How do you figure a scope with the ability to be set to the SAME magnification the “wrong tool for the job”?
I guess if you were a miserable fudd who only shoots a box of ammunition a year who zeroed his rifle in 1977 and has never pulled the trigger when the muzzle wasn’t pointed at something covered in hair a 4x would keep you happy.
But some of us like to hunt AND care about how a rifle shoots on the range. As to “less complicated” I buy quality optics that don’t fail. I guess if you want to order whatever BSncVorStar that cheaper than dirt has on sale then a simple scope may be more reliable.
A Ruger American is an extremely lightweight rifle. There’s no 3x9x40 scope made that would make one even slightly cumbersome to carry.
And on price I can absolutely pay $200 for a variable scope that will have better glass and optical coatings than the FX leupold. The Pro Staff comes to mind as does Sightron and even a Zeiss isn’t much more than that FX
Wow, that's a bit of a triggered response, must've touched a nerve somewhere. Like I said, if you don't need a 3-9x, then it is the wrong tool for the job. Sure, plenty of folks use them but again, that's irrelevant. You've clearly convinced yourself that you need a 3-9x so enjoy yourself. Regardless of your seemingly narrow-minded opinion, a hell of a lot of hunting can easily be done with a 4x. Personally, I think people are just afraid of not having enough when having too much is much more likely and much more difficult to deal with.
Generalizations and stereotypes are unproductive and usually inaccurate. IMHO, a "miserable fudd" is more likely to have a Walmart Special 3-9x than anything. That's not a productive comment either.
Now we get down to brass tacks. You really like the 3-9x because you can see your targets better at the range. A hunting rifle scope should be chosen for hunting, not range use. I'm going to be blunt, if you can't shoot sub-MOA at 100yds with a sub-MOA rifle wearing a 4x scope, you're doing something wrong. Sounds like your 3-9x is more of a crutch, as it is for many.
Newsflash, all optics fail, regardless of quality or brand. Better optics are just less likely to. A fixed scope is even less likely because there is less to fail.
Disagree entirely. It is VERY easy to over-scope a rifle but if you're already convinced that yours is the onliest-best choice, then I guess that point is lost on you.
I used Leupold as an example because it's easier to compare them.....to each other. That should've been obvious.
An FX1 is a rimfire scope so that is irrelevant. An FX2 is $300 at midway and the field of view is listed at 24' at 100 yards. A VX1 3-9x40 is $175 on optics planet and the field of view is 34.6' at 100 yards. I'm sorry but on the basis of field of view alone a 3-9x40 is a much more sensible choice for woods hunting. I can't argue about the 2 oz difference in weight. I don't think the length has any relevance to me. I've no interest in any less power than 2-3x so the 1-4's just don't do anything for me. Most 2-7x32's don't have much better field of views than 3-9's so I don't really like them. My choice of scope is not due to stupidity or ignorance or following trends, it's from a good bit of research and looking through and hunting with a bunch of scopes to find what's right for me. I'm glad your happy with your choices too.
The fact that the FX1 is a rimfire scope is entirely irrelevant. It's not made to lesser standards than centerfire scopes, it's just set parallax free at 50yds (or 75?). It would be right at home on a lightweight centerfire.
If FOV is your most important criteria then you should really love a 1-4x, with double the FOV of a 3-9x. Curious though, you think a 3-9x is so much better than a 4x with 10' broader FOV but disregard the 2-7x which also has a 10' broader FOV than a 3-9x. I guess people like what they like and they don't like to be challenged on it.
