Which one of these options would be better for close range hunting?

[P.B.Walsh]

As the title says, which would be better for close range hunting; a .308 bolt-action with a Millet 1-4x24mm or a 18.5"-20" barreled Mossberg 500?

Millet-
pros: I use my regular hunting rifle and switch out scopes for different ranges
The optic plus rings are cheaper than the '500
I don't have to buy different ammo for hunting (.308 & 12ga.)
cons: I don't get to buy a new shotgun

Mossberg 500-
pros: I would get to buy a new shotgun
I would now have an HD gun
More field of vision with a bead or rifle sights vs. a scope
cons: The shotgun cost more
I would now have to buy different ammo for hunting (.308 & 12ga.)

I'm also buying a new scope for my rifle within a month, so I'd have one scope for <100 and one for 100<. Or should I just buy the Millet and practice with the lower powered optic?

Please don't suggest a lever action, I would rather have a pump-action shotgun.


I'm kind of thinking out loud, any suggestions, thoughts?

Thank you,
P.B.Walsh

 

[kanook]

How close and hunting what?

Are you gonna get a slug barrel

rifled slug barrel

ect...

 

[MCgunner]

For deer, hoofed game, I'll always go with a rifle and I'll always go with a low power scope. Shotguns are for the birds.

A low power scope is FASTER on target than open sights and more precise than a bead. I have a 2x10 Weaver on my .308 with Millett scope topper irons for back up, not really for use. The irons are good to 75 or so yards anyway (very short sight radius), but if I happened to drop the rifle or something and didn't trust the scope, the irons are there. I wouldn't even have used 'em, but I had 'em left over from a TC Contender set up and figured they didn't need to be sitting on the shelf. LOL

Anyway, 1-2X is awesome fast on close game, WIDE field of view, nothing to line up front to back on the sights. Buy yourself a shotgun, anyway, though. LOL

I do think people get really carried away with power on a scope. A scope that doesn't drop below 4 or 6 power is pretty useless in the brush and I can shoot to 400 yards with 4-6x on the high end no problem. The 2x10x40 Weaver just seems like the best of the best as far as range of power goes. I really like it. It's a little improvement on the standard 3x9 that everyone loves. I also have a 1.5x4.5 Bushnell, neat little scope, I'm not using right now. I have it on a .22. I had it on a 7mm mauser I sold off, but kept the scope cause I liked it.

 

[jmr40]

I agree with him^

 

[P.B.Walsh]

I am hunting Alabama whitetailed deer.

I am 90% sure that I will not buy a rifled barrel.

The furtherest shot I will take is ~300 yards, besides I don't know how I would do at 300 yards, and that is on ONE field, my average field now no more than 100 yards, and my 4-16 power scope had been more of a hinderence than a blessing.

So do ya'll think I should buy two scopes (4-14 or 4-16 power, and a 1-4 power) or just buy a 1-4 power scope?

Thanks,
P.B.Walsh

 

[Flintknapper]

I have a Weaver 2 X 10 X 40mm on my Daughter's 7mm-08 and I consider it about perfect. Close up shots can be handled at 2-4 power and longer shots (200-400) from 5-10X. Pretty decent scope in low light conditions as well.

Personally, I'd stay away from the Millet 1 X 4 X 24, my brother has one and I am not impressed with it at all. However...if you just have your heart set on one let me know, I'm sure he would sell his.

I'd stay with the rifle...and put your money in decent optics, you won't regret it.

If you really like the 1 X 4 platform....forget the Millet and find a Weaver Classic Extreme 1.5 X 4.5 X 24 mm (excellent scope IMO).

 

[MCgunner]

I think you should ebay that 4x16 and buy something in the 3x9, 2x10, or for your uses, 1.5x4. I don't care much for the small objectives those little 1x4s and such have. I'd get at least a 40mm objective on the scope for low light conditions. That's another thing I like about my Weaver, the 40mm objective, over that little 22mm 1.5x4.5 Bushnell I have.

Lower the power, the better you're going to be able to get on game up close fast. BUT, you do need something with some low light capability. You don't need anything over 6 power from what you're describing and really 4 power is plenty to 300 yards. That 4x16 is a good scope for a .22-250 1000 yard prairie dog gun, but it's not for woods hunting.

Like I say, most people who get into a rifle and scope for hunting and don't know any better, tend to get carried away with magnification. I think you're figuring things out right now.

 

[kdstrick]

Why not just go with a 2x7 or a 3x9? You can go low power for close range or increase it for longer shots, if needed.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

What about a 1.8-5 Zeiss? It's under $500?

Yea, I bought a BSA 4-16x40, because it was cheap ($100), glass is not that great. I'm figuring out now that glass is better than having an illuminated mil-dot reticle.

The Zeiss that I mentioned looks good, I just wish that it had a 30mm tube and larger turrets, any thoughts?

I also thought about a Bushnell 4200 1.25-4, and a Counter Sniper 1-4 (I know, I know, but they look good).

Thanks,
P.B.Walsh

 

[MCgunner]

Zeiss is very good optics, a little rich for my blood, but very good. The 30mm tube (a European thing) will gather light better than a 1" tube, but it still should have at least 40mm at the objective to make me happy. As good as they are, though, it's likely going to be brighter or as bright as my 40mm Weaver. I'll pit my 3x9x44 Weatherby Supreme against it, though. That's an awesome scope that I got a great deal on. It's optics compare well to the high end stuff. I shoulda bought several at the price, 150 bucks about 15 years ago when they quit making 'em.

Bushnell makes some good working men's scopes, decent optics and decent quality hardware, sort of the same niche as the Weavers. But, I'm not sure I know what the "Counter Sniper 1-4" is. Sounds real trendy, though.

Oh, Millett and others make 30mm rings.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

Well, the Zeiss is ~$500 (it's one of those Conquest ones).

How does a Leupold VX-III 1.75-6x32 or a Leupold VX-III 2-8x36 compare to the Zeiss MC Conquest 2.4-8x32 or the Zeiss MC Conquest 1.8-5.5x38?

I'm really liking these four scopes for my needs. I am leaning to the Leupolds because I can put better turrets on them for a little bit of money.

Thanks,
P.B.Walsh

 

[chevyforlife21]

i think u just need a marlin 30 30 open sights

 

[MCgunner]

The VX3 would probably be close, though Zeiss, Schmidt and Bender, and Swarovski, the European glass, are the best IMHO. But, 2x8x36 VXIII would be a very good choice. Up to you and the prices you find and what you wanna spend, I reckon. I can't really bad mouth any of those choices. Way above a BSA, put it that way, LOL!

 

[MCgunner]

i think u just need a marlin 30 30 open sights

How about a Hoyt compound?

 

[P.B.Walsh]

^^^^^ because I like bolt-actions!!

Can you get "tactical" style turrets on the Zeiss that I mentioned? If you can't I think that I will do with the Leupold 2-8 and get some different turrets.

Thanks,
P.B.Walsh

 

[MCgunner]

Can you get "tactical" style turrets on the Zeiss that I mentioned? If you can't I think that I will do with the Leupold 2-8 and get some different turrets.

Thanks,
P.B.Walsh

I don't know. I'm just a deer hunter. I never shot a man at 3000 yards. I never needed such stuff out to the 400 yards max that I'll shoot at a deer.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

Does anyone know how the glass of the Leupold VX-III 2.5-8x36mm compare to the Zeiss MC Conquest 1.8-5.5x38mm?

Regardless of turrets, glass is what matters.....

Thanks,
P.B.Walsh

 

[IllHunter]

I sold both

Leupold and Zeiss are so close I challenge all to find the difference. It takes serious knowledge to find the differential light gathering and magnification of these high end scopes. The technology of these optics is so high that the difference for me has become $. The Leupold is USA made and just less than the Zeiss from Europe. I have a Vari X-III on my 270 (1-9x40) and they mate perfectly. The 2x on my .44 gives me the boost I need to reach into the shadows out to 75 yds. It has withstood the pounding for 5+ years without a hiccup. Can't speak for the Zeiss, but the reputation they have cannot be myth. Check out Nikons entries into the ring. They make a quality product as well. Their cameras certainly made their fortunes.

 

[MCgunner]

In my mind, the absolute best glass in the world is Schmidt and Bender. Now, I don't have 3K to toss at a scope. But, I mean, you wanna look though the best? I know an old fellow that has several. He has Weatherby and Klinegunther rifles and nothing, but Schmidt and Bender scopes on them. The day I won a club bench rest match beating one of his 10K toys with my old 722 Remington and 4x12 Bushnell banner, he was SO POed, he just got up and left and didn't talk to a soul. LOL! That was 20 years ago and he was getting a little shakey. I saw him the other night at Whataburger. He's gotta be closing on the century now, still getting around, slowly. LOL

I have shot his rifles and those scopes are just indescribable how good they are optically. No Leupold or Zeiss comes close to that. But, heck, I don't think all my rifles and optics added together cost what one of his rigs does, LOL! For a deer hunter, you can get it done just fine with Weaver, high end Bushnell, Leupold VX1 or better, Nikon, Burris, etc, etc. I think having a couple of good rifles with quality scopes on 'em is worth the investment. I've been there, done that with cheap Tasco or Simmons from Walmart. I won't even put a Simmons on a .22 anymore.

 

[Kernel]

I like the one rifle with one scope, concept. I like the low power scopes (and binoculars). A 2-7x32 vairable (no turrets, no AO) should do everything you need in a deer rifle.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

Ok, I think I'll go with the Leupold VX-III, now I just need to go look at some different ones, and see if I can get away with a 3-9x40mm or if I'll have to settle with a 2-8x36mm or a 1.75-6x38mm.

In 3 power what is the shortest shot avalible? As in, I certainly would not take a 4x for brush. I would like to have the 40mm objective. Is there any real difference in a 2 power and a 3 power?

Thanks,
P.B.Walsh

 

[MCgunner]

A deer fills the glass pretty good at 20 yards with 3 power. I mean, you can shoot him to the muzzle, just that when he's running and you're trying to get on him, you want as wide a field of view as you can to get on him. If the gun fits you proper, that's half the battle.

My chokce.....1.75-6x38mm

 

[P.B.Walsh]

Ok, does anyone know what Butler Creek covers I will need for the 1.75-6x38 (for both objective and the eyepeice)?

Thanks,
P.B.Walsh

 

[blackops]

Leupold and Zeiss are so close I challenge all to find the difference.

There is no challenge because the difference is glass and Zeiss is better. Listen I'm a Leupold guy, nearly all of my glass is leupold, but I have no problem admitting that Zeiss is better.

 

[Art Eatman]

I don't understand the concern about turrets. Once my hunting rifles are sighted in, I don't mess with the scope adjustments unless some problem comes up, or I re-check the sights for the next season. IOW, "Set it and forget it."

FWIW, I have an old Leupold Vari-X II 2x7 on my .243. Been using it since 1981. Works just fine for Bambi and for coyotes at night. Plenty of field of view; no problem in late evening shots or via flashlight at night.