Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Ridgerunner665, Jun 22, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,393
    Location:
    Upper East Tennessee
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2012
  2. proven

    proven Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    771
    Location:
    VT
    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.
     
  3. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,393
    Location:
    Upper East Tennessee
    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.
     
  4. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,393
    Location:
    Upper East Tennessee
    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...
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2012
  5. deadeye1122

    deadeye1122 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    184
    Location:
    minnesota
    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.
     
  6. proven

    proven Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    771
    Location:
    VT
    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.
     
  7. T Bran

    T Bran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    920
    Location:
    Homestead FL
    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
     
  8. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,393
    Location:
    Upper East Tennessee
    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.)
     
  9. porktornado

    porktornado Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Messages:
    69
    Location:
    central illinois
    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.
     
  10. Nullcone

    Nullcone Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    175
    Location:
    AZ
    Ever the contrarian

    2.5-10x

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

    16X on a 30-06?

    Sheesh.
     
  11. Centurian22

    Centurian22 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,233
    Location:
    Maine
    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
     
  12. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    10,080
    Location:
    Georgia
    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.
     
  13. ColtPythonElite

    ColtPythonElite Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,643
    I'd get a 3x9x40 for the rifle and a good pair of binoculars for the scanning.
     
  14. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,393
    Location:
    Upper East Tennessee
    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...
    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...

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2012
  15. Flatbush Harry

    Flatbush Harry Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    757
    Location:
    Colorado
    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
     
  16. Haxby

    Haxby Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    993
    "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.
     
  17. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,393
    Location:
    Upper East Tennessee
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2012
  18. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,393
    Location:
    Upper East Tennessee
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2012
  19. hoghunting

    hoghunting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,597
    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.
     
  20. porktornado

    porktornado Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Messages:
    69
    Location:
    central illinois
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2012
  21. porktornado

    porktornado Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Messages:
    69
    Location:
    central illinois
    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.
     
  22. MrDig

    MrDig Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,662
    Location:
    Where all the women are strong, the men are good l
    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.
     
  23. Centurian22

    Centurian22 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,233
    Location:
    Maine
    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.
     
  24. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,393
    Location:
    Upper East Tennessee
    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.
     
  25. porktornado

    porktornado Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Messages:
    69
    Location:
    central illinois
    haha, i see that now that you point it out. wow, that was deceiving.

    so have we swayed you one way or another yet?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page