is a no go, for real

Best regards Chris.

I'm very interested in this topic and would like to jump in if I may. I have much the same interest in questioning which scope is recommended as I have the same gun and the same interests.

I have a Ruger Stainless in 338 Mag sans sites so the quick release rings are no option for me. For this reason I feel that "just" the right scope is very important.

I don't have the funds to stock two rifles of the same caliber so this is my "go to Alaska, hunt Elk, and do anything else I need from a medium rifle" gun. You all ask what type of hunting, how about "all types?" Seriously, I can't afford two nice scopes so I'm wondering how this affects your recommendations.

I'm thinking a 2x7x33 in Leupold. I think for long range the higher power would be good but is 2 power low enough for the close stuff? Or should I go with a 1x4x20?

Thanks

Sorry for hijacking.

Rev-can you hunt in twilight?

If so then leupies are not the best choice.


1,5-6 or 2,5-10x42-50 are as allround as they can be.

/Chris

quote:

Originally posted by reverenddan:
I'm very interested in this topic and would like to jump in if I may. I have much the same interest in questioning which scope is recommended as I have the same gun and the same interests.

I have a Ruger Stainless in 338 Mag sans sites so the quick release rings are no option for me. For this reason I feel that "just" the right scope is very important.

I don't have the funds to stock two rifles of the same caliber so this is my "go to Alaska, hunt Elk, and do anything else I need from a medium rifle" gun. You all ask what type of hunting, how about "all types?" Seriously, I can't afford two nice scopes so I'm wondering how this affects your recommendations.

I'm thinking a 2x7x33 in Leupold. I think for long range the higher power would be good but is 2 power low enough for the close stuff? Or should I go with a 1x4x20?

Thanks

Sorry for hijacking.

Look at the trijicon 1x4 with the german plex and green dot illum. Pretty darn kean scope!

Ed

Personally I use a 1-4 with heavy reticle or 2-7 on my 375 H&H. I am old school and not much into the lighted reticle for hunting. It just doesn't seem right. How's Trijicon's optics and internals compared to Leupold, Conquest and their ilk? Lou

on the norm the Vari-III 1.5 x 5 hevy dup. has worked well for me in the thick and in the open for many many yrs. Now the S&B and Zeiss, Swars. etc... have a good report in regards to twilight shooting spendy if you choose that route.

Thank you all for your input.

I'll have to experiment, and see what I like the best.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

And I would add a second "thanks for the input" as well.

No I don't do much twilight hunting, here in Idaho frowned upon, in Alaska I don't know. I've never had a problem with any of my Leupolds in any light I've ever hunted in.

I guess I should ask one pointed question: Is a standard 3x9 scope (weight and size as a factor set aside) too powerful on the lowest setting? Seems that most of you with experience enjoy the old style straight tube.

Gratz on the nice custom project Yale. One of these days I will get me a nice 35 Wheelen.

I have lived in Alaska for a year,

in the fall and winter, the twilight is pretty much day round,

personaly I have no problems with a 3x being the lowest setting, I still can shoot with both eyes open and make good hits even at a movers and runners.

We all do as we please, I like the quality of the Euro style optics.

Best regards Chris.

Hello,

First off, let me applaud your choice in cartridges. It is refreshing in these dark days of "Velocity Madness". Seems to me the Whelen with such as a 250 grain Swift A-Frame or other TOUGH expanding bullet might be a fine bear getter but I have no personal experience with same.

Having only lived and hunted in AK for 27 years, I am but a wretched Cheechako compared to Bear in Fairbanks. However, even so, I have enough miles on my raingear to agree with him on his suggestion to always KISS. In that regard, I do not even care for variable scopes. They are quite good but I'm just weird (both are under stated). needless to say, I have never been drawn in by the lighted reticule idea.

Variables are reportedly every bit as reliable these days as the fixed power ones are but, during the time I owned one, I found that I did not turn it up or down, (left it on 4x all the time) except to make sure it would hold it's zero on different settings and back again (rifle range). It always did but I still prefer fixed power scopes because I am an obcessive compulsive minimalist odd duck.

In fact, before my eyes started weakening with age, I did not even use scopes much on most of my hunting rifles. Receiver ("peep") sights and "Sour Dough" blade front sights were on over a dozen of my rifles in those days, including rimfires. I shot a pile of game through said sights over the years, I guess indicating that they were a good choice for my needs.

One exception to my minimalist sporting goods quirk I can think of at the moment (in regards to your question) is that; even with a scoped rifle, I prefer iron sights in case I fall and break said scope. Never have broken one but I bent one (Lpld 6x) and luckily it still worked after I rezeroed it in camp. What about those Baggage Apes doing their Samsonite Luggage commercial with your rifle box just before loading it into the plane to Kodiak or Cold Bay or wherever? They must lay awake at night thinking of new ways to wreck our luggage.

I am fond of the Zeiss 4x recently being made again, and this time in a longer "H&H length" tube. Spendy but typical A+ German type quality and ruggedness. Sometimes we do get what we pay for. Their duplex type reticule is however a bit clunky/too thick and I prefer their standard crosswire one. I also lean toward rifles that do not require scope bases. Ruger and the excellent CZ rifles are two such examples. Not the Gospel, just another personal quirk.

Bear is right. KISS and you will have less to go wrong with your gear when you need it most.

Stay Safe.
Ard.

PS; Actually, "living and hunting in AK" are misleading. I have not been hunting anything but grouse in AK for the past 6 or 7 years as I have been concentrating on other places and other species lately.

Dear Ard:

Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful post.

I, too have been shooting aperture irons on my Marlin 39A since age 13. That was 33 years ago!

On the other hand, after my first deer season at age 14, and while using a borrowed, pre-WW-II 32 Special 1894 Winchester with that ugly factory buckhorn rear sight in the Pennsylvania woods, I came to a conclusion: scope.

Haven't looked back.

But I am putting original Lyman 48's on some commercial Mauser copies that I making for Africa and on a 416 Ruger in a 1908 Brazilian action.

I'll probably lug an extra scope with me into the Alaska wilderness.

And the rifle will be a nod to P. O. Ackley, a 35 Whelen AI. Probably won't matter a hill of beans in the velocity increase department, but I just want one.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Hello again Yale/Chris,

You are welcome. Just credit where credit is due to you.
Not familiar with .416 Ruger but have a .416 Rigby and am happy with same. Will admit however to not having shot any game with it yet.
Mausers (98s and reasonably similar designs) are the bee's knees if you ask me.

The old Model-70 winchester is nothing more than a streamlined (I have always guessed for cheapness of manufacture) Model 98 Mauser.
Same for the excellent CZ 550 Magnum. I prefer the original 98 however these two are very good rifles at any rate.
Speaking of Africa, have you been there yet?

"Bringing a cheap rifle to Africa is like wearing a baseball hat in church."

Cheers.
Ard.

Most of the scopes I own and use are in (or slightly above/below) the Elite 4200 range, including a Vari-X III, a pair of Monarchs (third incoming), Zeiss Conquest, Burris Signature Series, Weaver Grand Slam - all are excellent glass with great light transmission/gathering. Maybe not as fancy as some of those other ultra high end brands, but when I can buy two or 3 really good scopes for the cost of one slightly better one, I have a hard time buying the $1499 scope!

For a bear gun I'd go with low power variable with a 3-9x being the most. My Leupy is a 2.5-8x which I think is about perfect for that type of hunting. Even a fixed 2.5x or 4x scope is an excellent choice, most guides will get you within a reasonable shooting range so you shouldn't need a ton of magnification. Put them in a good one-piece mount like a Deadnutz mount or integrated base/ring sets like Talley one-piece mounts - I like both of them as they are strong and stable. FYI I use an 1895 in .45/70 occasionally for black bear, it hammers them dead as dead can get. It wears iron sights when hunting over baits, and I like the fact that I am used to using it that way

Objective size isn't everything either, you may find that a 32mm or 38mm is brighter than a 42mm or 44mm simply due to superior optical quality and coatings. Of the above scopes I listed, the Conquest is definitely the superior specimen. Amazing clarity and light gathering, well worth the money for low-light hunting. No surprise it sits atop my long range tree stand deer gun for catching the late feeders before calling it a day. It's allowed me to take a shot I wouldn't have made otherwise just because the clarity and brightness made it a no-brainer shot.

I've tried illuminated reticle scopes in the field and at the range and have checked the latest out in stores and can honestly say I'm still not a fan of them. My eyes had some problems with them in high light situations but I am slightly photosensitive, the black reticle stands out more for me. Maybe in extreme low light (like night time under a full moon) it might make a difference, but most places I've been don't allow hunting past dusk anyways so the point is moot.

Dear Ard:

No, I have not been to Africa. Hope to rectify that real personal failing in a few years.

Just building the rifles for there, the lower 48 and Alaska ahead of time.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Ok, sorting through all the great advice, and thanks by the way

Seems that I don't need anything as high as 3x9 so I will peruse my usual haunts for a good deal on a low power. I have never been a fan of illuminated reticles (K.I.S.S.) so I will avoid those in favor of a heavy duplex that has always served me well in the past.

Thanks for the suggestions on the sturdy mounts, I will look into maybe two setups, one with a reliable 3x9 for elk hunting and another for maybe the Leupold 1x4 for the thick stuff and the happy day when I get to Alaska to hunt the big bruins.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeyB:
Most of the scopes I own and use are in (or slightly above/below) the Elite 4200 range, including a Vari-X III, a pair of Monarchs (third incoming), Zeiss Conquest, Burris Signature Series, Weaver Grand Slam - all are excellent glass with great light transmission/gathering. Maybe not as fancy as some of those other ultra high end brands, but when I can buy two or 3 really good scopes for the cost of one slightly better one, I have a hard time buying the $1499 scope!

For a bear gun I'd go with low power variable with a 3-9x being the most. My Leupy is a 2.5-8x which I think is about perfect for that type of hunting. Even a fixed 2.5x or 4x scope is an excellent choice, most guides will get you within a reasonable shooting range so you shouldn't need a ton of magnification. Put them in a good one-piece mount like a Deadnutz mount or integrated base/ring sets like Talley one-piece mounts - I like both of them as they are strong and stable. FYI I use an 1895 in .45/70 occasionally for black bear, it hammers them dead as dead can get. It wears iron sights when hunting over baits, and I like the fact that I am used to using it that way

Objective size isn't everything either, you may find that a 32mm or 38mm is brighter than a 42mm or 44mm simply due to superior optical quality and coatings. Of the above scopes I listed, the Conquest is definitely the superior specimen. Amazing clarity and light gathering, well worth the money for low-light hunting. No surprise it sits atop my long range tree stand deer gun for catching the late feeders before calling it a day. It's allowed me to take a shot I wouldn't have made otherwise just because the clarity and brightness made it a no-brainer shot.

I've tried illuminated reticle scopes in the field and at the range and have checked the latest out in stores and can honestly say I'm still not a fan of them. My eyes had some problems with them in high light situations but I am slightly photosensitive, the black reticle stands out more for me. Maybe in extreme low light (like night time under a full moon) it might make a difference, but most places I've been don't allow hunting past dusk anyways so the point is moot.

Hello All,

I agree with MikeyB on many scope issues, particularly the Zeiss Conquest series. Before anybody calls for the guards to throw me in the dungeon, I still have a Lpld scope or two and one Burris. I have never had one leak or fog up. I even fell on my Lpld 6x and bent the tube while deer hunting along a mossy slope. But, it still worked fine after rezeroing it in camp (Chief Cove, Kodiak. "Ain't no gunsmith out here Dorothy.").

Being a grumpy old man now and all, I just prefer the German optics these days (Austrian optics as well). If you like variable power scopes, the Conquest 3 to 9x is a very good buy and difficult to find a better optic for three times the price. My favorite Safari camp uses only Zeiss conquest 3 to 9x scopes on their rifles to rent to clients and for the owner's personal stew pot shooting as well (of course his stopping rifle has no scope on it at all).

Not being a variable power scope guy, I am pleased to see that Zeiss has come out with a fixed 4x Conquest model (?German lenses but assembled in the USA?). It is in a longer tube than their otherwise excellent older 4x models were in. This is to my liking since I've "discovered" Africa and now lean toward H&H length, Rigby length, etc. cartridges. (For my purposes, the large shells are not so much for +velocity but instead to keep the chamber pressure down in hot weather. Blah, blah, blah.)

The Conquest 4x and Conquest 3 to 9x tubes are plenty long enough for those long-ish actions. The 4x costs about the same as the 3 to 9x therefore I suspect it will not become as popular as the 3 to 9x is. Hopefully they will not stop making the 4x before I can afford a couple more to set aside for future projects.

Again, I am not bashing other brands. In fact, I still own a couple Lpld scopes, have owned several older Weavers, and still have one compact 6x Burris (on a fine old Brno .22 Hornet). The scopes all served me pretty well except one fixed 2.5x Lpld that my eyes became too weak to focus crisply through. Geezer eyes have trouble with the compact/very short focal length of this particular scope.

Us prune faces need our lenses farther apart. The compact Burris 6x is just a tad longer and so far it is still "crisp" for me. Likewise that little Lpld 2.5x scope would shift it's zero to the left during recoil of the .375 H&H, loaded down with a 300 grain Hndy RN @ 2400 fps. Relatively pleasant load to shoot in the muzzle heavy rifle I had it on but the scope did not agree with my definiiton of "pleasant".

In Lpld's defense, there have been viscious rumors that Lpld might do a limited run of their excellent old fixed 3x scope. As Lplds go, I have always felt that one was their very best big game scope. Had one when I was still shaving with a wash cloth. It was on a Ruger 77 in .257 Roberts and I shot quite a few things (mostly smaller varmints, plus coyotes and two feral oinkers) with it, no complaints. That scope was especially good for picking up running Nevada Jack Rabbits. In theory, if you can hit running rabbits through your scope, you should be able to hit charging bears with it. (I've never been charged by a bear but saw it on film once and it made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.)
Nice wide field of view on the old 3x. It had enough magnification for longer shots across canyons and such as well, in my limited experience. I will guess that particular model would be pretty good for hunting greasy old Alaska bears at all normal ranges which they are typically hunted.

Help, I'm typing and I can't stop. I'm gonna have to switch to decaf.
Cheers.
Ard

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
Dear Ard:

No, I have not been to Africa. Hope to rectify that real personal failing in a few years.

Just building the rifles for there, the lower 48 and Alaska ahead of time.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Hello Yale,

I hear you on the building of your rifles for future endeavors. First, I am a rifle collector (albeit a bargain basement one since retirement). After that, I am a hunter. Hunting is my excuse to have really cool rifles. Moving to Alaska in my 20s changed my life. Hunting in Africa during my 50s then changed it again. Both places are very special for me but, I will be curious of your reaction to Africa compared to Alaska.

Used to be that owning a Model 70 .375 was almost required before Alaska DMV would issue to you a resident driver's license. Now it seems that the Ruger 77 and other brands in .338 Winchester have taken its place possibly. Nothing wrong or right about that. Both are fine big game cartridges from my shade tree point of view. In Alaska and Africa both, it is not considered odd whatsoever to hunt lesser species (deer/impala or even smaller) with the .375 and more recently the .338, due to not knowing what a day in the bush might bring forth.

The world is standing by for your progress report on those rifle projects.
Was it Elmer Keith who said?: Too much gun beats the alternative.

Well, any way.
Adios for now.
Ard.

I've been using a Leupy 1.5-5 w/heavy duplex for years but if money wasn't an issue I'd seriously look at the Swarovski Z6 1-6power.

I have a Zeiss conquest 1.8-5.5X38 on my 338 win and have been happy with that. I think I paid 399 for that scope.

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
Thank you all for your input.

I'll have to experiment, and see what I like the best.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

1.5 X 5 Leupold VX III or a 2 X 7 VX II. Not much low light during regular moose season

In low light, or even in the daytime, if shooting a dark animal in heavy canopy in a shadow an illuminated reticle is worth double its weight in gold, diamonds, and platinium.

Taka a look at the Leupold 1.5-5, the Swarovski and S&B's in the @ 1 to 6x range. Pic the reticle you like the best.

Worth every penny.

Never used illuminated reticles. What happens if battery goes dead or something breaks? I always thought the heavy duplex was best for low light/low contrast situations but try to be open minded.

What if your scope breaks,

seriously if you kill the ilum then you have been very abusive with your gear.

Mine still works and that shouls sort of sort issues of durability.

The answer to it all is have back up open sights or a second scope with rings.

Best regard Chris

One more vote for the Trigicon 1-4 scope, with a cross & post reticle!

This scope is as tough as they come, but is lighted, and uses no batteries. The post tip. or corss hair apex is lighted in day light by fiber optics, and when the light fails the tip keeps right on glowing with the charged Tritium.
The brightness of the lighting is adjustable for brightnessby simply closeing off part of the fiber optics generator on top of the ocular end of the scope. Thse scope were developed for use in combat durring Viet Nam, and have been use ever since in one for or another in Irak anf Afganistan. Nothing will trash a scope like combat, and they come through with flying colors! The only drawback is cost, but are far cheaper to buy than many that are better in some ways but not $1000, to $1500 better!

Mac, your probably right about the Trigicon scopes when you start talking about illuminated recticles. Looked at them last year at Ovis Grand Slam and liked everything about them. Biggest plus is no power source to fail. I've been thinking about putting one on my wolf gun.

My standard practice for shooting at any dangerous game is to stalk past the "I can hit him" range - and continue to stalk to within the "I can't miss" range.
As it gets darker that distance gets shorter. If you plan on shooting just at dark , any necessary follow up will be in the dark.

For those reasons I don't think lighted reticles offer many advantages over a well defined, un-lighted reticle

Is a scope with an illuminated reticle completely out of business if the battery dies or it malfunctions? Or do you just have a regular non-illuminated reticle?

Depends on the mark and model of scope,

but normally no.

Best regards Chris

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
Is a scope with an illuminated reticle completely out of business if the battery dies or it malfunctions? Or do you just have a regular non-illuminated reticle?