scope size

jbteal · Jan 26, 2005

4.5-14x50 or 6.5-20x40 or 6.5-20x50 Leupold,which of thees would be the best size scope for elk & mule deer hunting out west i want to get the right scope the first time .it would be hard to convince the wife i need a new one.i am shooting a
300 win mag thanks for th help

fisrtcoueswas80inches · Jan 26, 2005

i would look for a 4.5-14x40 in boone and crockett. 40 mm are more accurate than 50mm and on long shots, you need more accuracy. as far as the 6.5-20, i think thats too much and there is more paralax there for AO is needed and i do not like AO for hunting but for bench shooting it is nice. ebay has a lot of 4.5-14x40 in boone and crockett for around 430-450
Casey

RANGERCON · Jan 26, 2005

"40 mm are more accurate than 50mm and on long shots, you need more accuracy."

Casey, what do mean by that statement??
The objective size of the scope has nothing to do with accuracy.

I too prefer a 40mm objective to a 50mm. It allows me to mount the scope lower to the receiver and are typically less money and despite many peoples opinion, will give you the same low light performance as a 50mm in a QUALITY scope. Glass quality/coatings have made these 56mm objectives obsolete.

Also agree with Casey about no AO's on a hunting rig. A waste of money IMHO.

20x is a lot, if you ask me. The more you crank that power ring up, the more mirage you will experience.
Even my LR tactical rifle only wears a 3.2-17 variable. And for the majority of my shooting, that 17x is too much.
I would stay around the 3-10 or 4-12 range.

Check out the Zeiss Conquest. It truly is more scope than a Leupold VXIII, for a variety of reasons.
No knock intended on the Leupold. It's OK.

fisrtcoueswas80inches · Jan 28, 2005

what i was told by a guy who owns the local gun shop is: when you have a 50 mm scope, you divide the 55 by the highest power and yout get a number ex. 50/10= 5mm. this 5mm is how much area you have to see through the scope, so in essence, there is 5mm room for error if you dont put your eye in the exact same spot. but then do that with a 40/lets sat 14=2.85, so theres nearly have the room for error, that is why i had my dad buy the 4.5-14x40 leu with boone and crockett.
Casey

D13er · Feb 15, 2005

Huh????

JB

Bambistew · Feb 16, 2005

I would go with a 40mm scope, in 3-9 or 4-12 max. If you get in the timber and have to make a quick shot at 50 yards you'll have a hard time sorting out the hair in a 6.5x scope, which if the truth were known is probably closer to 7x...

I don't like the big objectives either... they just look clunky, and aren't worth the money either IMO. If you think you need that big ol scope to maximize your daylight... you're probably trying to shoot past legal shooting time anyway.

TimberMan · Mar 7, 2005

I agree with Bambistew on the 3x9 40 mm. As far a Leupold I feel there over-priced for what u get. Dollar for dollar the Bushnell elite 3200 or 4200 are hard to beat.

redrabbit · Mar 7, 2005

I think what Casey was saying, is that with the larger exit pupil, you have a greater chance to shift your eye alignment sideways behind the eyepiece lens and cause parallax. With a smaller exit pupil due to higher magnification or smaller objective lens, there is less room for misalignment and hence parallax.

The Conquest 3-9x40 offers 4" of constant eye relief, which you might like with that 300 Winny recoil. Their 3.5-10x44 has 3.5"-4" The Bushnell Elites offer 3"-3.5" depending on the model. The Leupolds offer good relief from around 3.5" to 5" depending on the model.

RANGERCON · Mar 7, 2005

Leupold has "variable eye relief", which I don't care for.

The Conquest with a fixed 4" eye relief is the ticket.
I had a Conquest on a hard kicking .300 Win mag, and it never came close to me.

kilowatt · Mar 7, 2005

I too have a Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40mm on my 300 Weatherby beats the heck out of the old scope I had on it for the previous 35 years, it was a 2x7 Weatherby with very fine cross hairs and with aging eyes, had a very hard time.

Brian

Anaconda · Mar 7, 2005

4.5X14X40mm or smaller ( 3X9 or 3.5X10, 40mm )
You don't need anything over 9 or 10X for big game. A lot of hunting takes place in dark timber at close ranges. Jump a buck or bull in the thick stuff with a scope set at 6.5 and you'll never get a shot off.

caryo15 · Mar 8, 2005

I think the 4.5X14X40 is the best all around western scope. 14X is plenty magnification for big game at longer distances than I'm capable, 4.5X is low enough for close encounters. 40mm is a preference, lower mounting and less to get bumped. Leupold 4.5X14X40 LR sits on top of my favorite rifle.
Cary

ddy58 · Mar 10, 2005

Carys post is exactly right. Also 40mm gets bumped less and less likely to snag limbs.

Vek · Mar 11, 2005

I've hunted with the following, in the mountains of Washington and Idaho. My comments about each are included.

Leupold compact 2x7x28 (on a .280 Remington): Worked great. Hardly there. Loved it. If you have a short-action rifle, or a long action with a 1-piece scope base, look hard at this one.

Leupold 3x9x40 (on a 30-06): Just fine, no complaints, magnification at high end of scale is plenty (possibly too much), scope is physically large - would prefer smaller.

Leupold 6x42 (on a 30-06): keep it simple stupid magnification, works great for deer rifle in open mountainous country, a little much magnification for in the woods but not impossible. 42mm objective is physically large, would prefer smaller for carrying in mountains.

Leupold 1.5x5x20 (on a 300 Win): Very light, good optics, absolutely outstanding in timber, great to carry with straight-tube objective. Some may want greater magnification, but not mandatory in my book.

Leupold 2.5x8x36 (on a 300 win): Great balance between magnification and size/weight. I wouldn't want larger.

I have divested myself of all my scopes with objective larger than 40mm. They just don't make sense for how I hunt.

My conclusion is simple:

1. If you expect to get your animal back to your truck in one piece, wear no pack or a daypack while hunting, carry less than a quart of water with you, consider Schnee's to be good hunting boots, or wear cotton, get whatever turns your crank.

2. If it's coming in chunks with bones attached, you hunt with a daypack, and carry less than 2 quarts of water, set a maximum of 40mm objective.

3. If it's coming out with no bones attached (except for the skull cap), you hunt with a substantial pack or packframe, carry more than 2 quarts of water, spend over an hour in the morning darkness hiking hard, or hunt from / are packed in by a horse, seriously consider a straight tube or a compact scope.

And, to piss off all of the fans of huge magnification, there is absolutely no reasonable circumstance in which you need more than 6x, regardless of whether you have the marksmanship capability of shooting past 300 yards.

Stay light, hunt happy.

bigbull1 · Mar 11, 2005

LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-05 AT 05:54PM (MST)[p]Anybody look at or have a Mueller Scope. I like the looks of their 2x7x32 Multishot Scope for my TC Omega. It has an inner ring and an adjustable red dot illuminated center. It has received some good reviews and is reasonable.

Check it out at www.muelleroptics.com

Ed