First range report. Remington 700. Scope questions.


PDA






lyrikz
December 26, 2011, 06:42 PM
I finally pulled the trigger and bought a used remington 700bdl. I mounted a bsa tactical scope on it.

After getting it sighted in. This was my last 3 shots. Thats at 100 yards. Front of gun on a rest, me holding the rear. I didnt have a rifle stand. That target is a quarter sticker.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/jcemerson/firstround.jpg


Here is my issue. The scope is a tactical scope. Very similar to this.
http://www.bsaoptics.com/scope.aspx?productID=514

Now, my main purpose for this rifle is hunting. Im worried that all those exposed knobs will get bumped or turned while hiking in the backwoods pulling the scope out of site. ALSO, the second problem is the damn eyepiece of the scope hits me in the face. lol.

Any hunters out there use a tactical scope with the settings exposed like that with any issues???

If you enjoyed reading about "First range report. Remington 700. Scope questions." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
splithoof
December 26, 2011, 07:13 PM
A "tactical" optic from one of the El-Cheapo scope makers is a waste of your time and ammunition. You don't say what the chambering is, but most of the BDL's I have shot will put several in the same hole at 100 yards if you know how to bench shoot. That BDL is a great hunting rifle, and hopefully it has iron sights that can be used for back-up. A 6X Leupold with quick detachable rings, a good shooting sling and perhaps a bipod will do you very well.

lyrikz
December 26, 2011, 07:17 PM
Thats my feeling. I have an 8mm mauser i use at the range. I will just put that on the mauser and get somethign else for the hunting rifle.

is 10 times to much for a hunting rifle??

jmr40
December 26, 2011, 08:12 PM
is 10 times to much for a hunting rifle??

Yes!


The scope you have is not the best choice for your purposes. When you can afford a better scope I'd look at the Redfield Revolution scopes. They sell for around $160 in a 3-9X40 and are the least expensive scope I'd suggest. I can afford better, but wouldn't feel a bit underscoped using one. They offer very good eye relief as well to prevent "scope eye".

For around $200 I actually like the Burris Fullfield II a little better. You can spend more, but really have to get to $400 to get a better scope, and most folks would do just as well with either the Redfield or Burris.

lyrikz
December 26, 2011, 08:15 PM
Well, that scope was 200 bucks. ahah. Damn.

LoonWulf
December 27, 2011, 04:27 AM
it should make a decent range toy atleast lol, as the others said a better scope is probably in order. Ill add Nikon, or the Bushnell 3200 series to the list of 200-250 dollar scopes.

As for power if you have a bottom end at 3 or so maximum power dosent matter as much, I like 3-9s and 3/4-12s. Just keep it turned down when hunting. I normally leave my scope at 5-6x, if the shot is close then i can still see fine, and if it is a shot where i NEED to turn up the scope i should let the animal go as its too far for me to be shooting.
The heaviest scope i have is on my 7mm its a 6.5-20x50 simmons whitetail classic, for the cost its very very good, you suffer in the size and weight department. The only critters ive killed with that particular gun have all been under 30yds LOL.

redneck2
December 27, 2011, 09:02 AM
Hunting scopes have this interesting habit of fogging up or losing zero at the worst times. Cheap ones are the worst offenders by far. After losing the chance at trophy deer due to scope screw ups, I've gone to the best I can get (within reason).

You didn't give a price range. If you want a REALLY good scope (equal to Swarovski IMO), get a Leupold VX-R. I have one in 3x12x40 on my deer rifle. Difference between it and my friend's Redfield was amazing under real hunting conditions. Cost about $550-600.

Other than that, some of the Nikon offerings are really nice for the money.

Chuck R.
December 27, 2011, 09:42 AM
Up until 8 months ago, the only scopes I owned were Swarovski’s and Leupolds (IMHO the Swaraovski’s are superior).:D

I’ve got a couple Swarovskis that I’ve hunted with in US, Europe, Alaska and are now over 23 years old. They’ve been knocked around, dropped, rained & snowed on and are still just as clear and track just as well as the day I bought them. They sit on an 8x68S magnum, a .270, and a .350 REM Mag. The 8x68S and .350 generate some decent recoil and still they’re fine after 20 years of hunting/shooting.

The newer Leupolds have better lens coatings than my older Swarovskis, but the newer Swarovskis IMHO are better than the Leupolds. They're at 2 diffrent price points though. Luepolds are great scopes, and the CS is second to none IMHO.

Point is getting the best scope you can afford. Cry once and get it over with, then you’ll enjoy your combination for years to come. Notice I said get the best, which means quality, not necessarily size. I see an awful lot of guys with scope magnifications high enough to shoot prairie dogs with, on a rifle they intend on making 200 yard shots (at the most) on a whitetail.

Magnification costs money, and on a fixed budget that extra magnification cost can cut into quality. IMHO you’re better off with a solid 2x8 or 3x9 than a 4.5x14 that fogs up on you, or changes POI every time you change magnification. It's nice to shoot sub MOA groups on paper, but a whitetail has about a 6-8" kill zone. An aweful lot of them have been killed with iron sights and 4X scopes.

About 8 months ago, I did vary from my Leupold/Swarovski mantra, and bought a Vortex Viper HS 1-4X for my FAL. So far, I’ve been impressed. It’s clear, and tracks as it should, the glass and coatings, are 1st rate, and it seems tough as nails. The Vortex line might be worth looking into. Hopefully I’ll be around in 20+ years to let you know how it works out.

Chuck

lyrikz
December 27, 2011, 09:58 AM
Sounds like a plan. I will be putting the BSA on the mauser and switching to a different scope. The thing about that BSA scope was it had over 55 reviews and only 3 that were bad. Figured i made a good choice. Guess not.

Still Shooting
December 27, 2011, 11:31 AM
I have been very happy so far with the scopes I have. My first one was a Leupold 3-9x40 VX I, put on my Ruger 77 (tang safety) .257 bob. It's been on there for 25 years, and still as good as the day it was installed. My Ruger 77 mk II is a .270, with the same Leupold scope, and is 16 years old. Same story. Both guns have been hunted hard in the puckerbrush, up and downhill, and the .257 went to Montana for a week.

When I bought my Ruger 77/22 Hornet carbine, I put a Leupold 2-7x33 Rifleman on it. That one's been around for about 10 years now, and no issues. My wife's Ruger m77 Lightweight .243 is running a Bushnell Elite 3200 in 2-7x30. It also has had no problems, and performs well.

I am pretty happy with midrange $ scopes, and with good experience on all of them, I see no reason to go up $ in the market.

I will have to spend more for the next scope, as it's going on a Savage 7mm WSM with B&C Medalist A2 stock and Harris bipod. I was able to pick up a NIB BSA 4-16x40 for $50 a couple of weeks ago, and it is a tryout only. I'm not sure what magnification range I want for this rifle, which is to be long range target and varmint. I think I will go with a Leupold 4.5-14x40 VX II, but want to try out the range of magnification "on the cheap" before I lay out $500+/- on a decent scope.;)

lyrikz
December 27, 2011, 11:33 AM
This is what im looking at picking up. THoughts?
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/217147/leupold-rifleman-rifle-scope-3-9x-40mm-wide-duplex-reticle-matte

Or this one.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/175710/nikon-prostaff-rifle-scope-3-9x-40mm-bdc-reticle-matte

lyrikz
December 30, 2011, 11:46 AM
Well, i picked up the leupold vx2. Beautiful. I get it know. Its brighter then my eyes. LOL. Going to the range tomorrow to site it in.

Pics
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/jcemerson/rem700.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/jcemerson/rem700-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/jcemerson/rem700-3.jpg

LoonWulf
December 30, 2011, 02:47 PM
looks good, i like those older synthetic stocks that remington used. They were a tad short, but felt more solid then the new ones.

lyrikz
December 30, 2011, 02:49 PM
It does feel a tiny bit short. But still ok. My BSA tactical i had on it was about 2"s from my eye. I bounced it off my face about 9 times. ahaha. Thats another reason i got a different scope.

35 Whelen
December 30, 2011, 03:44 PM
Kudos for having the sense to buy a quality used rifle AND the sense to put a reasonable scope on it.

I never understand why people wanting a new (to them)deer rifle will go out and pay $300 for an el-cheapo new rifle when for the same price or a little more they can get a high quality used rifle such as the one you bought.

35W

LoonWulf
December 30, 2011, 05:54 PM
Cause its new, and shinney? people are like Magpies (or Myna birds here i guess) some times LOL. Your also assuming alot of buyers have enough info/knowledge to actually realize that an older used gun is just as good, or bette,r then a NEW gun. Look at cars, i think the average length of owner ship is 5 years or something, just long enough to pay it down, and get the new shinney one......

If you enjoyed reading about "First range report. Remington 700. Scope questions." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!