3-12x or 4-16x...can't decide.


PDA






Ridgerunner665
June 22, 2012, 11:55 PM
Nikon Monarch scope that is...for my 30-06...need someone to make up my mind for me, LOL.

That said...I'm not sure the Monarch will even fit on a model 70 with that huge space between the mounts (2 piece mounts).

Trying to get my wife to measure the space between the mounts for me (I'm on the road, as usual) so maybe I'll know shortly...when she finishes her ice cream, LOL.

Nikon gives the mounting dimensions on the website...

EDIT: It will fit...doesn't leave much room to move the scope forward or back though...about 1/2 inch.

If you enjoyed reading about "3-12x or 4-16x...can't decide." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
proven
June 23, 2012, 12:11 AM
what is your intended use?

3 power would give slightly better field of view under 100yds. but for over 100 the gain with the 16 over the 12 might be beneficial.

the last scope i bought was fixed 10 power with intended use from 50 to 300yds.

Ridgerunner665
June 23, 2012, 12:25 AM
Mostly scanning fields on low power...but I also want to be able to use it in the woods if necessary. (either 3x or 4x will do)

Max range will be 600 yards...which can be done just fine with a 9x, but seeing antlers on a deer that is in the treeline at 600 yards with 9x can be another story altogether.

I'm just sorta stuck though...trying to decide which to get, when both would work, LOL....

I'm not real crazy about the large diameter eyepiece on the Monarch scopes though...that has me wondering about clearance for bolt lift...I don't want to raise the scope up any more than I absolutely have to (higher rings).

Leupold just doesn't offer what I'm after (in the $400-$500 price range)...I like side focus.

Ridgerunner665
June 23, 2012, 12:34 AM
The Vortex Viper HS 30mm Tube 4-16x 44mm Side Focus also looks appealing...I know I've heard great things about Vortex, but...no personal experience.

I do like the etched reticle and Made in America though...

deadeye1122
June 23, 2012, 12:50 AM
How about Nikon Buckmaster? They have some 4x12 to4x16 side focus. I have a 6x18x40SF on a .223 and like it better than my Monarch. Granted it's set up for long range paper not hunting.

proven
June 23, 2012, 12:53 AM
i have a vortex viper pst 4-16 ffp. it's a great scope all around, but not made in the usa. excellent (for the money) glass, and warranty. clicks are pretty solid ad i like the zero stop. as mentioned, the nikon buckmasters get great reviews too.

T Bran
June 23, 2012, 12:59 AM
I have the 4x16 Monarch on my 700 SPS .223 and had to use high rings to get bolt clearance it is still a tight fit on the bolt handle.
I am not disapointed in the least as this is one of the best scopes I have ever used super clear and repeatable. In fact it sold me on Nikon and I have since replaced my inventory with all Nikon scopes just not all Monarchs. Even their low end Prostaff scopes are fantastic for the cost.
T

Ridgerunner665
June 23, 2012, 12:59 AM
I thought all Vortex scopes were made in the USA...shows what i know about Vortex I guess.

My son has a 4.5-14x Buckmasters for his 30-06...it is a nice scope, but it hasn't been mounted yet (I've been too busy with my rifle...and he is in the USMC)...I gotta get that done soon.

I need to haul my rifle over to Mahoneys and try on some scopes...I'll need the rifle so I'll be able to tell how it fits (bolt clearance, etc.)

porktornado
June 23, 2012, 03:36 AM
i have a 6.5-20x40 leuy vx3 on my m70, that being said, i scan fields all the time for yotes with it in the 6.5 power. i even hunt at night with moonlight and some snow on 6.5 and it works just fine. i doubt you would notice much of a difference between the 3 and 4 power. IMO i would go with the 4-16 to get the extra umpf out at long distances. the benefits you would gain between scanning with the 3x and the 4x would be nothing compared to what you would gain between 12x and 16x.

Nullcone
June 23, 2012, 03:45 AM
3-12x or 4-16x...can't decide.

2.5-10x

Lighter, better field of view, more forgiving on eye relief, less expensive, probably more durable...

16X on a 30-06?

Sheesh.

Centurian22
June 23, 2012, 05:46 AM
I agree with Pork: 4-16. Not too much difference from 3-4 for scanning, but 12-16 can make a big difference for 'scanning for those 600 yard antlers'. Best of luck with the scope and in the woods!
Centurian

jmr40
June 23, 2012, 08:14 AM
You get more quality for the same price with lower powered scopes. A 3-9x40mm scope will be the most quality for the dollar. Set at 9x you have more magnigication than you can use in a hunting situation. Lots of guys use 2-7X variables or fixed 4X scopes for shooting at 500+ yards.

ColtPythonElite
June 23, 2012, 09:35 AM
I'd get a 3x9x40 for the rifle and a good pair of binoculars for the scanning.

Ridgerunner665
June 23, 2012, 02:11 PM
I'd get a 3x9x40 for the rifle and a good pair of binoculars for the scanning.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you don't wear prescription glasses...binoculars are not user friendly if you do. (have you checked the price of long eye relief binoculars :what: )



jmr40,
I sorta agree with on all points except this one...
Set at 9x you have more magnigication than you can use in a hunting situation

There are plenty of times when a little more is nice to have, 3-9x has been the standard for a long time (my first was a Baush & Lomb) but even back then I thought at least 12x would be better. There were not many 4-12x's then...

3-9x is out of the question...no disrespect intended, its just not what I'm looking for...the rifle has a good 3-9x on it now, Nikon Prostaff (about 5 years old)

Also...the magnification isn't so much for shooting, but for verifying the target...I shot a nice tall and wide 5 point white tail a couple of years ago, he was standing in the trees at almost 430 yards...I coulda swore he was a 6 point, but he didn't have a brow tine on one side...then theres this one...

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc137/Ridgerunner665/1201111023.jpg

A nice buck by any standard...but through the scope...the broken tines didn't jump out at me...I woulda shot him anyway, but you see my point? I'm looking to shoot one worth mounting, I've never mounted a deer. I have killed some nice ones but never had the $$$ to mount one...the 5 point I would have left another year or 3.

Flatbush Harry
June 23, 2012, 02:25 PM
If your .30-06 will be primarily a hunting rifle, I'd offer the following. In 1976, I got my first hunting rifle...a Rem 700 BDL in .30-06 (prior to that, I lived in a "Shotgun Only" state). My FIL, a lifelong Ohioan, suggested that a Redfield 2-7x was all I needed...as he put it, "You keep the scope set on its lowest magnification while stalking for widest field of view and ease of target acquisition while stalking and you won't need more than 7x for any whitetail you'll encounter east of Colorado". I plunked down $78 bucks for the scope, he mounted it and I was good to go.

I've had a fair number of rifles in the intervening years, and for my stalking rifles (a couple of Ruger 77 RSIs in .308 and .270 and a No. 1A in 6.5x55), I have Leupy 2.5-8x36 scopes mounted on them. I have Zeiss 3-9x40 scopes with Rapid Z600 reticles on my three longer range rifles...a .25-06, and two .30-06s. I still keep them on 3x until I'm ready for the shot and, frequently, for the shot as well. As a BTW, you won't notice your own movement of the rifle as much on a lower power.

FH

Haxby
June 23, 2012, 02:28 PM
"scanning fields on low power"
"i scan fields all the time for yotes with it in the 6.5 power"
"Not too much difference from 3-4 for scanning"
"binoculars are not user friendly"

So, you guys are actually admitting on a public forum that you use your rifle scopes to look for game.

Ridgerunner665
June 23, 2012, 02:32 PM
So, you guys are actually admitting on a public forum that you use your rifle scopes to look for game

Well...yes...but I don't hunt on public land either, and even if I did...the safety is on and my finger is off the trigger until I see what I'm hunting.

Don't hijack my thread please.

Ridgerunner665
June 23, 2012, 02:54 PM
Looks like I'm gonna have to explain this a little better...

The place where I hunt belongs to my uncle, its 640 acres of mostly cornfield and alfalfa hayfield...its as flat as a pancake (river bottom)...about 100 acres of it is sort of an island in the river (you can walk across the swamp to it if it hasn't been raining alot), about 150 acres of it is wooded...

The deer generally stay near the swamp and island (very overgrown, good bedding)...its hard to hunt because of the prevailing wind patterns, if you set up on the crossing to the island the deer will smell you and swim across at the other end (540 yards away)...so, I just set up downwind and take the long shot with them never knowing I was there...might as well, its gonna be a long shot either way, why spook them? Setting up in the middle just doesn't work...they'll smell you before they leave the island...and go to the other fields...on the other side of the river (deer do swim)

My wife, my son, and me are the only ones that hunt this property...unless I decide to bring a friend once in a while. I've been hunting there for a long time...and will be for a long time to come. Yes...I know...I'm lucky...and I'm thankful for it.

I need enough magnification to make sure I'm shooting the right deer...call it herd management or whatever you want to call it...but I'd like to be able to see a small brow tine at 600 yards, without lugging around a spotting scope.

hoghunting
June 23, 2012, 02:58 PM
I'd get a 3x9x40 for the rifle and a good pair of binoculars for the scanning.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you don't wear prescription glasses...binoculars are not user friendly if you do. (have you checked the price of long eye relief binoculars

I do wear prescription glasses and use binoculars. Many binoculars have adjustable eye cups that screw in or out for eye relief, been using Burris for years.

My 300 WSM is fitted with a 3-9x40 and have taken quite a few hogs out past 400 yds, but I scan with binoculars, not a rifle scope.

porktornado
June 23, 2012, 03:23 PM
"scanning fields on low power"
"i scan fields all the time for yotes with it in the 6.5 power"
"Not too much difference from 3-4 for scanning"
"binoculars are not user friendly"

So, you guys are actually admitting on a public forum that you use your rifle scopes to look for game.

whats your deal? i hunt 100% private land that I own, and in illinois the only thing you can use rifles for are paper punchin and shooting yotes. i also help guide hunts in alaska(private land), and occasionally i will just look through my scope as opposed to pulling my binos out of my packframe. is there something wrong with that??

its easy to jump to conclusions these days, but get your facts before you ASSume.

porktornado
June 23, 2012, 03:36 PM
by the way, nice deer Ridge. not trying to hijack but is that a big scar on his neck?

as for the binos, he's looking for magnification. i sure as heck wouldn't want to hunt with a pair of 16x binos. those things would be ginormous. even 12x's are pretty large.

MrDig
June 23, 2012, 04:18 PM
Here in Minnesota for Deer Hunting with scopes can cause problems with the way they flatten everything out as you look through them. In some stands a 3-9x40 is really all you need. If I was hunting over in North Dakota I be much more likely to use a 4-16x40 or 50 due to the fact that I would see much longer shots.
The part of Minnesota where I would see similar shots as the Dakotas is limited to Shotgun and Pistol only for firearms.
I use binoculars to scan and only look through my scope if I verify it is a game animal. I usually take my glasses off or move them out of the way to look through the Binoculars.

Centurian22
June 23, 2012, 04:35 PM
Ridgerunner: sounds like some beautiful hunting grounds you have there to be enjoyed by you and the family for many generations to come. Hopefully you can get some more more helpful contributions to your original question (love the "Don't hijack my thread please" line!). As for the binoculars vs glasses, I have a set of the Nikon 10x50's with the adjustable eye cups but most of the time I still have to take off my glasses to get a good look, not to mention that they are pretty big. Enjoy the scope whatever you choose, drive safe out there, and happy hunting.

P.S. Haxby: I said and admitted to nothing of my own actions, and even if I had there would be no background to it as has been stated. I was merely focusing my comment on the original posters topic.

Ridgerunner665
June 23, 2012, 05:13 PM
but is that a big scar on his neck?

I believe what you're seeing is his ear...its sorta blended in with the antler, but its laid back there showing the white hair inside.

porktornado
June 23, 2012, 06:49 PM
haha, i see that now that you point it out. wow, that was deceiving.

so have we swayed you one way or another yet?

Ridgerunner665
June 23, 2012, 07:22 PM
LOL...no...I'm still undecided.

I am looking at other brands too (Sightron, etc.)...sometimes I think it was better when we didn't have so many choices, LOL.

Centurian22
June 23, 2012, 09:23 PM
I know many people (particularly those who DON'T own one), consider them to be a 'cheapy' but have you looked at Centerpoints? I'm pretty sure I'll be picking up one of their 4-16X40 illuminated, adjustable paralex objective scopes with the rings for less than $70 in my near future.

Ridgerunner665
June 23, 2012, 10:56 PM
I have owned one (it came on a used rifle I bought)...nope, no more of those scopes for me.

WardenWolf
June 23, 2012, 11:16 PM
In my opinion, you'll never regret choosing higher magnification. My personal rule of thumb is 3-9 for .223, and heavier calibers get 4-16 or 6-18. If you can reach out beyond 100 yards, the extra magnification really helps, especially when sighting in. If you can see your bullet holes, it's much easier to zero your rifle. And you can always back off to a lower magnification depending on range.

Ridgerunner665
June 24, 2012, 03:47 PM
I have decided...Vortex wins.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/183809/vortex-viper-hs-rifle-scope-30mm-tube-4-16x-44mm-side-focus-v-plex-reticle-matte?cm_cat=CheckoutConfirm&cm_pla=ProductDescrip

porktornado
June 24, 2012, 04:43 PM
which magnification did you go with? lol

Ridgerunner665
June 24, 2012, 05:16 PM
Oh...lol...4-16x 44mm.

I went with Vortex mainly because of the smaller diameter eyepiece...

Sock Puppet
June 24, 2012, 06:01 PM
Might be too late, but have you considered a Bushnell Elite 6500 in 2.5-16X50? It would cover all of the bases you want covered.

Ridgerunner665
June 24, 2012, 06:46 PM
Too wide of magnification range and too much objective diameter...

I've been sorta keeping up with Vortex for a good while...I figured it was time to see what all the fuss is about, and their scopes are about right anyway (size, weight, specs...all of what you want, none of what you don't)

I'd say it will be a fine scope...I'll know in a few weeks when I get home.

I did change my mind on the reticle...I ordered the V-Plex instead of the BDC, their BDC reticle is really thin...thought that may be a problem in low light. Their V-Plex is way thinner than other Duplex reticles but I've always thought Duplex reticles were too thick anyway...I haven't looked through one yet, but I think Vortex may have it just about right for the V-Plex.

45crittergitter
July 1, 2012, 05:10 PM
For big game hunting with a .30-06, I wouldn't go higher than a 3-9x, and prefer a 2-8x. I also prefer to stay under 40mm.

Ridgerunner665
July 1, 2012, 05:44 PM
Purely personal preference...the Vortex is great!

If you enjoyed reading about "3-12x or 4-16x...can't decide." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!