Scopes your opinion

[Mike J]

In all honesty I don't have any idea what is best. A couple of years ago when I wanted to replace the old Tasco world class scope that was on my old Winchester I looked around & researched online. I wound up with a Vortex Diamondback 3.5 x 10. It is light years better than the old Tasco I had & I couldn't tell any difference looking through it & a Nikon Buckmaster I compared it to at the shop before I bought it.

I can't really comment on how durable it is though as the past couple of seasons since I bought it I just haven't been able to get to the woods much.

 

[Paul B]

Mike,

Some excellent advice about being "over-scoped". There are too many people running around with 3-9 or bigger scopes that would be better served by a 1-4 or 1.5-5 scope. For anything less than very long range shots they are not needed, and take longer to get on target at shorter distance.

Myron

Most of my rifles have 3x9 scopes, mostly Leupolds, Nikon and Burris. The last four elk hunts I shot my animals at distances ranging from 100yards to 350 yards and on each shot the scope was set at 3X. :shock: I did shoot an elk about 8 or 9 years ago at 530 yards and the scope was cranked up to 9X for the shot. I had plenty of time to laser measure the shot, raise the power on the scope take a good sitting position and squeeze off the shot. The elk dropped, kicked a bit and was dead by the time I got to her. I don't like taking shots that long but when it's as flat as the deck of an aircraft carried and one is at the last tiny bit of cover, one does what one thinks is right. Scope was a Leupold BTW.
Paul B.

 

[turd]

FWIW, my Model 77 in .270 had a 2X7 Leupold on it, and IIRC I never had it much over 4X whilst hunting. At the range, sure, but for hunting deer for over 20 years in the midwest prairie country, I never really needed any more than 4X. Most folks buy variable scopes because that's what the gun writers talk about, but a plain old straight 4X will do most anyone quite well, and much less expensive. Not real exciting to discuss in camp, but they work.

 

[speedsixman]

Paul B,

"and on each shot the scope was set at 3X."
That backs up my contention that many people are over-scoped.

Using the higher power for a long range is justification for using a 3-9 or larger scope, but most people never get shots that far out, unless in the western states.

Myron

 

[Mike Armstrong]

Perhaps a minor point, but I find that the wider field on lower-powered scopes makes me more confident, especially when hunting in brushy woodlands because it allows greater situational awareness right at the point where you make a decision to pull the trigger. With a wider field, you can sense movement at the edges of the field of vision even though you are focused on the reticle. If another animal (including our kind) steps into the field, you will notice it, and hopefully hesitate to see what it is.

Not a common problem, but one that occurs in areas where there are high densities of deer, especially where deer are either baited or concentrate on deer-management plantings. "Overlapping deer" DON'T make for a good shot for obvious reasons. Having a "non-game animal" (a doe in buck season, a cow in any season, Bossie's boss ditto) in the potential impact zone of a shot, however far away, doesn't either.

 

[valkrider8]

I have had many scopes over the years and I seem to keep coming back to Nikon's. I am also impressed with some of the Burris lineup.