Can someone help me understand scopes a bit better?

[HKGuns]

2. More diameter, less light at given power.

This is wrong OP. Larger diameter = MORE light at a given power.

For the ranges you're talking about a fixed power scope would also be a workable option, something like 4X. No zoom will give you a better performing optic for the money. Just like a prime camera lens will ALWAYS be better performing than any zoom lens. Zoom lenses are always a compromise in some area. (I usually always buy 3-9 or 4-10/12 for the flexibility offered, but your intended use is different than mine.)

50mm is pretty big and you'll have to ensure you get the proper height scope rings. I have 50's and they are larger and heavier than the 40mm equivalents. But they're also a bit brighter in low light conditions, because of the larger diameter lens out front.

Eye relief is a separate measurement that isn't necessarily related to either the objective or the magnification of the scope.

JMR "may" be correct about the 50 vs. 40mm at the higher magnifications, however that depends on the design of the optics and I think the better scopes are brighter at higher levels of magnification with larger objectives. But I don't design scope optics so I'm not willing to argue he is wrong on that point.

I own both the Leupold VX3's and Nikon Monarch's and find they are brighter and clearer than their lower priced brothers and hence, worth the extra money.

Edited to add: Here is a pretty useful link with well presented and simple information that may help you. http://www.myoan.net/tipstricks/riflescopeterm.html

 

[35 Whelen]

Listen to the guys recommending lower power scopes. I assure you they're the voice of experience. My elk rifle sports a 4X Burris and it's perfect. My last bull was shot at exactly 355 yds and 4x was more than ample magnification. Nice thing about fixed power scopes is there's nothing to fiddle with.

I have a few variables and a couple of 3-9x40's. They're OK, but like Art, I keep them set on 3 or 4X except when sighting in. On most any deer hunting rig a 2-7x32 will be more than you'll ever need.

35W

 

[baylorattorney]

Depending on the rifle, Leupold makes fine scopes and now that they have acquired Redfield, Redfield is IMO good again too. I like variables like 3-9x but prefer fixed 4x or 6x, they seem to catch/transmit the light better at dusk. If you really want a top of the top of the line optics experience Swarvosky is the bees knees, Zeiss a runner up. The crystals in there are the best, but I'm fine with Leupold.

Bought a Redfield Revolution for a friend for Christmas and was so impressed I bought one for me too. Then again NEW was always my favorite.

 

[jmr40]

JMR "may" be correct about the 50 vs. 40mm at the higher magnifications, however that depends on the design of the optics and I think the better scopes are brighter at higher levels of magnification with larger objectives. But I don't design scope optics so I'm not willing to argue he is wrong on that point.

If you are using scopes of equal quality, with equal quality glass then I am correct. But better quaity glass will trump larger size. It is not uncommon for a good quality 40mm scope to do much better in low light than a budget scope in 50mm.

Also everyones eyes are different. It isn't hard to calculate exactly how much light gets through the scope by dividing the scopes front objectice diameter by the scope power. A 50mm scope will let in more light, but how much the eye can utilize is the question. A 50mm scope at 4X will let in 12.5mm of light. A 40mm scope at 4X will let in only 10mm. The human eye cannot use anything over 5-7mm so the extra light is wasted. At 4X you will never notice the difference. Assuming scopes of equal quality.

Where some folks disagree is when you get in between 5-7mm. For example a 50mm at 7X lets in 7.1mm of light. A 40mm at 7X lets in about 5.7mm. With some folks eyes, they may not be able to detect any difference. Others eyes may be abe to use the extra light and they will notice a big difference. If you are still in your 20's and have excellent eyesight I think you may be more likely to take advantage of the difference.

A 50 can be helpful. A 50mm at 10X will let in exactly the same amount of light as a 40mm at 8X, and this is about the limit of useable light for most shooters. But if trying to find antlers on an animal right at the edge of legal shooting light, being able to use the scope at 10X instead of 8X COULD make a difference. Move the power adjustment ring on a 40mm scope above 8X right at dark and you will see a difference.

Personal preference, but I prefer to stay 40mm or even smaller. The slight advantage in useable light is more than offet by having a larger, heavier scope that must be mounted higher. To some the gain is worth it.

 

[Bobson]

I hate to be the guy who addresses the carpenter's boots when he asks for advice on building a bench, but so be it. I'd steer clear of the .300WM, if the game (and locations) you listed are pretty much a sure thing. .270 or .30-06 are going to be plenty for any Virginia whitetail or black bear, and it may surprise you to learn that some of your game will be even smaller in the PNW. There are extremely few whitetail in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (compared to the blacktail population, at least); and blacktail deer are typically a fair bit smaller than the whitetail you folks hunt on the east side of the country. Black bear probably won't be much different in size at all. If you decide to get into hunting elk in the PNW, .270 or .30-06 will do well there too.

I'm sure you've gotten some great advice as far as optics, and combined with the fact that this is new ground for me too, I won't bother muddying the water.

Keep us posted on your quest for a rifle. You definitely have your work cut out for you, because that really is a huge field of varying price ranges and quality (though I don't doubt the Savage Axis will suffice for most hunting applications). Interested to see what you select.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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 Weaver is a real sleeper these days -- a fine scope and a reasonable price.

I personally prefer fixed power scopes -- less to go wrong, and in more than 50 years of big game hunting, I have only used a variable power scope one time set on anything than the lowest setting.

As for long range shooting, I have paced out many a "400 yard" shot that turned out to be around 150 yards in reality.

 

[BrocLuno]

Vern about covers the "reality" of it

 

[pitty920]

Simmons is worse than barska come on, you don't have to go out and spenD a grand on a scope, a Nikon is all u need, prostaff is almost equal to buckmaster and monarch, u are just paying for the name and a few Bells and whistles, 90 % light trans is all u need for a scope up to 14 power, get to 18 and up u might want a monarch, the buck master only gives 92% so the extra price is not worth it, although if u go with the buckmater sf, which stands for side focus, and it may include 1/8 mil adj. which makes your long range adjustments twice as precise the. Yes it is worth it, just do your research before you buy, and always look at the bad reviews, because their is almost always the love it hate it, and a lot of times the lovers are the companies selling them to u paying a third party company to give good reviews, the actual customer reviews are often buried or even deleted after time, so don't go buy the first reviews, see what the haters have to say! They don't give everything they buy five stars. Because they know what makes a good product.

 

[pitty920]

And as for variable power vs fixed, variable power is a huge advantage, having that range of magnafication is unparalleled. The only real problem which I think they were hinting at is the zero return, on some cheap scopes when u change your power shoot and go to another power the rifle is no longer zeroed properly n that power,it is only a big problem on the lower bracket of optics, Simmons, barska... As long as u go at least to a Nikon, Leupold, weaver,Redfield, Bushnell elite and up from there u are pretty safe from this phenomenon, these scopes are top of the line quality, sure u could pay triple this for a night force, but is it worth triple, no not even double, I would say 1.5 times the value, and most people who buy them besides true marksman who push 800 yards for fun then they just want the recognition that they have the most expensive crap on their Barbie gun. A Nikon buckmater SF 6X18 is one of the best scopes I have ever used. to any noobs out there, don't go saying they suck cause u use them with the scope rings in the box, that is one thing that seperates me from a noob, I know that a solid scope mount is just as important as a scope, they are not too much, $65-125, but well worth it. And BTW u don't have to start a thread cause most likely there are a few identical if u would search for them

 

[BrocLuno]

Wow, I never knew ??

 

[Thomas2]

I hunt same animals using 30-06, 308 in NC. I love my Nikon Buckmasters 4.5-14X40 with Side focus and Bullet Drop Compensator recticle on both rifles. You can focus in at 50 yards or zoom right out to 300 in a sec. Light gathering is amazing for the size, and the recticle has something about it that makes it seem to actually glow in low light. Don't no how they did that, but it works for me. But I do like being able to focus at close distances. Hard to do with some that don't have adjustable objective. Plus for under 300 dollars its a whole lot of scope for the money. Best wishes!
BTW, like Pitty920 said above, get some good steel rings! Nikon makes a steel quick detach set that sells for around 80 bucks that are great.

 

[helotaxi]

Well designed and built aluminum rings are more than strong enough and weigh less. Put it this way, your scope's tube is aluminum. If you drop the rifle hard enough to break something, you want the rings/base to give or the scope tube?

 

[KodiakBeer]

I like a 1x5 scope. You don't need 9 or 12 power magnification to hit a deer through the lungs at any distance you should be shooting a deer at. 4x or 5x gives you all the magnification you'll ever need.

At the same time, if you keep your scope at 1x while walking you can instantly find that close range running deer you just jumped in your scope.

 

[denton]

Ask a question about scopes, and you're sure to start a long thread....

Contrary to what the optics industry wants people to believe, really good quality glass is pretty cheap to make. The expense comes in putting it together in a form that will stay put, not fog, and that will hold zero. For a time, I was the Marketing Product Manager for a line of specialty cameras, and I know what we were paying for fairly large multi-element lenses. They were surprisingly cheap. Even back then. The shutters they were mounted in were invariably more costly.

Nikon has gotten to be a favorite of mine, and I have a couple of Leupolds. Neither have ever disappointed me. The ProStaff series seems to offer very good optics, but the outside coating on the scope is less durable than their other lines.

Simmons and Swift both make scopes with fine bright images, and terrible geometric distortion. The image looks like it's on the surface of a sphere. If you're looking at a hillside a couple of hundred yards away, and move your eye left and right, the hillside will appear to slump away on one side. It's really funny. Makes it hard to shoot when you are laughing so hard.

In the early days, lenses were just plain glass. That's a little bit of a problem in a multi-element system, because about 4% of the incident light gets reflected at an air/glass interface. The loss of light intensity is not that important. What is very important is that the reflected light tends to get scattered inside the scope, and becomes a "light haze" that makes it impossible to see details in deep shadow. You'll really notice this if you are scoping a deer in deep shade at the tree line, looking toward the sun.

The first answer was simple quarter wave lens coatings. They help a lot. But they only match the central part of the spectrum well. Multi-coatings match the entire optical spectrum, and reduce that 4% to almost nil. That lets you see deep shadow detail better.

So look for a system with all multi-coated lenses. Multi-coating is a very mature technology, and nobody has a corner on any kind of coating that others can't easily duplicate.

Unless you're doing something especially odd, forget 50mm objectives. In almost all hunting situations (excluding hunting by the light of the full moon), all it accomplishes is causing the pupil of your eye to constrict more.

3-9 zoom is plenty for 99% of cases. If you're not shooting elk at 800 yards or doing benchrest shooting, don't waste your money on 4-12 or more. It really is just a waste. 2-7 is another great choice, for exactly the reason KodiakBeer states.

Don't forget the fixed 4X. They are hard to find these days, but they do tend to be less expensive, more rugged, and lighter weight. I found a Pentax 4X on closeout, and got it for a song. It is brilliantly clear and very rugged. People at the range who look through it immediately want one.

Eye relief is dependent on ocular lens design and on magnification. Higher magnification tends toward shorter eye relief.

Long dissertation... hope it helps.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Don't forget the fixed 4X. They are hard to find these days, but they do tend to be less expensive, more rugged, and lighter weight. I found a Pentax 4X on closeout, and got it for a song. It is brilliantly clear and very rugged. People at the range who look through it immediately want one.

Amen.

I just picked up a 4X Weaver (a real sleeper in my opinion) to mount on Fionn MacCumhaill, my 1939 Winchester Model 70.