Been a little quiet in here the last week or two so thought I'd do a poll to stir things up and get some conversation rolling for hunting season.
Printable View
Been a little quiet in here the last week or two so thought I'd do a poll to stir things up and get some conversation rolling for hunting season.
When I took off my old 4-10, I replaced it with a fixed 10 SWFA because I never used less than max power anyways. Now that I have a 3-15 Burris XTR2 I think it is ideal, BUUUUTTT.... I think any variable FFP will work, but I doubt that I will ever need less than 6 or more than 15-18.
I voted 3-12 or 4-12... but I am not set on any one scope. Anything 6-10 power fixed will work for me, or variable as long as it goes up to 12-15....
Why did I even vote?
I prefer a light, compact scope (40mm Objective or less) on a hunting rifle. I use a 2 - 8 or 10 variable on a medium range hunting rifle/muzzle loader and 4.5 - 14 variable on a longer range hunting rifle.
I don't have a specific. I use anything from a 2-7x33 on my 300 BLK, to a 6x42 on my 260 Rem, to a 3-18x44 on my 280 AI. Just depends on the use of the gun.
The ol school, steel tubed, El Paso made K series Weavers are the STILL the gold standard for a hunting scope in my opinion. I would be willing to bet that more game animals have met their demise with one of these than any other. They are like the lever action 30-30 of the scope world..... simple, yet effective. They are, quite simply put, bulletproof. But, being a fixed power, they put more responsibility on the hunter to understand his bullets trajectory, as well as the limits of his own capability. Unfortunately, I've seen animals wounded because a novice hunter has spent big bucks on equipment which can give the false sense of increased long range accuracy. High dollar gear will NEVER be an acceptable substitute for practical experience. The most successful hunters I've ever known shot old rifles of known performance, topped with old fixed power scopes. Some of you guys want to argue about glass clarity, repeatable clicks, focal planes and the hottest new calibers till you're blue in the face. That's great. But I guarantee you that there's an old man within 20 miles of your house who's harvested more game with an open sight 30-30 or a Model 70 in 30.06 with a K4 Weaver than you can possibly imagine. Those results speak for themselves.
Just for the record, one of my most accurate rifles is a heavy barreled .308 Savage in the LSS chassis with a Sightron SIII FFP scope. Its great for target shooting out to 800 yards, or long range people plinking should the need ever arise. But when I hunt, it's with a 50's production FN commercial grade Mauser in .270 with an El Paso K6 Weaver. An extremely accurate and reliable combination.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
I couldn't agree with you more, and your sentiments are part of the reason I started this poll. These days it seems the vast majority of people have way too much scope on their rifles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana Juice
This post has a virus...........................................!
I like a 2.5x16x50 elite series, cause I can get them at a decent price. My favorite is an old Simmons 4x14x44 that I have had for about 23 years.
I'm quite fond of the Leupolds and would dare say the Vari-X/VX3 in 3-9x40 is the standard by which most other hunting scopes are judged and has been for decades. Many folks are happy with lesser "package gun" and "blister pack" units until they look through a VX at the crack of dawn or a few minutes after sunset. Then they see the light... literally.
You can hunt your entire life not knowing the difference, wanting a good scope, or using one.
The 3-9x seems to have been proven as the most utilitarian hunting option a decent balance of weight/size/ magnification for most any game/ reasonable distance encountered.
While I would agree with the above statement, it wouldn't be whole heartedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana Juice
God willing, this year 2017, will be my 70th year hunting since my first year happened in 1947.
The 30/30, 300 Sav, and 35 Rem, were the most popular (deer rifles) in PA back then, which happened to be in the top 3 for hunter numbers.
Scopes were very rarely seen on guns, and when they did start to become more popular, the Weaver k series was no doubt the most popular.
There is also no doubt one in good clean condition would still be a good scope to use today.
A k series Weaver was my first scope which sat on a see thru mount on a then new model 760 Rem pump in 30/06.
It was my 3rd rifle since starting to hunt, and followed a 30/30 and a 35 rem.
When Savage introduced the lefty bolt action, I soon had #4 with a new Bausch & Lomb balvar 2.5x8 scope on it.
The reason I switched to the 06 pump, and then the Savage bolt gun was that we would on occasion find a deer standing in a field or some other place offering a longer shot while we traveled about.
That worked for awhile and we did have some success while doing that, but we soon learned that guessing the distance and holding over for a shot only worked well at closer distances.
(Dialing scopes is the one single thing that has revolutionized accurate shooting and hunting at longer ranges.)
But in the 60s, not very many hunters were doing that although some were, and they were hunting very close to the area we were.
They were using traditional target scopes like Unertle, as they were the only type at that time you could dial.
Target/benchrest shooters were using those scopes for years, and ultimately a hunter decided to try one, no doubt a varmit hunter.
It wasent until the 80s that Leupold added dials to their scopes, and ultimately new names like Nightforce started showing up.
I think that scopes like most other things we use are better today than ever, and there are far more choices for us to choose from.
I also feel there are more junk scopes today that wont be around to be talked about like the old Weavers have been.
Only one problem with your statement, there is no such thing as and never has been a Vari-X/VX 3 in a 3-9x40mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by big honkin jeep
I think the point was they were and still are excellent scopes. Who can keep abreast of all the alphabet soup mumbo jumbo anyway. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Slickyboyboo
Lyman also had some very good hunting scopes at one time. And if your fortunate enough to own one, lucky you, because some models are
very valuable today.
Point is are modern day optics better that those of decades ago? Not just rifle scopes, but all optics?
Do a side by side comparison with some of the old ones in clean condition, meaning opticly clean, and you just might be very surprised.
How can it be an excellent scope when it doesn't exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by yobuck
Prior to the VX series they were known as the Vari-X series and were numbered very similarly Vari-x1 vari-X2 Vari-X3 as the VX series is today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slickyboyboo
Sorry if the older folks who were around when they transitioned over got it but you didn't.
[QUOTE=big honkin jeep;416978]Oh I'm quite aware of what the Vari-X scopes were, and how they transitioned over to the VX. I have several, some I've had for over 35 yrs. I like them because they are very good scopes. However as I stated before, there has never been a Vari-X III or VX-III or VX-3 to exist in a 3-9x40mm, and therefore you can not claim something is the standard by which most hunting scopes are compared to, if said scope doesn't even/never has existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slickyboyboo
If you want people to understand fully what you are saying, you should say it correctly. Something like "The Vari-X/VX line of scopes by Leupold are very good, and in my opinion the basis at which modern hunting scopes are compared to and have been for decades."Quote:
Originally Posted by big honkin jeep
The lowest power hunting scope I own is a 4-12x40 and is used on a Coyote rifle. Everything else is a 6.5-20x50 Leupold VX3.
Here in the TAX ME STATE ( Ct.) a long shot in the woods might be 60-70 yards, probably closer to 45, Hence my only vote for 1.5-6. My shotgun and ML( only thing allowed in state land) both wear 1.5-5 and usually stay set on 3.
This is why most of us older hunters used to use 4x but like most drank the variable cool aide.
Just sold my Win 1300 deer barreled 12 gauge with a 4x Leupold to a younger guy, it is his first shot gun and first season for deer, tried to change his mind and sell him a 20 or a 16 but he had to have a 12. HE will learn on his own.
Nobody likes an anal retentive jerk either, yet here you are. Anyone with half a brain knew what he was referring to with his post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slickyboyboo
Nope, definitely not anal retentive, it just makes sense to be clerical when you speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFurious
delete
oops. Someone snuck in ahead of me and my point was misunderstood.
Yep, crazy!Quote:
Originally Posted by foxx
lol!! +1Quote:
Originally Posted by mrfurious
Most of my hunting is done in thick cedar swamps of northern Michigan. for that, lower the better... 1.5-6x
When I sit outside the swamp, where 350 yard shots are possible, I prefer 4-12x
In any event, I've used Leupy VX-3 (loved their 1.75-6) and VX-1 and 2 3-9.40's... Zeiss and Swarvski... Have decided any "decent" Bushnell with RainGuard beats them all on a cold (anything below freezing) day.
Can I vote 2x?
I was hoping someone would say something like that so I didn't have to.... Well played, Sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFurious
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Definitely not being anal retentive, just making a point.
Never really noticed much difference in magnification or unit size or weight between my 3.5-10x40s and my 3-9x40s, Heck I had to go look in the safe just to confirm the VX and Vari-x 3s on some of my rifles were in fact not 3-9x, Had to look at the little gold ring to tell what was what The 2s are for sure but the 3s are indeed 3.5x10.
Good catch, but a simple correction on the slight difference in magnification range would probably have sufficed. :)
10-4 [emoji1303]Quote:
Originally Posted by big honkin jeep