3-9-40/45-70

What is your expected target, and at what range. I would think the 2-7 would be more useful in most circumstances, but there are times you might want that extra magnification.

The only advantage would be size and weight of the 2-7x32 over the 3-9x40. If you like the 3-9x40 and are happy with it then set it on 4x and leave it alone. For hunting 4x will be plenty for as far as you'd ever shoot the 45-70. At the range for practice or sighting in dial it up to 9x.

For my rifles I go with the standard 3-9x40 I've NEVER felt like I've needed more than that. I do however have some 4-12 or 4-16 on my rifles I use if I know there is a chance at a real long shot.

Any gun that I don't plan to shoot over 150 yards (all my straight wall cartridges) i mount either a 2-7 power or better yet a fixed power 2x or 3x.

You really notice the weight and size savings of a fixed power scope and it really is incredible how much brighter scopes are at low power. My Marlin 1894 wears a Leupold FX-II, it's a rugged small and light scope that fits that gun so well.

I've found that at 2x or even 1.5x I get on target fat faster than even 3x.

It's more scope than you need, but if it is what you have it will work. I like a 3-9X40 scope for general use on a bolt gun. I can't remember ever taking a shot at game with it set higher than 3X. Even out to 200ish yards. I find 3X almost too much magnification up close, but it is doable. While I almost never use it, I have more magnification for longer 400-600 yard shots.

On a rifle where shots are expected to be 100-200 max with under 50 yard shots the norm I really like a 1-4X20 and think that would be ideal on your rifle. a 2-7X32 can certainly be used, but in my experience they aren't enough smaller than a 3-9X40 to matter. Nor is there enough difference between 2X and 3X on the bottom end to matter. I find the difference between 2X and 1X remarkable. For up close fast shooting they are faster than dots or iron sights with lots of FOV.

I vote to either stay with what you have, or go to a 1-4X20 if you're wanting something lighter and smaller.

I prefer less rather than magnification. When you shoot, do you shoot at low power? Is It all the way high?
I prefer lower rather then higher, 2-7 or so.
My buddy prefers 12-15 on the high end.

Buy what you'll use.

my 2-7 and 3-9's usually stay on 3 or 4 most of the time anyhow. I don't think I have ever shot at game with more magnification ever actually. If you like the 3-9 keep it on there. Buy a 2-7 down the road maybe and try it out. 3 is still low enough to see stuff quickly close up.

JMR40 makes a good point on trying a 1-4

Don't get me wrong, you can reach out and touch whatever you want with a 405g bullet lol, BUT I would probably like the smaller scope better on that rifle simply as a "fitment" kinda thing. I like a small scope on rifles like that. Just preference and consideration of likely uses of a rifle like that.

However, I would take either scope and be fine, and maybe even the higher magnification and larger objective IF I could see better with it. My smaller scopes do have a noticeably darker image in lower light conditions, and not everyones' eyes are the same.

The point you mention on eye relief is very valid! I like relaxed eye relief on rifles that recoil toward the wild side.

I put a 3x9 on a Ruger 1 just because I had it. I really would like to have a 2x7 power or something around a fixed 4 power. I do not hunt and most of my shots are around 75 to 100 yards.

I'd never put that much glass on a .45-70. A 1-4x or my favorite, the Leupold VX3 1.5-5x at most.

I think I've posted these recently here, so I'm sure I'll be flame-bait for someone...

I live by the philosophy "optics are for the shooter, not the rifle." If a guy is going to shoot moderate ranges with a rifle with a low velocity - in other words, with a steeply arched trajectory - then he should be VERY confident he's aiming at the middle of the deers heart, not just aiming in the middle of the vitals, or middle of the deer.

With the .45-70, I'm happy to hunt ~300yrds without specialty planning involved in the set-up of the stand. For me, 300yrds on a deer sized target means I want 12x or 16x max zoom. I've taken game with 1-4x and 2-7x scopes at 300-500yrds, but I'd much rather take a 20yrd shot with an over powered scope than take a 300yrd shot with an under powered one.

I've never understood why so many guys claim a 3-9x40 to be too big and heavy compared to a 2-7x32mm type scope. They're bigger and heavier, sure, but they're not "big and heavy". I have a few "big and heavy" scopes, and they sure ain't 3-9x's! (NXS 5.5-22x56mm and BR 8-32x56 come to mind).

This one was taken at 250yrds with a Bushnell Elite 3200 3-9x40, which I have since replaced with a Nikon Buckmaster SF 4.5-14x40mm in the second picture.



The bullet, recovered under the hide on the far side, after liquefying the near lung, cutting the heart to ribbons, and slicing the far lung in half. Buck ran ~5yrds, jumped a fence and crumpled, made it about 10yrds on the ground.


One with the new scope - the Buckmaster gives me the option for parallax correction, as well as the ability to dial my drop instead of holding over like I had to with the duplex reticle in the "coin adjust" Bushnell Elite:


Given enough magnification to give a confirmed consistent POA, the Marlin pictured does very well. Regularly a sub-MOA rifle with the Hornady 325grn Leverevolution load, here's one such target, which isn't it's best showing, just the one I have on a hosting site:



So I guess that makes me the odd man out - I'd go with the 3-9x40mm, or even something larger.

Varminterror said:

I'd much rather take a 20yrd shot with an over powered scope than take a 300yrd shot with an under powered one.

Click to expand...

That is a very odd and counter-intuitive position.

Seems logical to me - a high powered scope at short range is basically like being able to see "too good." Under powered scopes at long ranges are basically like not being able to see well enough. I've never heard anyone complain they could see too well, but it's not strange to anyone to not be able to see something well enough.

I know it does, that's kinda the point.

Having too much glass at short range is not what I'd characterize as "too good". I'd characterize it as very difficult to find your target within your field of view. It's infinitely easier to shoot deer at 300yds with a 4x than it is at 20yds with a 14x but YMMV.

Just fighting that straw man for the sake of it, eh?

My "go to" hunting scope is a Leupold VX3, now VX3i, 4.5-14x50mm SF with Mil-dot.

So why would you suggest I'd use this scope at 14x to make a 20yrd shot, and 4.5x to make a 300yrd shot? How many hunting scopes in the world have a 14x minimum zoom? Your post is just an absurdism.

I also don't tend to buy the premise a hunter should ever have trouble finding a target in their scope, shoot with both eyes open and this is never an issue. It's a false paradigm propagated by under-practiced shooters. It might be an insensitive position to take, but I've taught enough new shooters in classes on this target acquisition method to know it's transferable. Shoot both eyes open and there will never be such a thing as a scope too powerful.

At 20yrds, at minimum magnification, I have about 4ft FOV. So a buck makes up about 3/4 of the FOV. Easy enough to figure out where I'm aiming - and frankly, at that range, a guy doesn't even have to focus on the animal through the scope, as a co-witnessed image of the game animal in your off eye with the superimposed image of the crosshairs from your shooting eye placed on the vitals will deliver a killing blow.

On the other hand, at 300yrds, set at 4.5x, I have 57ft FOV, so a 6" vital area is less than 1% of my FOV, and the entire deer is only 5% of my FOV. Crank up to 14x and I have 22ft FOV, giving me a much closer view, and much improved placement control for my sight picture.

I've killed hundreds of coyotes and dozens of deer at ranges measured in feet and inches with scopes with 4x or 6x minimums, enough to know the technique works, and Have coached dozens of shooters in rifle classes on the same technique to know it's not a unique and non-transferable skill.

Varminterror said:

I also don't tend to buy the premise a hunter should ever have trouble finding a target in their scope, shoot with both eyes open and this is never an issue. It's a false paradigm propagated by under-practiced shooters. It might be an insensitive position to take, but I've taught enough new shooters in classes on this target acquisition method to know it's transferable. Shoot both eyes open and there will never be such a thing as a scope too powerful.

Click to expand...

Either you haven't hunted much or you have an ability I've never seen before. I hunt and shoot what I would say it's a lot compared to most everyone I know and find myself often taking time to find an animal in a scope. With deer during archery season I am constantly ranging them with a 6x laser range finder, this gives me the experience of sighting a deer through a scope a hundred times before I even pick up a rifle. At times it takes me several seconds to find the deer in the rangefinder after clearly finding it with the naked eye. A deer and it's surroundings at 1x are extremely different at 6x. With both eyes open and after starting at the same trees for days I can easily get "lost" when the zoom comes up. This didn't happen every time and it's only a few seconds, but that is EONS on running game. I don't know if you've ever tried to find a nearby ruining animal in a scope above 3x but it is darn near impossible.

There's a reason almost all battle sights are 1x or extremely low power. If what you say is true:

"I also don't tend to buy the premise a hunter should ever have trouble finding a target in their scope, shoot with both eyes open and this is never an issue"

And

"Seems logical to me - a high powered scope at short range is basically like being able to see "too good." Under powered scopes at long ranges are basically like not being able to see well enough. I've never heard anyone complain they could see too well, but it's not strange to anyone to not be able to see something well enough."

Wouldn't the army equip soldiers with high power scopes? Human vitals are smaller than deer vitals yet the majority of military optics are no or very low power. Please tell me us why that is?

This year I am hunting management dear on a trophy ranch, so I need plenty of glass to judge my quarry. When a button-buck or a tagged doe is $1,000 penalty, I want to be sure I am taking a cull and not writing a check. That said, I really like the 2x7x33 leupold on a .45/70 for a couple of reasons. First and foremost it is amazingly clear, easily rivaling my 40 and 50mm scopes for clarity and light transfer. The second reason is purely cosmetic, it is the only scope i am aware of in the leupold line up available in a high gloss finish. I am a big fan of a traditional look, and it is sized right and finished right for a lever gun, assuming you need to scope it.

Varminterror said:

I think I've posted these recently here, so I'm sure I'll be flame-bait for someone...

Click to expand...

I can't say I didn't know it was coming at this site... Anyone who doesn't agree with popular opinion must be wrong...

It's not a straw argument at all. Low powered variables are literally designed for rifle cartridges like the .45-70 for all the reasons stated.

One typically has time to dial a variable up for a long shot but rarely down for a close shot. There's no way I'd ever put a 4.5-14x on a .45-70. Hell, I've only got a 2.5-8x on my .270 and it's a whole lot better suited to 300yd shots. Bottom line is there is little to justify such a big scope on a short range rifle but a whole lot of reasons to choose something less. Your reasoning is difficult to defend.

I do not hunt but shoot a lot at the range (max 110 yards). With the spotting scope I have a hard time finding the target when at max power. I have to dial it back to find the target then dial it in on the shots. With the 3x9 i can directly to the target but that is a white and orange. Can not be that easy looking for a deer in the woods.

Finding the target is a training issue. Not a magnification issue.

A spotting scope doesn't have the luxury of a shoulder stock or pistol grip, but with practice, that part too gets easier. When I started shooting F-Class, I couldn't even find the berm. Within a few matches, setting up my spotting scope only took a matter of seconds.

Varminterror said:

Finding the target is a training issue. Not a magnification issue.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. It is a magnification issue if you have too much of it. Especially if your target is moving. Too much is a way bigger issue than too little.

So Craig, how much is too much?

Obviously what's too much for you is not for me.