Can someone help me understand scopes a bit better?

[MJRW]

I've recently gotten into hunting. That said, I'm going to obtain my own gear for this purpose. I'm generally a pistol/shotgun shooter, so the world of optics is a bit foreign to me.

I'm going to be waiting for the right rifle at the right price. My list and options include a savage axis, some form of savage with accutrigger, Remington 700, Winchester 70, Remington 7600, and Ruger 77, Ruger 77/44, Ruger No 1. It is a wide field, admittedly. I expect to shoot and handle many of them before deciding. Worst case scenario for me is that I purchase a Savage Axis and stick my Nikon Prostaff (silver ) 3-9x40 on top of it until I come to a final decision.

My caliber preference is .30-06, though I'm still open to .270, .308, and 300 win mag (expect that this one is overkill). My intended targets are whitetail deer, possibly black bear, in Virginia with future possibilities of hunting in the Pacific northwest.

All of that said, I have some optics questions that I cannot find answers to and I am hoping someone here can assist me:

1. Given that I'm looking at mostly short distance shots (definitely under 150 yards, more like 60-120 yards on average), is 3-9 more scope than I need or would I be better served with a 2-7 or other?

2. I see a few 50mm diameter scopes in 3-9 and none in 2-7. Would I be better served with a 3-9x50mm as opposed to a 2-7x40? I believe that increased diameter increases low light gathering and thus would generally be a better optic, but I'm assuming there are some downsides to a larger diameter that I do not understand other than cost. Can someone clarify the benefits of the diameters?

3. Which of these numbers contributes most to eye relief? I don't quite understand what provides or reduces eye relief.

4. The brands I'm looking at right now (listed in order of greatest interest to least interest) are the Leupold VXII or greater, Nikon Buckmaster or Monarch, Redfield Revolution, Vortex Diamondback, and Burris Fullfield. The Is there anything noticeably missing from my field of interest or are there objective standouts that I should either focus on more or avoid from this list?

 

[BCRider]

The amount of light that reaches the eye is related to the magnification power. So a 2-7x40 is going to seem pretty much the same brightness as a 3-9x50 at roughly the same points in the magnification range. That's likely why you don't seen any 2-7x50's since they realistically don't need that much light gathering power. On the other hand a 6-24, if they make such a beast, would be well served with a 60 or even 70mm front lens to pull in enough light to make it useable in dim woods.

The amount of eye relief isn't tied to the power or front lens size. It's a factor of the lens specs in the eye piece and other internal lenses that feed the eyepiece lens. The more kick of the gun and cartridge the more eye relief you likely want. In some cases it would also depend on where the rings mount on the gun and how that affects the placement of the scope. Some oddball setups may require a shorter or longer eye relief to let the scope sit in the mounts with the barrel portions in the rings.

I'll leave the rest to the real hunters to answer.

 

[chubcobear]

1. 2x7x32
2. More diameter, less light at given power.
3. Quality provides eye relief.
3. Nikon best for money.

 

[red-demon652]

For the purpose's you have stated i would recomend atleast a 3-9 power scope. Reason is your saying you will probably be shooting 60 to 120 yards, Plenty of scope for that. However with all do respect just like all of us there"l probably be a day you"ll want to shoot 2 or 300 yards. Weather its hunting or target shooting, it happens. Leupold,nikon, good scopes for clarity and durability.

 

[rcmodel]

Plenty of scope for that.

A 2x-7x is plenty of scope for 400 yard shots with a deer rifle. If you can shoot that good.

400 yards / 7x = an apparent target distance of 57 yards.

Some folks can throw a rock that far.

I have killed coyotes & crows that far with a 30-06 and a 4x fixed power scope.
Thats only 100 apparent yards at 4x.

rc

 

[MachIVshooter]

A 3-9x is the best general purpose magnification range. 3x is low enough for very close shots, 9x will get you out there a long way.

There is no need for a 50mm objective until magnification is approaching 20x, so stick to a 40mm; It'll allow you to mount the scope closer to the bore, which is always best.

Leupold is my go-to, but any quality scope should serve you well. figure on spending $250-$400 for a good 3-9x 40mm scope.

 

[rcmodel]

Scopes don't "gather" light.
Scopes transmit light.
The better the glass & coatings, the less available light is lost inside the scope.

No scope can transmit more then 100% of the available light, and it takes a very good one to get much past 95%.

Then there is "exit pupil" size, which determines how much available light your eye can see through the scope.

See this about that:
http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/01/03/optics_opticpupil_061907/

rc

 

[Geno]

Most of what I could add had been answered. I will add nothing except that given the distances you intend/anticipate shooting, I would opt for a variable power 1.5 - 4.5 scope. You will note that 4X at 60 yards is pretty high magnification. If you intend to hunt the woods, low light, look into illuminated reticles. Given the close distances, skip adjustable objectives. I like smaller diameter objectives because they can be mounted lower. Lower equals better cheek-weld, which equal less perceived recoil, faster follow-up shots, and over-all better accuracy.

JMVHO,

Geno

 

[Art Eatman]

I've used 3x9 scopes mostly because I could afford them or they came on a rifle I'd taken on trade. What I've found during some forty years of using them is that I hunt with the scope set on 3X (most of the time) and use 9X for sight-in because I can see the thirty-caliber bullet holes at 100 yards.

For all practical purposes, any equivalent to a Weaver K4 will likely take care of maybe 95% of all deer, hog or coyote hunting.

Little critters like prairie dogs? I've found that 7X is plenty good to 300 yards. If you play out in Ma Bell country at 400 and farther, go higher.

Hunting in jungly swamp stuff, I'd guess that some variety of AimPoint would be quite good.

 

[red-demon652]

About that savage axis theary. Tha savage axis may be a cheaper line but i gaurentee that it wont shoot any worse than than any of the other models you specified. Or on the other hand are you wanting to build a a shooting system thats makes everyone at the range look at you and say WOW NICE RIFLE. Yes in some respects quality cost $, however so does beuity. It takes alot more $ to shoot precisionly than what it cost buying a rifle off the shelf. The rifles you mention are all shelf rifles. Kinda like scopes the things that decides the price of guns and scopes alike isnt just quality its the optional features of the product. Scopes for instance, magnication,lens size,tube size,sunshades,ect. Or guns its,triger adjustment,wood,blued,stainless,composit stock,ect. As far as picking a rifle goes you just have to go and look at em, feel them and know what options you want,[ adjustable trigger,wood,composit, blued, matte,stainless,bolt,auto,ect. scopes have many features as your learning power adjusting,and more power for different ranges. More power the longer range you can magnify it to see more teediosley farther out for a more presice aiming. The light gathering capabilities of a scope do not soley lie within its tube or abjective size. Bigger helps but mainly for field of view at a given range. The guality of the lenses are a big part of brightning up that dusk to down low light time of day, more polished and coated lenses,[each manufacture has there own secret lens coatings] and how many lenses are coated, and # of times there coated is a big key factor. The turett adjustments are another big option. You have finger turrets or the old use a coin style adjustment. Theres of course the reticle. Many many styles of reticles out there. You'll just have to shop and see what reticle you like. Some scopes have 1/4 inch adjusting turetts and some biger or smaller. These adjustment settings are usualy 1/8 ,1/4 or1/2 in adj. At 100 yards. But like the rest of us you can buy trade something better and were never satisfied, lol always wanting bigger,better,more options as we go along.

 

[Gizards'n'Gravy]

I highly recomend a Savage 110 in .30-'06 with a Simmons Pro 50 2.5-10x50. Its a very inexpensive setup but very effective. I'd normally go for better glass but I am very much impressed with this scope. It is as good or better than some of my more expensive scopes and by far the best "cheapo" I have ever owned. Even if you want more expensive glass you can't go wrong with Savage.

 

[jpwilly]

Well MJRW 2-7 or 3-9 power with 32mm to 40mm is all you need. Get THE BEST GLASS you can AFFORD. Nikon offers a lot for the money between $100 and $200 FYI you can get a Nikon Monarch 3-9x40mm for $199 that is a fine scope even at $300.

http://www.natchezss.com/product.cfm?contentID=productDetail&prodID=NK8464&src=tpCtg

 

[jpwilly]

Or the Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40 refurb for $99 if you're on a tight budget.

http://www.natchezss.com/product.cfm?contentID=productDetail&prodID=NK8464&src=tpCtg

 

[Walkalong]

Scopes don't "gather" light.
Scopes transmit light.
The better the glass & coatings, the less available light is lost inside the scope.

No scope can transmit more then 100% of the available light, and it takes a very good one to get much past 95%.

Then there is "exit pupil" size, which determines how much available light your eye can see through the scope.

Yep. And another fan of low power/big field of view scopes for hunting at shorter ranges.

Another article on "exit pupil" and lens size vs power

http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/how_to/guide/binoculars/basic/basic_05.htm

 

[jmr40]

How much light a scope lets in are based on 3 main factors.

#1 the lense quality. Good glass works better than cheap glass regardless of size.

#2 Magnification

#3 Front objective size

#2 and #3 are tied together. Theoretically the lower the power and larger the front objective the better, but it doesn't really work that way.

If you divide the front objective by the scopes power you determine how many millimeters of light get through to your eye. A 40mm objective at 4X lets in 10mm of light. The problem is that the human eye can only use somewhere between 5mm and 7mm. Most folks will see just fine with a scope that lets in 5mm of light, any more is wasted.

A 40mm scope set at 8X and a 50mm scope set at 10X let in all the light your eyes can process. At maginfication lower than 9X a 50mm scope lets in no more usable light than a 40mm lense.

Then you have to consider lense quality. While a bigger lense may let in more millimeters of light, a smaller, better quality piece of glass will still be better.

Bigger scopes must be mounted higher, making the rifle harder to use. A quality lense of 32mm is as big as anyone can really use. The 3-9X40 scopes are the most common with a lot of competition from manufacturers to out do each other in quality and price. You'll likely get the most quality for the money in that range. That is a good size and compromise of all features for a general use rifle.

I do like the 2-7X32 scopes on smaller compact rifles because they tend to be smaller and lighter to balance better on small guns. The lower powers generally offer a wider field of view making close range snap shots easier. I've never felt handicapped by 7X on shots at longer ranges.

 

[briansmithwins]

I like lower power scopes myself, for the reasons previously stated.

For ranges out to 150 yards or so you should also look at the Aimpoints. There isn't anything faster than a red dot at close ranges, they have unlimited eye relief, and they are tough as all get out.

BSW

 

[saenzrich]

I say Vortex.

Here's a link to a review of several of the "big name" 3-9x40. I imagine they would are of the same quality when you get to the 2-7's.

http://www.opticstalk.com/inexpensive-scope-comparison_topic21176.html

 

[BrocLuno]

Yeah, but there are other issues here. OK, light passing through any optical system with more than one surface will tend to separate into groups based on wavelength. So badly made scopes, or ones that skimp on lens coating technology will show color fringing (like hazy little rainbows on the objects edges) which degrades clarity.

Lens elements are are made up of groups cemented together. The better the cement and the better they are held in alignment while curing, the better or sharper the over all image will be.

So modern lens systems need to correct for chromatic aberration, need to transmit a high percentage of visible light, and need to stay "in column" throughout the ordeal of dealing with gun transport, recoil, bad weather and freezing, 100* days and direct sunlight on a black surface, etc. To counteract these, needs good design, quality construction and good optical treatments.

Lens coatings account for a lot of the mitigating factors. Some companies have patented proprietary coating systems like Zeiss. But even good non-proprietary systems still use exotic vacuum deposition techniques that are not cheap.

It's not exactly true that you get what you pay for - you can get a good scope for a few hundred dollars vs a few thousand. But if you were playing at extreme ranges over desert sand on hot days trying to hit little targets, you'd need to pay for the best and that's never cheap.

At the hunting distances you are considering, a fixed power scope may be your best bet. The MFGs have pretty well made variables as durable as fixed scopes, but that zoom ring takes up space between the rear bell and the rear scope mount/base. Sometimes that interferes with getting the right eye relief. So, depending on rifle and scope base, you may not have room for a properly fitted variable with the eye relief you want. And fit is WAY more important than objective lens size or zoom power, or even relative light transmission. A poorly fitted optical system will cost you game and maybe an eyebrow, or more

 

[BCRider]

There's a reason why the night time old binoculars used before night vision light amplification all had huge front objectives. It was to gather in more light for better vision in low light situations.

Those that say that you only need an X size objective are right in that in good conditions the light can only use so much light and anything more is just ignored. But on a dark day in heavy woods the bigger objective will supply more light to the eye to work with.

Having said this I also hear you on the issue of lens quality. The better brands and models that use the better and more expensive glass and coatings will pass through more of the light with less distortion. But it doesn't change the fact that in really bad low light situations the scope with the bigger objective is going to give a better view to work with if all else is equal.

 

[jhnrckr]

3-9 is going to be your best bet. I have a 3-9 X40 4-16X 50 and a 4-12 X40.

a 50mm objective is going to take taller rings and it is going to weigh your gun down. I wouldnt buy another 50mm scope again. I bought it for night hunting and I dont notice any difference in brightness with a smaller 40mm objective. Another issue with higher magnification is resolution. Unless you are are spending big bucks you will get some graininess in the higher magnifications. When I am at the 100 and 200 yard range all I need is 7-9 power. Also you are probably talking about adding parallax adjustments on a 50mm scope which can complicate a hunting situation, especially for a novice.

 

[Robert]

I run a Weaver K4 on my hunting rifle. Though I hunt with a 45-70 so the chances of me taking a shot passed 200y are slim to none. The scope is a great little thing. Crisp, clear and more than enough power to get me twice that far if I had a different rifle. But if I had a different, flatter shooting, rifle I'd go with a 3-9x40 and call it a day.

 

[Stantdm]

I would go with Leupold because of their warranty performance. A fixed 4x, a 2-7, a 3-9 would all work fine. I have a 1.75-6x32 VXIII on a .270 and it is terrific, probably the best magnification range for 40 yards to 400 yards I have ever had. While Nikon, Redfield, and a few others make decent low cost scopes Leupold never asks me any questions.

 

[helotaxi]

But on a dark day in heavy woods the bigger objective will supply more light to the eye to work with.

But it doesn't change the fact that in really bad low light situations the scope with the bigger objective is going to give a better view to work with if all else is equal.

Again objective lens size only matters to a certain point. If the exit pupil (objective diameter / magnification level) is larger than about 5mm, going any bigger on the objective isn't going to make the image any brighter under any circumstances. Period. Optics manufacturers will tell you this. Optics experts will tell you this.

 

[jpwilly]

I've found that with lower powered scopes i.e. 3-9 or 2.5-10 etc that even inexpensive glass appears bright. It's the contrast / resolution, features and above all quality that you pay for in them.

There's a huge difference between a $50 scope and a $200 scope IMO but then not as much going from $200 to $400 even $600 when talking about a simple 3-9x40 scope. "Tactical" and "Target" scopes are a whole other story.

 

[tahoe2]

I personally prefer lower powered scopes, variables & fixed, used to be the other way around.

4.75x fixed Weaver
6x fixed Pentax
1.75 x 5 variable Pentax
1.5 x 6 variable Leapers

I have had no problems shooting out to 250 yards with any of these scopes.
If I shot competition or long range (350+) I'm sure I would use higher magnification scopes. However they are much heavier, and I would rather not carry them.