I picked up my rifle last night from the FFL. Its a left hand Savage 16 chambered in .270 WSM. Its in great shape, and was a great buy. The scope it came with is really cheap though (Tasco True Mildot), and I think thats the first thing that I want to replace. I am a big fan of Vortex optics, and was wanting to put a Diamondback on it. So the question is, is there any advantage to going with a 3.5-10x50 or a 4-12x40 over the standard 3-9x40? This is going to be a hunting rifle for CO,WY,NE primarily, so longer shots are going to be likely. Is there a point where if I go with the 3-9, I would be wishing I would have gone for a little higher mag or obj.??
Second question... scope base and rings... I know literally zero about this stuff, as I am a longtime bowhunter and never really gave gun hunting much thought until moving out west. The base and rings that came with the cheap scope, appear to be just as cheap, so I would replace them as well. I've read that a one-piece rail is better than a 2 piece base, is that correct? For decent hunting accuracy, would something like the 1 piece EGW picatanny style rail be a good choice? Would that then limit my ring choices to picatinny-style rings or do other rings fit that rail?
Third question... I've read alot where guys say bipods are not good for accuracy. Are they talking paper accuracy, benchrest shooting? The rifle came with a harris bipod with long legs. It puts the gun at a perfect height when in a seated position. Seems like it would be good for hunting.. Should I keep this, or sell it and add to the scope fund, and get some shooting sticks or something? When people say bipods adversely affect accuracy, what kind of scale are we talking? like that 1/2" group becomes 1" ? Or is the impact much more significant?