%20no-repeat%20center%20center;-webkit-background-size:cover;-moz-background-size:cover;-o-background-size:cover;background-size:%20cover; "The Best Rifle Scope Size for Hunting")
A lot of hunters still believe this rifle myth: that a bigger scope automatically makes you a better shot. But the truth is, magnification doesn’t replace practice, good fundamentals, or knowing your rifle. Do you think bigger scopes actually help hunters shoot better — or is it just a waste of money?
#hunting #rifle #scopes
My Remington model 700 Safari grade left handed in 8 mm magnum weighs over 11 pounds. I'm 72 and tired of hearing these wimpy people crying over the weight of a 8 pound rifle. I've carried it in the mountains of Colorado. I carry a weighted pipe to simulate carrying my rifle. If you are not fit enough to hunt stay out of the woods
The reticle plays a big part in accuracy.
AIM Small Hit small. Quality, power, reticle
How much of a scope did Davy Crocket and our grandfathers drag through the woods.
I run a 5×25 i know the magnification is over kill but being able to have a larger field of view at say 20x so that i can make an easier follow up shot is what i like
I run a fixed 6x scope. All you need from 10 yds to 400+ on a hunting rifle.
I prefer fixed power
In my experience the smaller the scope (within its class) the lower the quality and durability. I’d happily own the worlds most durable 16” long 1-8×24, and I would never own a super duper ultra light, low profile and short scope of the same 1-8×24. Longer scopes tend to be more forgiving, heavier scopes are almost always significantly more durable against worst case scenario drops. I’ll cut weight from my rifle just to be able to mount a heavier scope for the same scoped weight package. In my opinion it’s videos like these and articles in similar vain that are the reason there is so few reliable scopes made these days. They are usually sacrificing length (optical quality) and wall thickness (durability) to meet the size and weight standards of the gun tubers and writers.
And no, leupolds are not reliable and lightweight. Having a warranty fix your damaged scope is not the same level of reliability as something that is practically indescribable in the first place.
There are still some very rugged scopes being made today but they are not cheap like the leupolds and other brands of old like the older Burris and Athlons. Now to get the cheapest scope I would personally consider bulletproof you have to spend over $1000, and the more you spend, the less reliable they get. Swarovski’s are a particularly bad offender of spending more for less, although you get the worlds best glass with those at least.
Can you tell this is a topic I care about lot about? lol sorry for the book of a comment
All of the "best" debates are irrelevant if they don't come with criteria or a use case. Hunting from a tree stand isn't the same scope needs as hunting out west. I hunt out west with my rifle about 2-3 weeks a year. The rest of the time I'm shooting 100-800 yards on paper or gongs. Therefore I want at least 15x on the max size and about 2.5-3x on the min, FFP, illuminated reticle. If I only hunted in a tree stand and did minimal range work a 3-9 SFP would be more than adequate.
Ive got a vortex viper 2.5-10×44 on my deer rifle. Its got enough magnification, and i like the 30mm tube just being a bit stronger, and the slightly larger objective so it takes up a bit more light
30 years ago, the conventional wisdom was that magnification above 9x or 10x was not needed for big game hunting, and that fixed 6x scopes and the slim, trim Leupold 2.5-8x scopes were excellent for this purpose. They weren’t wrong. I own multiple Leupold 6x42mm scopes, and the Trijicon 3x-9x is one of my very favorites. As far as I’m concerned, the dumbest trend in scopes is dialing for elevation and/or windage before taking a shot. How many guys have missed out on an opportunity because they got confused in the heat of the moment and messed up when turning the turrets.
Agreed!!!
Go fixed power where you can.
It's crazy how many guys think they're gonna be shooting dime size groups at 1,000 yards because they got a Hubble Telescope on their rife.
Any thing over 10 power in my book is useless,
Clarity trump magnification alll day. I can see much better out of a Swarovski 10x than I can a vortex razor 20x
I think weight is also very important. The Vortex Razor LHT (lightweight Hunter tactical) is one of my favorite scopes at 20 ounces, available in a couple of different magnifications. I went to the 4.5x22x50. I also have a NF8 2x20x50 that weighs 26 ounces that I like. I have these on Tikka T3x lightweight rifles
Shoot a quality fixed 4x scope at 2 inch target @100 yards vs shooting the same target with a 3-9 scope…
You'll shoot tigher groups with the 3-9 all day !!!
This isn't rocket science
Most deer are killed inside 100 yards so a 3-9 should work
Mine is are 1-inch tube, and a 40mm objective lans 3×9..
Leupold are my favorite
I have a 2-7×32 Leupold on my 270 Winchester. I can shoot MOA with it out to 300 yards. I don't hunt any further with it than that, so why put a heavier scope on it? Guys who think they need more scope shoot almost exclusively from a rock solid rest, where all of the extra wobble isn't a problem. In real world hunting situations, the high magnification scopes are more of a liability.
1
5-25 does really well for me and whole bunch of other friends that Hunt and target shoot with the same rifle.
A 40 dollar tasco years ago 4 power could see animals in the dark shot predators in the dark.
I think it just depends on the yardage your going to be shooting