lower power scope?

[d2wing]

For several years I've used 3-9, and 4-12 scopes on my deer rifles. This year I wasn't able to find a deer in my scope twice in cover in time to shoot with my scope on the lowest power. Iron sights would not help. I don't know if I should get a 1-4, 2-7, or what. The area I hunt is mixed, some dense woods and brush, some openings and some fields. I've had shots for 30 yards to 400. A red dot would be quick but I'd like to be able to take shots up to 300 yards but need quick target finding in dense cover. Anybody have experience with these lower power scopes?
What brand hopefully $250 or less ok?

 

[wankerjake]

I've had shots for 30 yards to 400

Sounds like the extra power may be warranted. I'd stick with either a 3x9 or 4-12, and when you are in thick stuff turn the power down to the lowest setting. 2x7 would probably work too, but for 400 yards shots I personally think 9-12x would be desired. 3.5-10x would be a good one too.

I hear good things about Nikon scopes, both the Prostaff and Buckmaster should easily be in that range. May also try Weaver. I've had real good luck with their older scopes, but haven't shot a newer one.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

d2wing, first off, what cartridges are your 2 rifles that you are talking about? Are they both capable of longer ranges or is one a "brush gun" and the other a "field gun"? I ask because you may be fine with the higher range scope on one and would only need the lower power on the other. My .444 Marlin wears a 2.5-7 Nikon shotgun/muzzle loader scope and I keep it cranked down on the lowest setting in the woods. Works great in those conditions and if I have a shot out in the field out to 200 the 7 power is perfect.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

I too like and feel the need for lower power scopes on some of my rifles. On my Marlin .45-70 Guide Gun I have one of the new Weaver Classic scopes (Japan) and it is great.

It is a 1-3X and like all the new Weaver Classics, it has fully multi-coated lenses. I have Weaver Classics on several rifles...like'em!

 

[Mr_Pale_Horse]

I have used 2-7 and 1.5-4.5 many years and have this setup currently (Nikon Monarch UCC):

 

[Grumulkin]

Here's a crow I took with my T/C Contender in 204 Ruger topped with a Leupold 2-7X scope at a range of 311 yards. I would conclude that a scope set at 7X would be adequate for deer sized game at 400 yards. For closer ranges, the 2X range of the scope should work well. You could probably even go with a 1.5-5X scope.

You should also be able to find a Leupold scope easily in your price range. Since Leupld honors their lifetime warranty even if you bought the scope used, I see no downside to buying used Leuopld scopes.

 

[Art Eatman]

Because my father was observed in killing bucks to 500 yards, I've always figured that a 4X or 6X scope met the "need" factor for deer hunting, since that's what he had on his two sporterized Springfields.

My own longest kill with a variable set on a low power was at 350 yards. My 3x9 was set on 3X. I hit pretty much exactly where I wanted to.

Based on that, I'd figure a 1.5x5 would pretty much take care of most any deer hunting situation except maybe very marginal light before sunrise or after sunset.

 

[Hangingrock]

Not meant to be confrontational but how do you know the distances stipulated. Do you have a means of measuring such as a range finder or equivalent method? Scope magnification is a paradox in application with regards to distance and field of view.

How often do you handle your rifle? Since I live in a rural area I’m able to practice shouldering the rifle at specified aiming points at various distances. This practice allows me to acquire the point of aim in the field of view quickly.

Rifle fit is a problematic issue for ease of usage also. Is it you fitting the rifle or the rifle fitting you in regard to length of pull, head position, eye relief and etcetera?

What I’ve found is that for my circumstance the 1.75-6X Leupold Vari X-III works with the power setting at 1.75X out to approximately 200yds dependent on circumstance. This is the first variable that I’ve owned. The higher power settings are wasted on me.

 

[heeler]

I have far more 2x7(5) scopes than 3x9(2).
They work very well and are generally lighter and give in my situation more balance to the rifle.

 

[chas08]

When I recieved my first rifle scope, a Weaver K4, 39+ years ago. I had the same problem. I practiced shouldering the gun and finding what I was looking at, much like you would do mounting drills with a shotgun. After I became proficient with that, I started tossing a ball in the air and trying to get it in the scope before it hit the ground. This too, eventually became easy. Though I don't practice like I once did the ability has never left me. When I mount any of my scoped rifles, they are looking at, what I was looking at. This seems to hold true regardless of power setting. I attribute this to learning to bring the gun and scope to my eye and not my eye to the gun and scope. I do prefer the lowest power setting in heavy cover as a rule, but more for the field of vision around what I'm looking at than the ability to find it.

 

[natman]

For several years I've used 3-9, and 4-12 scopes on my deer rifles. This year I wasn't able to find a deer in my scope twice in cover in time to shoot with my scope on the lowest power. Iron sights would not help.

If you can't hit a deer on 7 power it's too far away. OTOH there is a huge difference in how easy it is to find your target in cover between a 2 and a 3 power. Remember a 3 power is 50% more than a 2.

Get a 2-7x. I'm fond of the Leupold VX2. Be aware that it's a short scope, so you may need extension rings on a long action rifle.

 

[d2wing]

Ok, I have 8 deer rifles, For The last couple years I've used an AR with a 4-12 scope, I
also use a 30-06 and 7mm. I want to rescope a 30-06 and the AR. I don't know why you ask but I have checked the range to landmarks where I hunt with a rangefinder. The problem is I hunt on a relatives land my stand was moved to denser cover. Unlike tv shows, the deer I hunt are wild. I don't have pet names for them and They don't stand around in the open waiting for a less than 100 yard shot. I have a few seconds to get my scope on them as they move through trees and brush or a field. I am happy with the scopes I have but either my eyes are going or the deer are faster and the brush thicker. I'd like info or review of whatever specific scopes you'd use. I'm leaning toward a Leopold 2-7 or not sure about a 1-4.

 

[Hangingrock]

d2wing:I don't know why you ask but I have checked the range to landmarks where I hunt with a rangefinder.

Most people are poor estimators of range. They operate under the WAG (wild-ass-guess) principle. When the actual range is known then its easier in my opinion to recommend a telescopic sight power range and field of view parameters.

 

[d2wing]

Yeah another part is my nephew kindly put up a stand for me but the deer don't always
come out in front or to my left. Twice I was trying to quietly twist around on the tree stand to shoot at 2 deer on my right. Both times by the time I go a sight picture
all I saw was the flash of a white tail. Not a shot I'd take. But I had trouble with deer in cover right in front of me. I did get one but not the one I wanted. I need to see the deer and pick an opening to shoot through as well from odd angles. Maybe I should go with the 2-7 as suggested and add a red dot at a 45 degree angle?

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

I don't have pet names for them and They don't stand around in the open waiting for a less than 100 yard shot

I have pet names for all my deer. "Breakfast, Lunch, and DINNER!"

 

[d2wing]

LOL, good one. As I am home sick I watched some hunting shows. Several had nicknames for the deer, They knew when and where the deer walked or stood on an open field, the hunting party stood around jawing, picking out the best monster to shoot.
Then someone would take forever to take a close range supported shot as the the deer waited. How exciting. Less sporting than watching a farmer kill a steer with a sledge hammer to the head. I'd rather watch Sarah Palin miss that caribou.
I'd be embarrassed to be seem doing that. It's not hunting, it's shooting pets. Not that I would not do it. I'm just not impressed by it.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

Welcome to High fence "hunting" shows!

 

[griff383]

Vortex Viper, I started with the 6.5-20 and that was a bit too much for hunting but was a great target/ long range scope. I downsized to the 2-7 with the dead-hold BDC reticle and was amazed at how well it performed for such a small scope. The Viper series is amazingly clear and super easy to adjust once zero is found. Once rifle is zeroed to your preference all you do is pull up on the turret, line zero on the turret and the arrow on the scope up, and set back down, done. SWFA is selling them for 170 because Vortex is discontinuing the line due to lack of sales for that particular model.

http://swfa.com/Vortex-2-7x32-Viper-Rifle-Scope-P11226.aspx

Im thinking about getting one or two more at this price for future use.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

On hunting rifles I have either a 2.5x Scout Scope or a 4x. There is a local range that goes out to 300 yards and I find both are more than adequate for that far out and I suspect the would be fine out to 400 yards. My personal ethical max shooting distance is 150 to 200 yards and I fell the fixed low powers are great and likely less prone to breakage.

 

[OYE]

I've used a Leupold VX 2 2 X 7 power for elk and deer for about 25 years. It's a short scope and since it's cold out here I used a reversible front Leupold mount and an extension front ring to compensate for heavy clothing. I have also used a Leupold VX1 3 X 9 at times. Both have the front dovetail mount. Neither have lost zero traveling on horseback. The 2 X 7 took a dump out of a saddle scabbard once and even held zero then. My first scope and mount, and one I still use on occasion, is a 2.5 power Lyman Alaskan with a QR Griffin and Howe side mount. Not sure there is a lot of difference between 2 and 3 power on the low end. I would probably still be using the Lyman if it didn't fog up in wet, murky weather. Made several 300 - 425 yd shots with that old scope. There are probably many other brands of scopes just as good. That is my personal experience though.

 

[pappy19]

Best all around scope that I have ever used is an older Redfield-Widefield 2-7 Duplex. They are hard to come by any more, but for me, that scope will work anywhere unless you're shooting prarie dogs at 400+ yards. In the dense woods, the 2X works perfect. That's where I shoot most of my deer and elk is on the 2X power.

Pap

 

[OYE]

Heard good things about those old Redfields. The only pick I ever had with Redfield was
that I broke the center piece on a pair of their lifetime guaranteed waterproof 10 X 50
binoculars when they were in bankruptcy. The court had set up some foreigner outfit in Florida to service the guarantee ( which was now worthless ). They wanted me to send 20.00 and the binoculars to them for a "repair estimate". Sounded like a ripoff to me
and I didn't bother. I still use one of their spotting scopes that I bought about the same time that has worked real well.

 

[bucktail]

I got my deer inside of 10 yards this year with a 3-9 set on 3X. It fit into the FOV with plenty of room to spare. I'd look at the fit of the rifle before I went out and bought new scopes. When you shoulder the rifle keeping both eyes open, the deer (whatever else) should be right there.

Not that a 1.5-4.5 or similar won't work at reasonable ranges for big game, but what you have should work just fine. I've had good luck with my Swift scopes (the 3-9 mentioned above was a swift) I picked up a Swift 1.5-4.5 at a gun show for $30 and mounted it on an AR. Looks good so far. It's about a $100 scope new. Hard not to like Leupold 2-7's (I like their 2.5-8 better, but it isn't much of a change from the 3X on the lower end and it may be a little out of the price range if you can't find a used one)

 

[Robert Wilson]

In my experience, FOV at 25 yards is fine with 4x. Without meaning to be offensive, I'm not sure that lower power would have helped the OP, especially if he's in the habit of shooting with one eye closed.

On the other side of the coin, I've never seen the need for more than 4x (or perhaps 6x) at realistic hunting ranges. I believe higher powers make people think they can hit big game animals at longer ranges, which is a very dangerous thing. But a little extra power is, at worst, harmless (at least for the man who knows his limitations) and can give a confidence boost when used at the long end of responsible hunting range - say 200 to 300 yards.

So to my way of thinking, a 2-7 or 3-9 scope is essentially ideal for most hunters, and a fixed 2.5x, 4x, or 6x is perfect for anyone who isn't worried about trends.

Then you just have to go practice. My hat is off to the fellow who spent time safely pointing his rifle at aerial targets.

 

[H&Hhunter]

My personal favorite and one that I've killed hundreds of critters with on several different rifle is the Leupold VX III in 1.75X6. You just can't go wrong with that scope.