So What scope do you use and why?

[takbok]

I've found the perfect scope for me recently. Leupold M8 6x42. Lightweight, low profile turrets and eyepiece, clear. For £150 or under courtesy of ebay. Goes really well with my .270.

I like it so much that I've just bought another for a .222 that I'll hopefully get my hands on soon.

I have an entry level Minox 3-9x40 that works very well but have found that I prefer not having a magnification knob to twiddle.

I would find it very hard to spend any more than £150 on a scope.

 

[yorky07]

I used to shoot at targets out to 850 yrds through iron sights with the old SLR, but they are only Targets! and not always hit. I was actually thinking in the way of game! if you were to shoot a ( say Fallow) at that range what energy would be left when( if ) it was hit? would there be enough to drop it or would it give a shiver and carry on?

I actually only shoot in the bush of NZ. I use a .308 with Bushnell Elite 3-9 x 40, but that's shooting at the most 100 yrds.

 

[Highseat]

I bought a S&B 6x42 and used it for all my stalking, and shot roe, red and Sika (my predictive text suggested Sikamalc then, wow) out 170m and never felt it lacked. Then I bought a S&B 8x56 to mount on a 308 and was very happy with that until, waiting for a doe to show herself in a gap in a hedgerow she was walking, but instead of taking the predicted route she turned 90' and appeared 8m to my front left and I couldn't see a thing through my scope just a blur. Would a variable have given a clear view?

 

[liongeorge]

I bought a S&B 6x42 and used it for all my stalking, and shot roe, red and Sika (my predictive text suggested Sikamalc then, wow) out 170m and never felt it lacked. Then I bought a S&B 8x56 to mount on a 308 and was very happy with that until, waiting for a doe to show herself in a gap in a hedgerow she was walking, but instead of taking the predicted route she turned 90' and appeared 8m to my front left and I couldn't see a thing through my scope just a blur. Would a variable have given a clear view?

The answer is yes, same thing happened to me with a fox a year or two ago. Appeared at about 6 yds away , just had time to crank my Docter down to 2.5 and pull the trigger.

On the high mag side of things, people always poo poo the idea of high mag on a stalking rifle but it's great when you've got a roe deer on the other side of a 100 acre field and you can sex it without stalking all the way round there and find it's the wrong sex. Or if you are checking out the quality of the head on that roe buck you're about to shoot and in the bins it looks like a gold but at 24 x you can see it is no better than a bronze and worth leaving another year.

 

[Heym SR20]

The answer is yes, same thing happened to me with a fox a year or two ago. Appeared at about 6 yds away , just had time to crank my Docter down to 2.5 and pull the trigger.

On the high mag side of things, people always poo poo the idea of high mag on a stalking rifle but it's great when you've got a roe deer on the other side of a 100 acre field and you can sex it without stalking all the way round there and find it's the wrong sex. Or if you are checking out the quality of the head on that roe buck you're about to shoot and in the bins it looks like a gold but at 24 x you can see it is no better than a bronze and worth leaving another year.

This opens another whole can of worms. I can see the reasoning but I really don't think that a telescopic sight should be used for identify shootable beasts. By all means it provides the final decision of shoot or not to shoot. The other big challenge in the field with high mag is that it gives you no situational awareness - your focus is only on the target and have no information as to what is happening around it. At 6x you have plenty of surrounding area in your field of view. In our little crowded island you need to be aware that a dog walker, horse, sheep can easily come around the corner etc. Bullets have a habit of not going straight through and you do need to be aware of what is close by. If you regularly need to identify shootable beasts at long range, that a job for a small telescope.

Things can change rapidly - it all looks clear to the naked eye and through binoculars. Put the rifle up, buck turns awkwardly, so you continue to follow it through the scope for 30 seconds before firing.

 

[old man]

Stalking rifle, a Zeiss Duralyt 3-12 x 50 IR 30 mm tube which I try to set up for elevation (thanks to 223 for chrono and ballistic info) and magnification according to the shooting location and conditions most likely to be found.

I have firm maximum shot distances set in my mind so don't usually need to fiddle. (Trying to avoid calling out an on site dog or Stone from UKDTR )

Always spot with binoculars only, unless in close woodland where Munties and Fallow can be recognised by eye and are on the definitive cull list but like to watch them for a while through binos if they first appear settled.

Back up is an 8 x 56 IR 30 mm tube Docter approximately zeroed.

Still think of self as an old/newbie.

 

[Bigbloke]

3-12 x 50 S&B with a 30mm tube.

It does everything I need for deer. It would be nice to have a bit lighter reticule and illuminated but not nice enough to splash the cost.

Spotting with Steiner 10 x 42 binoculars.

I must admit, I didn't understand the post about getting specs with no anti reflective coatings. Surely that's exactly what we pay big money for in the scope so why wouldn't we want the same advantage between the 2 most critical lenses eg: the eye and the correction lens for it?

 

[Old-YOP]

I must admit, I didn't understand the post about getting specs with no anti reflective coatings. Surely that's exactly what we pay big money for in the scope so why wouldn't we want the same advantage between the 2 most critical lenses eg: the eye and the correction lens for it?

Yes, weird isn't it? But I can only speak from experience.

A set of lenses made to my prescription (and admittedly mounted in some of those poncey plastic camo frames with a built-in camera) but with no coatings *at all* applied make a significant difference to the amount of low-light information that is presented to my eyeballs, either through Swarovski binos or a Swaro scope.

But I have to admit that - seeing as how it works for me - I haven't really bothered to go any further into the "why".

Jerry

 

[VSS]

I must admit, I didn't understand the post about getting specs with no anti reflective coatings. Surely that's exactly what we pay big money for in the scope so why wouldn't we want the same advantage between the 2 most critical lenses eg: the eye and the correction lens for it?

I don't know why either, but from my experience it appears that if you use two optical bits of equipment at the same time (e.g., glasses and scope or contact lenses and binos) and both have coated (or tinted, in the case of contacts) lenses then there seems to be some interference between the two. Just speaking as I find - no idea why it should be this way, or even if everyone finds it the same.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

Any anti-glare or polarised lenses can cut the amount of light transmitted into your eye, especially if there are multiple coated lenses.
Light is made up of waves travelling in different directions. Vertical light is useful to the human eye; it helps us see. Horizontal light, however, simply creates glare. Glare is concentrated light reflecting off a horizontal shiny surface, such as a car windscreen, sand, water, snow or asphalt roads. It reduces visibility. Polarised lenses only let vertically polarised light through.
If you get two polarised lenses and look through both and rotate one, when they get to 90 degrees they will block the light altogether!
You want as much light as possible to get through your scope. Glass is a natural reflector. The expensive coatings are designed to negate this.
MS

 

[VSS]

Any anti-glare or polarised lenses can cut the amount of light transmitted into your eye, especially if there are multiple coated lenses.
Light is made up of waves travelling in different directions. Vertical light is useful to the human eye; it helps us see. Horizontal light, however, simply creates glare. Glare is concentrated light reflecting off a horizontal shiny surface, such as a car windscreen, sand, water, snow or asphalt roads. It reduces visibility. Polarised lenses only let vertically polarised light through.
If you get two polarised lenses and look through both and rotate one, when they get to 90 degrees they will block the light altogether!
You want as much light as possible to get through your scope. Glass is a natural reflector. The expensive coatings are designed to negate this.
MS

I knew there must be a good reason!
So if I can find a way to hold my binoculars on their side while looking through them all should be ok....?

 

[SaOsborne]

what range are you shooting at for 24x mag??? with a .243

Hi All first of thanks for some great information/discussions and good info.

For me the 24X was used almost exclusively for the sporting rifle comp at out club, followed by "Huns head" if the club decided to put it on at 300Yds, this is where my quandary came. However I do find myself using up to 16X in the field on occasions and 10-12 very regularly to place exact shots to minimise meat damage/ take head & neck shots as required (another discussion there!).

I find it useful, but am seriously considering going to one of the 2.5-14 range of scopes, to allow marginal but key improvement in light transmission. It becomes so important as all my stalking is in public woodland that suffers from significant disturbance, so the deer (all species) only tend to become active towards very last/ first light, being more active overnight.

 

[camodog]

I agree with an earlier 'post', this has been an enjoyable' post' to follow with many insightful contributions from the various replies. One or two have 'introduced' much 'faf' and 'fiddling and faddling' re multiple scopes and rifle combinations. Whilst readily acknowledging I have been susceptible to this malaise myself in the past, I am always mindful of the fact......."beware the man with one rifle (scope), for he shall know how to use it"!! I have endeavoured to follow this maxim for many years, and it works for me!

 

[Southern]

I think most of us fell short on explaining the 'why' and more of the 'what' we have.

If someone only has one or two rifles trying to do a lot of different jobs, they might invest in Swiss Army Knife large variable with side focus and all that, even swap scopes between two rifles.

Others try to match up scope to a purposed rifle, like a 4x or 6x for stalking and an 8x56 for sitting at dawn and dusk. Or you might want a 1.5-6x42 with 4A for stalking and wide field of view for running boar. A light 2-7x35 or 4x scope on a light T3 or Kimber rifle, to keep things in balance. On a hard kicking DGR rifle, like a .375 H&H, you might want low power, thicker reticle or #1, and lots of eye relief, sitting low, to line up quickly.

 

[VSS]

I think most of us fell short on explaining the 'why' and more of the 'what' we have.

.

Good point Southern.
I'm currently without a scope, having sent back my faulty Bushnell, but here's the "why" I bought that scope in the first place:
The scope I had before had all the gadgets - massive zoom, fully illuminated reticle (2 colours), lots of dots and dashes for range finding, adjustable objective etc etc.
In reality I found that:
Zoom was never taken above 8x.
The ir was too bright, and affected vision (and I still don't know why it had two colours).
The dots and dashes in the reticle are pretty pointless on a CF rifle, where you can more-or-less point and press out to normal ranges.
Adjustable objective sat at 100yds and never moved.

Therefore I decided to do away with all the unnecessary features and spend 3 times as much on a scope without the "extras", i.e., only zoom up to 9x, ir only a small red dot or centre cross, simple fine cross hair reticle without maps, fixed parallax etc. The theory being that I would be paying for better quality glass rather than gizmos I didn't need.

I thought I'd found what I wanted until the Bushnell fogged up inside. Now ordered a Vortex to replace it.

 

[Southern]

Therefore I decided to do away with all the unnecessary features and spend 3 times as much on a scope without the "extras",

That's why I advise to first buy something simple and solid in trimmer size and medium power, and see if that truly limits you: 6x42 Leupold, 7x50 Meopta, older Kahles, Zeiss or S&B 6x42, or a Burris, Leupold or Vortex 3-9x40 variable, which have lifetime transferable warranties. You can buy a used one and be covered, and sell it for what you paid.

Sorry to hear about the Bushnell. My son is using a Trophy XLT 3-9x40 on his .308 Model 70, and son-in-law using a Legend Ultra 4-12x40 on his .308 T3 Forester. Vortex impresses me for value; have a 4-12x40 Diamondback which I picked up on sale.

 

[RCS Deer Management]

I used to shoot at targets out to 850 yrds through iron sights with the old SLR, but they are only Targets! and not always hit. I was actually thinking in the way of game! if you were to shoot a ( say Fallow) at that range what energy would be left when( if ) it was hit? would there be enough to drop it or would it give a shiver and carry on?

I actually only shoot in the bush of NZ. I use a .308 with Bushnell Elite 3-9 x 40, but that's shooting at the most 100 yrds.

That's why I got a .300wm

 

[LeftHandGuy]

Just seen this thread, I use a Leupold VX1 3-9x40 because I wanted a simple general purpose scope for a price I could actually afford. $200 (I think it worked out about £140). I had the opportunity to buy it whilst on holiday in the US last year and it has been perfecty serviceable ever since.

It is light, neat, holds zero and has a lifetime warranty - but cost was the deciding factor.

 

[old man]

Forgot about "the why"

I suspect for the same reason as most others, reliability, the cheapies sometimes let you down just when you least expect it?

Maybe, not always?
,

 

[Conure]

Have always used what I could afford and get at the time. Sometimes it was what came on the rifle. Most of my scope purchases over the years have been used scopes.