what do you guys think?

[kyhunter]

I was told by a LGS owner I was going about this (in a more appropriate way) bassackards. I wanted a set power 4 x scope for my Rem 700 .30-06 since I only shoot it within 300 yds usually less than 100 since its an ironsighted hunting rifle. I only hunt woods and field lines generally. And I had a 4-12 on and older .30-06 the rifle was basically a POS but i never needed anything over 4x. The 12x was way too much zoom for large game at relatively close ranges.

But I wanted a 10x for my soon to be CZ 455 FS with mildots since its a .22 WMR for varmints and paper punching. These generally constitute a higher degree of accuracy and smaller kill zones/bullseyes.

 

[Texan Scott]

Sounds like you have well thought out reasons... who cares what the hired help thinks? Politely suggest he be content to shut up and take your money.

 

[Cryogaijin]

Sounds like me, really. I have a fixed 4 on my .308, and a decently strong variable on my .17hmr, for virtually exactly the same reasons.

With the .308 I think acquisition time and simplicity is more important than massive zoom, where the .17hmr needs the zoom for the pinpoint accuracy the cart provides.

 

[chicharrones]

Less magnification for a hunting rifle with bigger targets and more magnification for a varmint rifle with smaller targets? That sounds downright reasonable and even logical.

 

[adelbridge]

I just got a Leupold VX-R 4-12 yesterday and for fun I compared it to a POS NcStar pistolero fixed 4X EER I had laying around. Guess what? Pistolero is actually clearer glass with both set to 4X. VX-R is very slightly milkier but not obnoxious and certainly an incredible scope. Fixed 4X is going to give you better resolution but not better accuracy. fixed power is also lighter and more compact with less to go wrong. The problem with fixed 4X is the reticle covers up a large portion of target at 300 yards. No one says you have to use 12X or even 10X on a variable 4-12X scope. You have plenty of intermediate magnification to work with. I prefer 12X or higher for bench shooting and tend to stay around 6-9x when I hunt

 

[jstein650]

I share you thinking for a fixed power scope. On my last '06 I had a 6x Weaver, which I thought was a good compromise, good FOV, plus a bit more reach. For me, a funny thing happens at lower magnifications, as well as a good peep on a rifle. I have more confidence when I can put the 'hairs or bead on target and pull the trigger without getting worked up at the crosshairs jumping all over with every heartbeat. I have proven to myself that I actually often shoot BETTER than with a scope cranked up to 9 or 12.

 

[hardluk1]

Everone has to find what works best for them. I have shoot deer at 20feet and at 411 yards. I use enought scope to cover what i want. Higher power give me a last good look to be sure its a animal thats worthy of takeing. Nothing worse than to not have enought scope to make a quality shot or to miss judge your target. Like a doe at 300 yards that turns out to be a late seaon butt head buck. Or what looks to be larger than it is. Or miss a thick woods shot in the heavily wooded bottom because you not not pick up a branch in the way just before the target.

I have not had a variable power scope go bad in 36 years I have scoped firearms. I still have a 1 on a rifle that 36 years old, a 2.5-10 on a 308 and another thats 18 years old, 3.8-12 on a 7mm rm.

For me if i can use 10 or 12 power at 100 yards and farther to make a kill shot I will.


The one fixed power scope I have had to go back for a foggy condition a few years after buying it. My .22's are wearing 6-24 scopes but there fun guns.

 

[CB900F]

KY;

I do a lot of small varmint shooting with my CZ452. I use a mil-dot scope & wouldn't have it any other way. Just make sure your scope also has A/O, I find it to be a distinct accuracy aid in my situation. I encounter these little boogers from right between my feet to well over a hundred yards.

900F

 

[mljdeckard]

A lot of hunters use a fixed 4x for big game. It sounds to me like he had something else with a higher markup he wanted you to buy.

 

[kyhunter]

Thats kinda what I was thinking. Thanks for the opinions. I do believe ill go fixed 6x for the centerfire. Maybe a 10x or 16x for the rimfire. I guess I just wanted to see if I was missing something before investing. Moneys not too easy to come by these days. Appreciate it guys.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

kyhunter:

If it works for you under the conditions you use it, then who cares what he thinks?

Smile, thank him for his input, maybe tell him that this is all you really need based on your experience, and buy what you want.

You can always upgrade to another scope if your hunting conditions change enough to warrant that.

 

[Art Eatman]

Other than sight-in, the 3x9 on my '06 spent most of the time on 3X. That's plenty for 350 yards, I discovered one afternoon.

 

[kyhunter]

As have I Art. I figur if a 10x was good enough for a 1000 yards at one time. Why couldnt 4x be good for a rifle whos PBT is nearly 300 yards and wont be used any farther than that anyways. But i compromised and went 6x and its more than enough. I have lost targets up close at 12x and it sucks reacquisitioning at that zoom when up close. Basically it was useless

 

[Sun Tzu warrior]

I would find a different LGS! I have a 4X16 on the .22 WMR and 1.5X6 on the .270
I always use the lowest power setting on the deer rifle for fast target accquisition!
Seems to be a common thought process on this thread.
There was a archery shop here where the owner would always try to denigrate your equipment to shame you into a new bow purchase. instead of being happy to get your accessory business. He got none of my business. Eventually, he lost enough business that he had to close his shop.

 

[jmr40]

I actually find a fixed 4X to be too much. I prefer a 1-4X, 2-7X or at most a 3-9X just to get the lower powers for a big game rifle. I zero at the higher power, and have them available for the possibiity of a longer shot, but I cannot ever remember shooting a game animal at anything but the lowest setting. Things happen fast up close and the wider field of view is more helpful up close than more magnification at longer range. If I truly need more power there is generally more time to change a scope setting for the long shot. There is no time to drop down to a lower power for the close shot.

My only higher powered scope is a 4-12 that is on a bull barreled 22 that is only used for paper punching where I want the most accuracy. In a nutshell I think your reasoning is sound.

 

[dagger dog]

You think the hunter benchrest scope rule set at 6X has some merit ?

I use an 4X18 power set to 18 X to take head shots on grey squirrels in thick cover with my HBAR 10-22,I spot and stalk with an 8X42 binocular, but use the 18X to find the whiskers to make the kill.

I shoot a cheap 8X32 on a .223 HBAR bolt gun but have shot my smallest group @ 100 yds with it set at 8X, same rifle same scope shoots "with me shooting" larger groups on 32X. ?????

I think I would tell loose nut rolling around behind the gun counter who's monkey it is !

 

[Fremmer]

For a different view:

If you're interested in a fixed 6x scope on the big game rifle, you might as well get a 3-9x variable. They are more available (especially on sale), you can leave it at 6x if you want but still have the option of lower settings in the brush, or higher settings for really long shots, and it'll hold value better if you ever want to sell it.

 

[stubbicatt]

Yep. On my 223 prairie dog rifle I had installed a 6x scope by IOR. Clear glass, nothing to go wrong and it just plain worked. Prior to the 6x, I had a variable, and noticed I never went above 7x because using shooting sticks in field positions I couldn't hold the reticle still enough.

On my coyote rifle I have a 4.5-14x Nikon, which is an "OK" scope, but only when sighting it in off a bench do I use higher magnification.