Can you have to much Scope?

[User00004]

Just after some opinions here, some use fixed power, some variable. Is it possable to have to much scope?

Nightforce 5.5-22
S&B 4-16x50
S&B 5-25x56

Is there a need for such a powerful zoom, for a single use rifle (Stalking), is it worth paying to have the option if you can afford it, or is a fixed 8x56 S&B the same quality as a 5-25x56 PM2 on a x8 mag

TJ

 

[JC275]

This is a very good question TJ. I use a variety of scopes and one point I would make is that nearly everything is some kind of compremise. High mag option is good but usually comes with narrow field of view. I would never have a general stalking scope where the lowest setting was greater than 6.5 and that is pushing it when it comes to last light and running, wounded deer. Probably the best way I can put is that if I could only keep one scope for all of my rifle shooting (Park/Wild/Lowland/Hill/Messing around shooting rabbits!) it would have to be a Leupold 4.5-14x50 but if you asked a hundred people you would get a hundred answers! One further point that I think most people will agree on is that there is no substitute for quality, I would rather have an 8x50 Swarovski than a 4-30x56 No-Name Scope. JC

 

[User00004]

...... One further point that I think most people will agree on is that there is no substitute for quality, I would rather have an 8x50 Swarovski than a 4-30x56 No-Name Scope. JC

I agree there, but talking high end variable, S&B, Swarovski, Zeiss. Would you pay to have a PM2 5-25X56, Z6 5-30X56 Illuminated or Diavari 6-24x56, all between £1500 and £2200 when the scope would only be used for Stalking (Foxing as well when stalking) or would you think that they are over rated for the job, as has been said, not many change the setting on a variable so would you buy "to much scope" just because you could afford it.....?

I would not have an unknown make fitted to any C/F, more trouble than they are worth, and also the "Unknown factor" is not worth thinking about when your about to pull the trigger....

Cheers
TJ

 

[ejg]

Yes, think so.
For me the weight is the problem. When stalking I love walking a bit and with our wet soggy terrain every bit of weight hanging off you gets annoying. I had S&B 4-16x50 before and loved the optics. The high mag helped bag the odd far shot, but overall just too heavy. Had a few S&B 8x56 and even got a few running deer with it, but it is still heavy and has the limited mag both ends. I sold all the leupolds because of the optics but the weight would have been nice. Had a good season with a 3-12x50 schmidt with bdc turrets and a maybe too heavy No. 7 reticule.
Now have a 3-12x50 zenith flashdot which is also on the heavy side but very versatile because of the precision hunter turrets I added on and the flash dot for the heavy cover snap shot at 3 mag.
On my 243 I have a 6.5-20x50 zeiss conquest scope which I really like. I've shot long range crows and deer at last light with it. This is a leupold weight scope with zeiss optics, just what I always wanted. I might get the smaller 4.5-14x50 and make myself a light mountain rifle. I've learned that 1" scopes work just as well, at least for stalking ranges. Also learned that in most cases one does not need illumination.

edi

 

[JC275]

With all of those scopes, you will be enjoying the benefits long after you have got over the pain of writing the cheque! Assuming that the money is not the deciding factor, I would take a blank sheet of paper and list the pros and cons of each one. What reticles are available for instance, a thick one is great for low light chest shooting but not for park head shooting, would a fine ret with illumination overcome this? Some of those scopes are physically very large and heavy, now I guess, knowing that you work for HM Queen and Sons, that doesn't bother you much now but it might start to bug you in ten years time! Compare the field of view too and the need to have your head in exactly the right point on the stock. Take into account the after sales service, Swarovski is legendary, that might swing the balance for me. Are these scopes actually available? just because a 'Stack'um high' gunshop in the West County shows them in an advert doesn't mean that you can actually buy one even if you do manage to get past the YTS boy that answers the phone and talk to someone who knows a little about firearms (sorry, went of on a tangent there!). To be honest, I doubt if you would be dissapointed with any of the high end scopes and it can only really come down to a personal choice. To sumarise, I wouldn't have a scope with a low end mag greater than 6'ish, I don't own a scope with a high end mag greater than 25 (at the moment, but have no plans to buy one), with good quality glass, I don't see the need for an objective greater than 50mm and, again, at the moment I do not have a need for an illuminated reticle but might try one at some point. If you held a gun to my head and told me to buy something then I would probably go for something in the Swarovski Z6 range. JC

 

[JC275]

Yes, think so.
On my 243 I have a 6.5-20x50 zeiss conquest scope which I really like. I've shot long range crows and deer at last light with it. This is a leupold weight scope with zeiss optics, just what I always wanted. I might get the smaller 4.5-14x50 and make myself a light mountain rifle. I've learned that 1" scopes work just as well, at least for stalking ranges. Also learned that in most cases one does not need illumination.

edi

Totally agree with you on this Edi, JC

 

[Bandit Country]

Can you have too much scope? I think you can. Putting my 2.5-15x56 Z6i on my .177 break barrel air rifle to shoot rats in a barn would be (to me) bonkers. If I was the Duke of Westminster - would I care? (Before anybody rips in to me about how His Grace is actually a very sensible and frugal bloke etc, I'm only making a hypothetical point )

Although the Z6i now sits on top of my .308, I've taken most deer in my life with a 1" S&B 6x42, which is more than adequate for the task. Why get the Swaro? I could afford it and I wanted it. I'm not getting any younger and sense that in my next life I'm probably coming back as (at best) a lower order primate, so I may as well enjoy it now.

 

[Offroad Gary]

i've drifted off the straight and narrow a couple of times and dabbled with high end variables (6.5 - 20 x 50 leupold and 5.5 - 22 x 56 nsx) and for the type of hunting that i do i think they are not worth it. i've missed more oppurtunities beacuse of them than i care to remember - deer at low light that you just cant see properly and foxes in the lamp that just keep dissapearing if your eye moves just out of place. also, whats that parralax adjustable thing all about - ok for fixed targets but try getting it right on a moving fox at night which is somewhere between 150 and 250 yards

saying that when i had the nsx on the .223 coyote it was good fun whacking rooks at 300+ with no problem.

for a uk hunting rifle (IMHO) an 8x56 will do everything you need better than any of the variables mentioned here.

i was however able to shoot better groups with the variables and sort out some pretty good homeloads, but every time i used one in the field i wished i had a trusty 8 x 56 in front of my eye - good groups are nice to shoot but that doesnt put meat on the table or ginger in the death bucket!

saying that i am considering another variable for my .223 instead of the 8x56 as it only gets used in daylight. (prefer the .243 at nighttime because of the flatter trajectory). but if i get one i'm sure it wont be long before the 8 x 56 is going back on.

Stu - you'd be better of buying a £300 beaten up hungarian and spending the change on a decent rifle ( )

 

[Claret_Dabbler]

I have been messing and changing scopes quite a bit recently. Sold a S&B 3-12x50 recently, excellent scope, just too heavy and I never used the IR.

I think for a general purpose scope on a sporter type deer rifle, an 8x50/56 is nearly perfect. My 8x50 is going on my 260 if it ever arrives.

A little bit more mag on a fox rifle is nice, I have a 3-12x50 on my 222rem. I don't think you can reasonably use much more than 10 or 12x, particularly at night.

I just bought a 2.5-10x42 for my 270. Beautiful light handy scope. Any variable I buy for hunting rifles from now on will be for low end mag, not high end.

I accept 15-20x, AO etc is nice, or even necessary for long range target work etc. I just donn't know how useful it is for UK/Irish hunting conditions.

 

[Stand Buck]

I find a large scope 20-25 power essential for long range culling.

You cannot humanely cull deer at 200m plus especially if neck or head shooting with an 8 power scope.

I think there is a line to be drawn between what a semi pro or pro deer manager NEEDS and what a recreational stalker needs and what he likes.

I was culling stags at the weekend and would not have been able to take as many had I not had a 22 power NXS and been neck shooting at 200m.

 

[Hales Smut]

There certainly will be a diffrence in the use of scopes and a professional who needs headshots on game must at least see what he shoots at .

A very good friend is an optics fanatic . When I use one of his rifles with a 56 mm objective scope , I notice that this scope is far less covenient to shoot than a 42 mm scope . The 56 mm is always higher on the rifle and mostly forces you to slightly lift the head to get a nice central view through the scope . You loose the pressure point on the top of the stock and it makes aiming more difficult .

How many people can , after walking 20/30 minutes uphill , look through a 10/12/ or more power scope and still heavy a steady picture of the beast ? I can't .
Shooting from a prone possition , with the aid of a bipod will be an enormous help , but still it won't be easy .