Quantcast

Scope my 270 Win...

Discussion in 'Long Gun Accessories and Optics' started by ExAgoradzo, Sep 13, 2018.

  1. ExAgoradzo

    ExAgoradzo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,219
    Location:
    Central Coast of Liberal California
    But do it for less than $300; $400 at the far end max...

    Ruge M77 Mk I (1978) 22” (nominal) barrel

    I intend to hunt with this at 300 and less. I don’t pretend to be a long distance hunter. Having said that, being able to see something at 400 will make hitting something at 300 easier.

    Thanks,
    Greg
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2018
  2. js8588

    js8588 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2013
    Messages:
    477
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
  3. troy fairweather

    troy fairweather Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    874
    the older long tube scopes fit the rugers nice. most of the new scopes have a short tube so the scope has to be more foreword then what is comfortable to most shooters. i would stay under 10 power max. maybe try to find a older Leopold vx-2 or 3 there are a good combo with rugers.
     
    LoonWulf likes this.
  4. carpboy

    carpboy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    I have a couple of the Nikon Monarch 3s,like the one advertised in the link.I really like them.Check Natchez Shooters Supply. They have deals every now and then.
     
    RugerOldArmy, js8588 and LoonWulf like this.
  5. cdb1

    cdb1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    Justin, TX
    I’d try to find a VX-2 on close out.
     
    troy fairweather and LoonWulf like this.
  6. LoonWulf

    LoonWulf Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2010
    Messages:
    6,340
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I personally still like a low end round 2-4 and a high end of 9-14. Objectives sized 35-44 on sporters.

    I just received a Leupold vx-freedom 2-7x33 in replacement of my dad's old vx-ii. I'll recommend that line of Leupold, and also in the 200 dollar range the Burris FF-2s.
    I like Nikon's also.
     
    mdauben and troy fairweather like this.
  7. ExAgoradzo

    ExAgoradzo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,219
    Location:
    Central Coast of Liberal California
    Thanks guys!
    Greg
     
    js8588 likes this.
  8. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    11,270
    Location:
    Georgia
    I like the Burris FF-II better than anything else under $400 including the sub $400 Leupolds, and it is right at $200 most places. I see them on sale for $160-$180 at times.
     
  9. DDDWho

    DDDWho Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    241
    I have a Leupold VX1 3-9 X 40 on my Ruger 77 Hawkeye in .280 Rem I bought it off ebay for IIRC $140. For the 10 days per year I actually use the rifle it works just fine.

    IMG_0590.jpg
     
    Slamfire likes this.
  10. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    8,643
    Location:
    Alabama
    Do you have a Cabelas in your area? Periodically they will have this Leupold American Marksman on sale for $150.00, which is a bargin for a 3 X 9. https://www.cabelas.com/product/LEUPOLD-AMERICAN-MARKSMAN-IN-RIFLESCOPE/2582141.uts They have Nikon prostaff's on sale, one 3X9 is at $150.

    Last year I purchased three of the American Marksman scopes, optically they are great, I much prefer these reticles with MOA graduations, especially on the windage, than the old standard duplex reticle. With the graduations, I can hold off without having to touch the knobs. Even with expensive target scopes, you never know if they will track each time, every time. Last year I purchased a Vortex 4 X 12 which was on sale, there are differences in the graduations, the Luepold is a straight MOA distance, Vortex had attempted a bullet drop version on the vertical staff of the reticle. Based on my decades of target shooting, I think in terms of clicks and MOA, so I prefer the MOA.

    UlR1mgh.jpg
    Something I liked about both of the scopes are the click adjustable knobs, and knobs that can be adjusted for a zero distance. I am used to having 100 yards as my rifle zero's, and then clicking up, typically 2 MOA for 200 yards, then 3 MOA for 300 yards, then 12 MOA for 600 yards. On older scopes I have to use white fingernail polish to establish the base line zero. You can see that on the 70's 6X Burris scope in this picture:

    jl5ItAK.jpg


    Even with modern scopes I will mark out zero's on turrets or scopes for zero's at 200, 300 yards, with the base line load. I much prefer knobs that movable, typically have an allen head screw that allows moving the knob to a sight zero. While I have a number of 1970's Luepold scopes, I don't like the coin slotted elevation or windage adjustments. I want to take the cap off and click (older hunting scopes seldom click) without having to find a screwdriver, a coin, or a washer. Incidentally the image you see through a good quality scope from the 1970's won't be different than a modern scope. As long as the lenses were fully multicoated, the better scopes are as good optically as lenses are today. Cheap vintage scopes were not fully multicoated nor was the glass as good. Today, they can't make a profit sorting out bad glass, bad coatings, and having production runs with sub standard components, so pretty much the quality of lenses is much more uniform over a wider price range. I remember that a 1970's $100 Tasco spotting scope would not see 22 caliber bullets at 100 yards. A modern cheap $100 spotting scope will. It surprising how lens quality has improved even for cheap scopes. If a teenager can't see differences in details through a scope, neither will you. Take a teenage with you and use him as your test instrument. At some point, you have to get an optical interferometer out to sort lens quality, because of the limitations of human eye. I think the internal components are better on the higher priced equipment, but I have not taken a scope apart to find out!.

    I will say, my cheap $100 Barisak spotting scope could see the difference between the color of pasters on a target face at 500 yards, paster and paster edges were fuzzy but I could tell there were pasters by the color change. My $1000 Pentax could see white on the edges of the black pasters. Pasters were much clearer. Zoomed up, the Barisaka image was green outside of the middle, the Pentax was clear and even colored throughout the field of view at all zoom levels. A $200 dollar spotting scope, I think I will need a teenager to tell the difference.Two hundred dollar spotting scopes are pretty good.

    TLw8oOE.jpg

    With my eyes, image clarity is the same, between a $200 spotting scope and a $700 spotting scope.You do get better lens covers with a more expensive scope, and you don't have to buy an expensive scope cover.

    ON1xlvd.jpg

    It is surprising how tight you can hold with even a 4X scope at distance. I installed a vintage El Paso Weaver on this rifle and took it to the CMP.

    YSI4JZj.jpg

    It took a bunch of shots to get it in the middle, just a little movement on the elevation and windage, and it might move the group a bit, might not, and it might jump the group. I had to shoot enough to settle the erector tube and make sure it was not moving. But, once in the middle, I could quarter the bull, and shoot a decent group, if you ignore cracked case necks.

    xYdJUKe.jpg

    You go shoot a 17 round 5 3/4" group at 300 yards with a hunting rifle.

    G7KtSDC.jpg

    But, this cheap scope, and it was a low priced scope at the time, I doubt the lenses were fully multi coated, the image was a little grey, and not as clear as a modern scope.

    Because the rifle was very accurate and I wanted to play with it, I purchased a clearer scope

    2QG7BEe.jpg

    These 4 X 12's are longer, so if you are a stock crawler, such as I am, you might be getting an eye piece in the eyeball during recoil. Shorter scopes have their advantages. These 40mm scopes don't put the scope so high up that your face needs an adjustable cheek piece to see through the center. A consistent stock weld is critically important to consistent shooting. If your face is hovering above the cheekpiece, because your scope is so high, your groups will move around. I prefer a stock and scope arrangement where I press my face against the cheekpiece, that will consistently locate the eye ball. It makes a difference on target.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
    Charliefrank likes this.
  11. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    54,163
    Location:
    Alabama
    Yep, and something, with all the push towards more magnification in the last decade or so, the younger crowd doesn't seem to have much experience with. I like high magnification as much as anyone, but not on a hunting rifle.
     
    Laphroaig and Slamfire like this.
  12. homers

    homers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    403
    Not knowing your hunting conditions other than out to 300 yards and what animals... I'd suggest the leupold vx3i 2.5-8x36 2.5 is great for closer ranges and 8x will get you to 300-400 for hunting. Can be had within your budget.
     
    Bwana John likes this.
  13. badkarmamib

    badkarmamib Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    Virginia
    2ndtimer and LoonWulf like this.
  14. ExAgoradzo

    ExAgoradzo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,219
    Location:
    Central Coast of Liberal California
    Thanks guys!

    Greg
     
  15. Laphroaig

    Laphroaig Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,100
    Location:
    W. PA
    That's some nice shooting Slamfire! You are certainly blessed to have the Talladega range in your backyard.

    I always try to mount my scopes as low as possible. I find that low rings usually work for 40/42 mm objectives that I like for a hunting optic.

    I have a huge difference in eye relief between prone and the other field positions and can never find a distance that is comfortable for all positions. I think that I am a stock crawler too. I have rarely taken a prone shot while hunting.
     
  16. Charliefrank

    Charliefrank Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2017
    Messages:
    539
    Vortex crossfire 3 x 9 x 32 sell for around $129.00. For that price you can't go wrong. I've got a Tasco World Class 2 x 7 x 32 on my 270. It's 26 years old now and still going strong. I think I paid around $130.00 for it new.
     
  17. cdb1

    cdb1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    Justin, TX
    I absolutely can’t stand the Crossfire. Different strokes. Fullfield II is much much better for not a lot more money IMO.
     
    2ndtimer likes this.
  18. Mosin Bubba

    Mosin Bubba Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    832
    I've got a Redfield Revolution 3x9. It's a little more expensive than some of the scopes being listed (about $200, maybe $250 at the max), and I can't say if it's any better, but I would put it on a .270 and take it hunting without a single doubt in it.
     
    2ndtimer likes this.
  19. Garandimal

    Garandimal Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    267
    Location:
    Lee of Death Valley, ...where Tigers feed.
    Have an old Leupold Vari-X II 3-9x40mm on my Remington .270 WIN.

    WP_20180617_11_54_18_Pro.2.jpg

    Over 30 Seasons now.

    Put a Leupold VX-1 2-7x33mm (the old Var-X II with click adjustment) on my Ruger 77/357 and like it a lot, too, and would put it on the .270 WIN in a heartbeat.

    ~$200.




    GR
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2018
  20. Bwana John

    Bwana John Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,940
    Around here older Luey Vari-X II, 3-9X x 40mm go for less than $250 all day long, and for the money you won't be able to beat it.
     
  21. LoonWulf

    LoonWulf Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2010
    Messages:
    6,340
    Location:
    Hawaii
    FF-2s, and the Leupold vx-freedoms are new for 200ish and carry better glass.
    Personally I'd chose a Nikon prostaff or older buckmasters over a Roman numeral VX, but that's mostly to do with how I see thru them.
    The VX-IIs are going for 125-175 here right now, and at that price I might buy one, but imo there are better options in that price range as well.
     
  22. Charliefrank

    Charliefrank Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2017
    Messages:
    539
    To each their own. I bought a Nikon buckmaster 3 weeks ago for $129.00. 4 x 12 x 40. I haven't used it enough yet to recommend it.
     
  23. cdb1

    cdb1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    Justin, TX
    Like I said, different strokes.
     
    Charliefrank likes this.
  24. Legionnaire
    • Contributing Member

    Legionnaire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,088
    Location:
    Texas
  25. cdb1

    cdb1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    Justin, TX
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice