I put a straight 4X on my mini14 and mini30 and feel that is all it needs as well as "looks right" on it. I used weaver scopes as mine are only fun guns for good weather. IF I were to hunt etc with them I would put one of the Leupold 4X I have stored on them.
But that is just me.
Depends on the type of Mini... on a Ranch model, the best you can afford if you must have a scope... on the standard model that requires a B-Square mount or such... I'd leave the scope off and rely on Iron sights... which is also the better choice on the Ranch too. You know folks used to shoot out to 500 yards or better with iron sights?
Actually, folks shoot to 1000 yards with iron sights, or more precisely, aperture sights. I've competed to 600 yards with my NM AR with aperture sights and I have shot to 1000 with my old Palma rifle. But in this case, I don't think tcarroll is looking at doing that. After all, most people shoot better with a scope.
I totally agree with you that it depends on the Mini-14 and a Ranch Model wears a scope much better than the older model. I like d&h's recomendation of a 4X scope and Weaver is a fine brand. I would not put a more powerful or expensive scope on the rifle as it's just not worth it; the accuracy just is not there.
Other brands to look at are Nikon, Burris, Leupold; between $100-$200 is a good range for this; any more is wasted.
I just put the Tasco 3x9x40, World Class version - $49.99 on sale at Cabelas. I was ordering some other stuff and saw this one on sale with decent reviews; so I got it with free shipping. It is a decent scope for plinking out to 100yds and worth $50. If I was looking to shoot further or for more serious varmint hunting; I'd go for a Nikon Buckmaster series for another $100+. The improved optics on a $150 scope is worth it.
I love the classic looks of my new mini 14 Tactical, but I put a new Ultradot red dot on it and I love it. shot lots of hogs with it lately. I know the new series minis are a lot more accurate so I am thinking of putting quality glass on if for long range shooting, looking at the Bushnell Elite 4200 in maybe a 6.5 x 20 x 50. that would make it one helluva long range coyote, hog gun.. still the open sights make it look so much like the M-14 I carried 35 plus years ago.
This brings up an issue with me, and I may even post a new thread about it... except for my customized 10/22 I don't shoot worth a hoot with a scope (In my opinion) doesn't matter whether I have one mounted on an AR or Mini... the best I can do is probably about 4MOA at 100 yards... I've found I can do just as well and often better with iron sights.
With my latest AR, I don't know if it is the rifle or just me and the $250 millet scope but I was sighting it in at 50 yards last week and the rounds seemed to be stringing to the left. I finally took the scope off and shot it with the flip up iron sights and was shooting 2" groups...
Don't know if it's me... how I'm installing the scope or what... but is the main reason I keep saying I'm going 'back' to iron sights on all my rifles... and if for no other reason... I have one more excuse for my poor shooting.
Which is kind of a shame because my father was a crack shot for years... shot a perfect score at Paris Island in about 1948 at their 1400 yard range with an M1... then they took his BAR away from him in Korea and gave him an 03 springfield with a scope and let him sit up in the hills for a while..... would be a waste of government ammo with me.
I put a Shotgun scope on one of mine.
A Bushnell Trophy 1.75x4.
Yes, it's Chinese, but I swear the ones they make are crystal clear now.
I was comparing it to an older Nikon and the Chinese Bushnell was much brighter. The modern coatings are superb no matter the country of origin.
Plenty of power for a mini, and at 2x, it makes for very quick sight
Which Nikon did you compare it to? What magnification were you using on both riflescopes?
Unless you were comparing the same range and objective lens models and at the same magnification, your comparison is invalid.
The Bushnell Trophy you are talking about does not exist and it would be very small with an objective lens of 4mm. They do have a 1.75-4X32 model and perhaps that's the one you meant. The correct designation is very important because it tells us a lot about the scope.
In this case, the 1.75-4X means that you have a variable with the low end magnification a 1.75X and the high end is 4X. The 32 is the diameter of the objective lens in millimeter. A quick calculation will reveal the exit pupil size to be from 18mm at 1.75X to 8mm at 4X. This is far more than the human eye needs to be fully satisfied with the picture, if you will. This is a standard trick of cheaper optics, use a larger than required objective lens to make up for the loss in light transmission in the scope.
When you tell us which Nikon you compared to and at what magnification settings you did the comparison, then we can understand what you are saying.
Not at all, what I am saying is that it is a trick used by cheap rifle scope manufacturers to make you believe their products are as good as more expensive product.
Each time light goes through a glass/air interface, about 5% of the light is lost. What lens coating does is reduce the loss from 5% on down. Lens coatings will not ADD to light, it can only reduce the rate of loss. So no riflescope has 100% light transmission.
One example that I have talked about on other forums is a test a few years ago from a German Riflescope magazine, where they compared many of the top scopes in the world and actually measured light transmission loss and many other things. The best highest transmission percentage was a lowly Nikon riflescope at 92% or some such. It beat out the Schmidt & Benders, US Optics, Nightforce, Swarovski, etc.
But light transmission is only one aspect of the whole thing. I am sure that you are familiar with the fact that when it gets dark, by simply dialing down the magnification of a variable, the picture gets brighter. Also, you eye adjusts to changing conditions. In bright sunshine, your pupil is constricted to maybe 1mm so that a 4X40 scope is way overkill during the day time. But at dusk as light fails, your pupil opens up to 4, 5mm or more (if you're younger) and can capture more of the light that is being transmitted to your eye.
This is why hunting scopes have bigger objectives for the magnification than target scopes. For instance, my target scopes are 36X40. This gives an exit pupil of 1.33, I can assure you that these scopes are only usable in bright daylight. On the other hand I have a tactical scope like a 2.5-10X44 on my hunting rifle. At dusk the other day, I was simply amazed at how bright the thing was and I kept it at 4X.
So a big objective will allow you to see better when it gets darker, but if the light transmission is poor, that light will get eaten up in the scope. Thus cheaper scopes may have larger objectives and during daytime, they will look as bright as expensive scopes, but come dusk, they crash and burn even with their big objectives.
This is why it is important to understand how scopes work and to compare like for like. There are reasons why some scopes are more expensive than others; lens quality and lens coating are two aspects, but there are more.
Bigger objectives represent more bulk and weight on a rifle but if I lose 20-25% of the light going through poor lenses, I need to start with a bigger objective.
Bottom line for your answer is that it depends on how you will be using the scope, or perhaps more like when are you using it.
Golly Sig, I think if I had you in person I could ask questions until you got tired of anwering them. Its nice to run onto someone that truely seems to know things rather than just speaking from experience.
As an aside, I think that is the biggest problem with this country right now, folks are reacting to feelings rather than facts. (Guess thats the trained economist coming out in me.) :roll:
Ok, back to topic....
Is it then true, with the higher end scopes one can get as good, if not better light, and still have a smaller objective lens, thus a more compact lighter scope?
(After back surgery and double hip replacement I seem to be more concerned with weight than I was in the first half of my life.)
I have an old Ranch Rifle with Tasco PDP2 red dot on it and it works great.
It is mounted on a set of factory 30mm rings.
The Ranch Rifle is a short range rifle (under 200 yards) and not a target gun so 1x is enough for most applications and is an advantage when range is close.
Gig, that is essentially correct, but there is more to a higher end scope than lens coating and quality glass. I have pretty much given up recommending scope brands and models, I find that people are ultimately driven by price and get what is on sale or available at a certain price point.
If you really are looking for a scope recommendation, provide the complete parameter list: Price limit (exceed this value and you will not even consider the recommendation,) end purpose (describe the uses as much as possible,) caliber, type of rifle, maximum distance beyond which you will never shoot for accuracy. Speaking of accuracy, what does that mean to you? Any other parameters, such as max weight, max length, etc. Prefered reticle.