2.5x enough to group well on paper at 100 yds?

[ghh3rd]

I've got a 45-70 with an 18" barrel that I want to scope. I'll be using it for hunting, but sure would like to shoot paper at 100 yds at the range.

I was thinking of a 3x9x to accomodate both types of shooting, but am a bit nervous of the short3.4" eye releif on this beast, and was considering a 2.5x scout scope with 10" releif. However, I am concerned that 2.5x won't be enough to show me how well the gun can actually group at 100 yds.

Anyone using something like 2.5x for 100 yd groups?

Randy

 

[Quoheleth]

Have you ever shot open sights at 100 yards? If so, you'll have 2.5 times that power of magnification. I've not used a 2.5, personally, but the long eye relief sounds like a smart thing to me.

Q

 

[briansmithwins]

I can get good groups with a 1x sight at 100 yards. 2.5x is plenty. You might not be able to see .45 cal holes with it, but that's why binoculars and spotting scopes were invented. BSW

 

[NuclearMeltdown]

Here's what my Weaver K2.5 looks like at 100 yards:

And the bull is pretty big:

I took these three shots with open sights. On that day, the scope did better. With practice on that rifle, I can now shoot about the same with open sights as I can with 2.5x in a scope. About an inch and a half or two inches. The scope is faster to line up, though.

 

[browningguy]

The 2.5 should be fine. I shoot one of my 30-06's with a 4x and it's comfortable out to about 200, people with good eyes and more skill could make it work further though. I also shoot one of my .223's at 100 all the time with a 2x red dot and that works well, although with the big dot it's not as accurate as a scope reticle would be.

 

[rbernie]

Yes, 2.5x is plenty for 100 yard shooting. As the pic in post #4 shows, you can easily tell when your reticle is centered on the target and when it's not (as illustrated in the picture, which shows a point of aim that is vertically centered but offset to the left).

My woods rifles, both leverguns and Ruger #1s, all wear a Leupold FXII 2.5x scout scope, and I have no reason to want for more magnification.

 

[M1key]

Any AR I own is quite capable of 1 MOA with a Leupold 2.5x scope.

 

[bubba15301]

i used a burris 1.75x5 on mine because it had 4 inches of eye relief

 

[-v-]

I shoot out to 200 yards with a 2x scope without much issues. As long as the glass is good, and the light is clear, its easy enough to put lead on paper that far out. Don't under-estimate the benefits of having a good position and rest when shooting either.

For a brush gun like yours, I'd say anything over 4x is overkill, since you won't be taking any shots much over 250 yards anyway.

 

[ghh3rd]

For a brush gun like yours, I'd say anything over 4x is overkill, since you won't be taking any shots much over 250 yards anyway.

I figured that 2.5x or 3x would be OK for hunting - quick acquisition and wide FOV and 9x would be good for fun on paper.

Sort of leaning more toward the 2.5x28mm Leupold scout scope though since I'd like to load some full house rounds to play with and the 10" relief seems comforting.

 

[-v-]

Thats what I was leaning towards with my suggestion of 4x as maximum. I run a 2-7x scope, but most of the time it stays at 2x and sometimes creeps up to 4-5x, with 7x being used more for spotting scope applications, but mostly just 2x for general use. I find 2x gives me the best balance of being able to engage up close (~5ft away is closest possible) to ~200 yards for a 8.5x11" sheet of paper sized target. The wide field of view up close is very welcome.

I would also suggest considering some shotgun scopes...I'm not super-familiar with them, but I suspect they have equally good eye relief to a scout scope, I would wager they are tough enough to handle the worst 45/70 recoil. Just an other option to consider.

 

[garyhan]

With a 2.5x, I can consistently shoot 1.25 to 1.5 inch at 100 yds. If that level of accuracy is good enough for your hunting, and the ranges aren't extreme, the 2.5 will be fine.

gary

 

[kennedy]

I use a 2x leopold pistol scope on my swede mauser, it is mounted where the rear sight goes and does great at 100yds

 

[TonyAngel]

Considering what the .45-70 is meant for, I'd say that a 2.5X is more than enough, BUT I can understand the want for more magnification at times. I guess it just makes me feel better. Check out the Sightron 1.25-5X. It's a nice compact scope with, I believe, 4" of eye relief and good clear glass. It won't muck up the balance of that quick handling carbine. When I had that on my AR, I had no problems hitting 12ga. hulls at 100 yards.

 

[CraigC]

Any decent rifleman should be able to shoot sub-MOA with iron sights, if the rifle is capable. A scope may or may not show a slight advantage. A high magnification target scope will probably show a very small advantage. A 2.5x is plenty for your rifle (for most rifles), a 3-9x would be unnecessary and potentially detrimental. Most folks put too much glass on rifles they never use much over 100yds.

 

[TonyAngel]

Craig, I have to disagree with you. Many of us have failing eye sight and to tell you the truth, I can't see a 1" target at 100 yards with my naked eyes.

 

[scythefwd]

Tony - You don't have to see a 1 inch target. People shoot 8" targets at 100y with iron sights all the time and get 1" groups. The key isn't looking for that orange 1" bull, it's getting a correctly centered sight picture. I can't see a quarter at 100y either, but if it's in the middle of an 6" or so target, I can hit it fairly frequently (I'm not a great shooter). Do you think those guys who shoot 1-2 moa at 1k yards with iron sights can see a 10" bull at that distance? Hell, the sights on my target rifle don't even have a post, it's a ring up front and a ring in the back. People been taking gold in the Olympics with that type of sights since shooting became a sport.

To the OP - I use a 2.5x scope on my .30-30 at 100y. You can see a .30 caliber hole at that distance with just about any quality of scope (mine is a 2.5x weaver that is a bit foggy).

 

[CraigC]

Firstly, good eyesight should be a given. I would no more expect someone who can't see the front sight to shoot MOA at 100yds than I would expect my blind grandmother to be able to drive.

Scythefwd hit the nail on the head! You don't have to see a 1" target at 100yds. Hell, I can't see a three inch target at 100yds but I can properly and consistently index a front sight against an eight inch target enough to shoot MOA with open sights. The trick is to match your target to your sights. Which is why I use a 3" black square target for open sighted handguns shot at 25yds and double it for 50yds. Same concept.

 

[benzy2]

Shooting 1 MOA iron sights is a pretty bold statement with many variables left unanswered. The truth is, it isn't always as easy as you want to make it sound. Off a bench or from positions? Which position? How much under 1 MOA is the rifle capable if at all? What type of iron sights? Factory sporter notch and post or olympic sights? What kind of wind conditions? What ammo?

The truth is 1 MOA from the average 45-70 built today is already pushing it with the best of target scope. Toss in a crude factory sight to boot and you aren't making it an easy challenge. If it is a 1 MOA capable rifle you leave yourself no room for error in judging wind or in sight alignment either.

What rifle is it that you shoot at or under 1 MOA so consistently with iron sights and what position are you shooting it from doing so? I would like to see how much it is relevant to the 18" barreled .45-70 being discussed in this thread.

 

[ms6852]

The good thing is that you are shooting a 45-70 you don't have to be moa with this caliber.
Heck I would drop to the ground from the meer shock wave and sonic boom.

 

[madcratebuilder]

Hell, the sights on my target rifle don't even have a post, it's a ring up front and a ring in the back. People been taking gold in the Olympics with that type of sights since shooting became a sport.

+10

I just setup a double peep arrangement on a Mauser (Mojo). I'm shocked at how well I can shoot this rifle now, before with just a rear Mojo and the front post I could not do better than 4-5moa at 100yds. Adding the front ring cut that in half.

 

[Kwanger]

Scythefwd hit the nail on the head! You don't have to see a 1" target at 100yds. Hell, I can't see a three inch target at 100yds but I can properly and consistently index a front sight against an eight inch target enough to shoot MOA with open sights. The trick is to match your target to your sights. Which is why I use a 3" black square target for open sighted handguns shot at 25yds and double it for 50yds. Same concept.

Absolutely. Besides, if you are doing it right with irons, your target is going to be blurry anyway. So long as the shooter can consistently see the overall target picture, you can do tight groups with iron sights. Some sort of aiming reference point (as described by CraigC here) will help, however, with practice you can shoot a completely blank cardboard target at 100 yards with iron sights with no other reference on the target and still get very tight groups.

To the OP - a 2.5 will be fine.

 

[jmr40]

In good light with a target in the open it is possible to do quite well with even open sights out to 200 yards for most people. Really good shots with quality peep sights can do well much farther.

The scopes main advantage on a brush gun is that it will allow you to see better in low light. A fixed power scope of 1.5-3X should be fine. As would a variable with no more than a 3X on the low end.

 

[CraigC]

Shooting 1 MOA iron sights is a pretty bold statement with many variables left unanswered.

Not really. Besides, you are missing the point. The point is not to brag about what "I" can do with iron sights. The point is that you do not need a huge scope to shoot to, or near a rifle's potential. Fact is, like I said, many shooters have no experience with iron sights, much less a good aperture and falsely believe that they need a high magnification scope (yes, 3-9x included) to shoot deer at 150yds or 1" groups at 100yds.

The truth is, it isn't always as easy as you want to make it sound.

Who said it was easy??? There's nothing "easy" about it. Joe Blow ain't gonna decide he wants to start shooting Sunday, buy a rifle Monday and shoot MOA with irons on Tuesday. Which is why I said, a "decent rifleman". Not "Joe Blow" redneck that shows up to the range with a cooler full of beer, a cardboard box for a rest and a box of shells.

Off a bench or from positions?

Any discussion of the accuracy potential of "a rifle" should be from the bench. I could care less what YOU are capable of from varying positions. I want to know what the rifle is capable of.

How much under 1 MOA is the rifle capable if at all?

Obviously, we may assume that the rifle is capable of MOA or better. Sometimes we know, sometimes we don't. We don't go putting a scope mount on a Winchester 1895 just to see. We just know from experience that "we" can shoot nearly as accurately with iron sights as we can with a scope of modest magnification. We also know that our ability to do so it not dependent upon seeing a 1" target at 100yds.

What type of iron sights? Factory sporter notch and post or olympic sights?

Typically receiver or tang sights of the Williams Foolproof, Lyman, Marbles or AR variety. Though it happens with factory buckhorns as well.

What kind of wind conditions?

Obviously as little as possible.

What ammo?

What difference does that make?

The truth is 1 MOA from the average 45-70 built today is already pushing it with the best of target scope.

This is all irrelevant. If the rifle is not capable, then obviously the shooter won't be, regardless of sighting equipment. That was not the point.

If it is a 1 MOA capable rifle you leave yourself no room for error in judging wind or in sight alignment either.

There is very little room for error anyway, regardless of what you're sighting with.

What rifle is it that you shoot at or under 1 MOA so consistently with iron sights and what position are you shooting it from doing so? I would like to see how much it is relevant to the 18" barreled .45-70 being discussed in this thread.

It is immaterial. If a sporting rifle is capable of MOA accuracy, then a good shooter can reach that potential with a good set of iron sights. If this is a foreign concept to you, you probably have little or no experience with a good set of peeps. But if it makes you feel any better, the rifle I had in mind when I wrote that response is a late model Winchester 1895 .405WCF equipped with factory buckhorns. Shooting factory Hornady 300gr JSP's and benchrested. The Hornady bullet is garbage on game but my handloads with the Woodleigh 300gr and H4895 have approached their accuracy.

 

[Asherdan]

Nice picture at post #4.

My Marlins have Weavers, a K2.5 and V3 1-3x20mm. Either is fine for punching paper or ringing steel out past 200 yards. For paper, I like a black ring, white center target like the attached. Makes for an easy center. I've never had a problem with 3" of eye relief on my 1895G with a standard mount and top end loads but if you like the idea of a scout type mount, go for it.