The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 1, 2012, 09:26 AM   #26
warbirdlover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2009
Location: central Wisconsin
Posts: 2,324
I hunt in the woods where the longest shot is probably 100-150 yards. I've always used a 3-9 set on 6 power. I've got many deer with that setup at under 50-75 yards. I had a 4-16X50 on it but the scope was too heavy.

I don't believe in needing the "wide field of view" thing since I don't put the gun up until I have a shot. But I also buy decent scopes (Nikon).

I went to Wyoming many years ago and that 3-9 came in mighty handy for my 250-300 yard shot!
warbirdlover is offline  
Old September 2, 2012, 10:50 PM   #27
homesick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2011
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 320
I just tonight put a 3X9 Ziess on my 25-06, pulled off a 4X16 Sightron which was good for working up loads but put the 3X9 on for work.
1st Ziess I have owned it sure was clear and bright copmared to the other 3 I was looking at.
homesick is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 07:45 AM   #28
stubbicatt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2007
Posts: 1,061
My experience when shooting prairie dogs and other longer range, small target, situations, is that I can't hold more than about 7x off shooting sticks or other field positions. The reticle appears to move all about on the target which I find much more distracting than a lower magnification scope in that situation.

If from prone, 10x is just fine, but use a barrel band to diffuse the mirage from the heat from the barrel.
stubbicatt is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 08:22 AM   #29
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
Not a sniper.

When I was stationed at Fort Polk in 1975 I had a relationship with the 5th ID MTU. They developed a Divisional sniper school. The purpose was to establish a cadre of Unit marksmen down to the Company level. The program was designed along the old designated rifleman program used in WW II. It was not a "scout sniper" school.

The weapon selected was an M-14 with a 3 x 9 scope. The scope had a cam system which elevated/depressed the scope as the magnification was changed.

Inexperienced shooters were able to get first round hits at 800 yards (the manufacture calibrated the scope for yards rather than meters) their first time out.
ltc444 is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 08:55 AM   #30
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,363
Quote:
The weapon selected was an M-14 with a 3 x 9 scope. The scope had a cam system which elevated/depressed the scope as the magnification was changed.
I think you are referring to the ART (Automatic Ranging Telescope) used on the M21.

The scope had two stadium lines that measured 30 inches, the average distance between the top of the head and the belt buckle.

This was the set up that made the M21, or a NM M14 matched up with the ART Leatherwood scope.

It worked quite well. You sighted the rifle in at 300 yards with the 3X9 scope set on 3X. Then as you range in on the target, getting it between the stadium lines, using the power adjusting knobs.

Lets say you fit the target it the stadium lines and 400 yards, the scope was set on 4X, it worked the same all the way to 900 yards.

It worked quite well in Vietnam. I used this set up, in the USAMU sniper school and taught sniper schools with it after we switched from the M1C/Ds to the M21.

Pretty easy to get hits on a e-silhouette target to 900 yards. It also had stadium lines on the horizontal cross hair that were 30 inches apart to assist with wind hold over.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is online now  
Old September 3, 2012, 12:49 PM   #31
Ike666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2009
Location: SW VA
Posts: 423
Has anyone tired the new Leatherwood ART scopes? The M-1000 is 2.5-10x44. The reviews on OpticsPlanet seem favorable and it is decently priced. Seems like it might fit the 10-power only (sort of) bill.
__________________
___________________
"I'm your huckleberry."
Ike666 is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 04:37 PM   #32
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,521
Back in the days of old Redfield,there were not so many choices.For most folks "scope" on a hunting rifle meant a steel tube K-4 Weaver.Optics have evolved,but that was a reasonably priced,rugged servicable scope.

Most everybody I knew was happy with 4x.

While Weaver was the standard,Redfield was the step up .It was the classy scope to have.They also pioneered Accu-Range,using stadia for range estimation.Leatherwood took it another step with the ballistic cam mount,plus the custom reticle.

Redfield made pretty scopes,nicely finished,that looked good on a fine rifle.

Back to the OP's question on power,note the ART scope was used at modest powers,and functioned at about 1 x per 100 meters.

Lets not forget some pretty fine shooting gets done with iron sights.

And,for the OP,study up on exit pupil,objective sizes,etc before you buy.

Nutshell,your eye pupil varies with light.Approx 7 mm in darkness,5mm low light,down to 2,maybe 2.5 in bright light.If the exit pupil of your scope is smaller than your eye pupil in the given light,image quality degrades.

Divide power into objective lense for exit pupil size.My 6x by 42 mm Leupold has a 7mm exit pupil and gives excellent low light performance,better that the naked eye.

A 10x by 42 mm scope will work well during daylight hunting hours,but will begin to degrade dawn/dusk,maybe.It will have a 4.2 mm exit pupil.

A 24 x scope with a 50 mm objective will have approx a 2 mm exit pupil,adequate for good light,but it will be darker than the naked eye in any marginal light condition.

Big objective lenses are required to get good performance out of high magnification.Big lenses of quality cost a lot.Glass is heavy.Obne of the more imortant problemd is large objectives require tall rings,high mounting.This can cause you to have to hold your head up off the stock to see.

IMO,larger than you need to get the job done is a liability.

On the modern Leatherwood question,old Redfield is gone.They made the scopes in Denver.There is a new Leupold Redfield,but neither have anything to do with the Leatherwood name.

Leatherwood has a line of scopes.I do not know them,I have stayed away.I have heard their Malcom type repro antique scopes seve well,though the mounts are somewhat crude.I think the repro 1903-A4 snper scope offered by Gibbs/OWS is a Leatherwood.It may be that for the $300+ Leatherwood can build a repro,low tech scope of decent quality to suit these rifle,built to spec.

I have no experience with the Leatherwood.

In today's scopes,a lot has evolved.An example is the Leupold CDS system.It is 15 MOA of short,target grade turret with a custom graduated knob to your specs.Its not horribly expensive.The higher end European scopes offer sophisticated turrets.Kenton industries makes custom target knobs to your ballistics,and there are Christmas tree reticles,etc.

There are other choices besides the ART mount

Last edited by HiBC; September 3, 2012 at 04:54 PM.
HiBC is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 04:56 PM   #33
22-rimfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 4,591
You never mentioned why you are asking the question about magnification. Then again, you may be just curious what people say.

I have a 3-9x on my Remington M700 270 win which I use for deer hunting. I shoot it at 9x when I am sighting it in, but it seldom goes above 4x in the field while I'm hunting. Haven't used it in a couple years since I have been hunting with a revolver with 2x Leupold. Didn't mount a scope to see better. Rather I mounted a scope so that the target and my eye are in the same plane.

For target shooting, I like to see my target and have gravitated from 4x scopes on my 22's to 3-9x and higher power for punching paper. But for general shooting, my 2.5-7x Weaver or 4x is hard to beat day in and day out.
22-rimfire is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 05:56 PM   #34
4runnerman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Minnsota
Posts: 2,757
Nutshell,your eye pupil varies with light.Approx 7 mm in darkness,5mm low light,down to 2,maybe 2.5 in bright light.If the exit pupil of your scope is smaller than your eye pupil in the given light,image quality degrades.

Divide power into objective lense for exit pupil size.My 6x by 42 mm Leupold has a 7mm exit pupil and gives excellent low light performance,better that the naked eye.

A 10x by 42 mm scope will work well during daylight hunting hours,but will begin to degrade dawn/dusk,maybe.It will have a 4.2 mm exit pupil.

A 24 x scope with a 50 mm objective will have approx a 2 mm exit pupil,adequate for good light,but it will be darker than the naked eye in any marginal light condition


HiBc- Very intresting reading there. What is the deal with a 32 power and 56 obj?. Im intrested in this. I shoot at first light ( Actually not even light yet ). I have a Sightron 8-32x56 and as soon as my eyes can see , i find i can see better using my scope. I get to the range before light. ( Brass Rat ). I still use my headlights when unloading and getting set up. As soon as i can see mt target at 300 yards i start shooting. There has been once or twice i have had a issue,but that was early morning fog, I think.
__________________
NRA Certified RSO
NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional

Last edited by 4runnerman; September 3, 2012 at 06:02 PM.
4runnerman is offline  
Old September 3, 2012, 07:53 PM   #35
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 4,424
It's always been entertaining to first take a high dollar super zoom scope, mount it on a rifle, put a collimator in the muzzle then zero the scope's reticule on the reference. Then change power back and forth between low and high; moving the zoom ring makes the reticule move in a figure 8 pattern about the reference. Some more than others. I've seen as much as 2 MOA error; maximum displacement of the scope's reticule off the collimator reference. Sloppy fit of the two lens barrels moving two lenses back and forth by spiral camming action to change the magnification. And recoil will also cause those two lenses to settle in different places. Some scopes are pretty good, others. . . . .

This must be the reason benchresters don't use zoom scopes.
Bart B. is online now  
Old September 3, 2012, 07:54 PM   #36
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,521
fourrunnerman:

May I suggest that in poor light you are not using your scope at 32x?

At 8x,56 divided by 8 gives you the 7mm exit pupil,max dilation for most human eyes.I would bet ,lense coatings being equal,your scope at 8x gives as good of low light performance as my 6x by 42 mm.

I believe your scope designer planned it that way.

Same works with binoculars.The 7x35 is a classic for most light conditions with a 5mm exit pupil,but "marine" binoculars might be 7x50s with a 7mm exit pupil.

I have never looked through your scope,I bet it works fine at 32x ,with just under a 2mm exit pupil,in very good light.I will boldly guess your image quality does not typically improve much above 24x,but,I have never looked through your scope.
I have never used a rifle scope with that high of power.I know my spotting scope,with a 77 mm ED flourite crystal lense,will see bullet holes just fine at 300 yds.I do not go downrange to check targets at 300 yd zeroing,but even in good light,at something around 40 x,image quality does not get better at higher power.

The highest power rifle scope I own is one of the Leupold 30mm tube Tactical Long Range.It is a 4.5-14 by 50 mm.I have it on a Win M-70 Laredo 7mm Rem.

There is a spot on a ranch I have lasered at 1090 yds.I can see the diamonds on a standard orange diamond sight in target at that range just fine.

I cannot re-post a pic here,but if you search something like AR-10 with Kreiger barrel can shoot under my HiBC handle,you will see a 600 yd group where,apparently.my younger brother could see just fine with a 3.5 to 10 x Leupold .

Whatever trips your trigger,enjoy.Set them up how you like them,I was giving my best to the OP.

On the right day,with the right light,I have resolved bullet holes in a black bull at 500 yds with that spotting scope.Kowa Proimar 77ED with a 20-60 zoom.
HiBC is offline  
Old September 4, 2012, 02:25 PM   #37
4runnerman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Minnsota
Posts: 2,757
Thanks for the reply HiBc. I only ask because i started F-Class open this year and found i sometimes have eye relief issues in the prone position. I have been working on it at home and think i might have solved that issue now. Was thinking maybe some kind of connection here.
I do leave my scope on 32 power at all times. I see no reason not to.
__________________
NRA Certified RSO
NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional
4runnerman is offline  
Old September 4, 2012, 03:08 PM   #38
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
I in no way will ever claim to be a sniper, I didn't sleep at holiday inn express last night either. But for field work, most shooters are way over scoped. Too big an objective lens, too much magnification, too many bells and whistles like adjustable objectives. IMO, The same reasons that make these monster scopes bad for a hunter of game make them bad for a hunter of man. You do not need and in most parts want them. Some (most) of the issues have been discussed. Mirage, parallax, weight, bulk, field of view, etc etc all play a part. No one thing can be accredited to the why's and how come's. But rest assured that when you see someone on the net recommending a scope any bigger than 4-16x he isn't a big game hunter. Even that's on the big side and un-needed. My favorite is 2-7x but I also use 3-9x, 4x and 1.5-4x. And each of those is more scope than my ability will allow me to take advantage of. If you feel the need to spend money on magnification and bells and whistles instead spend that money on quality. Still not necessarily needed (super duper quality that is) but at least it's not unwanted, un-needed BS.
L_Killkenny is online now  
Old September 4, 2012, 07:25 PM   #39
603Country
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2011
Location: Thornton, Texas
Posts: 2,207
Kilkenny, I can't argue much with anything you said. I admit to having more scope than I need on most rifles, but it isn't always about need. I have the magnification and quality that I want and I was willing to pay for it. My selection and purchases of scopes has been an evolutionary process over many years, in that I tried this and that and then switched around a couple more times till I settled on what I want (not what I actually and really really need). And my gear now fits my specific and personal hunting and target shooting territory and pursuits, none of which includes climbing mountains or even big hills. I'm overscoped and quite happy with being so.
603Country is offline  
Old September 4, 2012, 08:23 PM   #40
4runnerman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Minnsota
Posts: 2,757
Yes. Target shooting and Hunting definetly require 2 different scopes. Low power for hunting and the other for target shooting. As i said before-You buy what you are going to use it for. It's not rocket science here.
__________________
NRA Certified RSO
NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional
4runnerman is offline  
Old September 4, 2012, 10:01 PM   #41
old roper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2007
Posts: 1,053
Here something on the new but old sniper scope

http://www.fieldandstream.com/pages/...w-sniper-scope
__________________
Semper Fi
Vietnam
VFW
old roper is online now  
Old September 5, 2012, 08:01 AM   #42
603Country
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2011
Location: Thornton, Texas
Posts: 2,207
OldRoper, thanks for the article. Wow, the Corps officially now has a big heavy variable scope. Cool. Maybe this old Jarhead (me) was already doing some cutting edge thinking when I got my big heavy variable scopes (which really aren't big and heavy at all).

I knew that M40A3 was heavy, but I sure didn't know it weighed 19 pounds. I'm glad I'm not humping the hills with it.
603Country is offline  
Old September 5, 2012, 09:08 PM   #43
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 661
I will assume the scope is for hunting. I have found a Leupold Vari-X III 2.5 x 8 is a terrific scope and excellent value for deer, elk, bear, etc., so I have those scopes on my .270 Win., 7mm Rem. Mag, and .300 Win. Mag. There are scopes better than Leupold's best, but they command premium prices, e.g., Nightforce, Swarovski, and Schmidt Bender.
__________________
NRA Life Member - RMEF Life Member - Vietnam Vet
lefteye is offline  
Old September 6, 2012, 08:44 AM   #44
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 2,848
I've seen an awful lot of Nightforce scopes at benchrest competitions that have a hell of a lot more than 10x magnification.

Just watched a few when I happened to be there, I'm not a competitor.

But, it would be interesting to hear some facts regarding 1000 yard record holders and the optics on their rifles.

IMO, if you can afford a variable, there is no downside to having more power available if conditions permit for a more precise point of aim.

Having plugged a few shots at 1000 yards- looking through a 10x scope- it's a guesstimate as to where the center of the plate is.
tobnpr is offline  
Old September 6, 2012, 11:42 AM   #45
4runnerman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Minnsota
Posts: 2,757
I've seen an awful lot of Nightforce scopes at benchrest competitions that have a hell of a lot more than 10x magnification

Tobnpr-You nailed it right on the head. There was another post about most bench shooters using straight power not variable power scopes. I shoot comp and find that not to be the case at all. Most of them are using variable power scopes. And Yes Nightforce,Sightron are the 2 top scopes i am seeing out there. Nightforce= 12-46x56 power and Sightron= 8-32x56 power. I do see a few straight 36 power also
__________________
NRA Certified RSO
NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional
4runnerman is offline  
Old September 6, 2012, 04:44 PM   #46
mapsjanhere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,342
Target size is everything. The trained sniper needs to aim at the center of a 12" x 18" target at 1000 yards max. If he can hold 1 MOA with his weapon that's an effective hit. With a 10X scope that the same as shooting that target with an open sight at 100, and most beginners can do that. The sniper also has a spotting scope and/or a range finder available, and typically can take his time for a shot. Few opposing soldiers are able to get a whiff of your smell, even after a week in the field.
The hunter on the other hand aims at a 2"x2" spot near the lower corner of the target; any hits outside that area mean tracking a wounded target and hoping it runs out of energy before you do. And that deadly area becomes pretty small once your distance goes past 200 yards. He also needs to use his scope to clearly identify the target (white tail or mule, 4 point or spike). With all the other influences that come with long distance shooting, you really don't want to add lack of magnification to your problems.
__________________
F 135 - the right choice
mapsjanhere is offline  
Old September 7, 2012, 09:32 AM   #47
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
Quote:
The hunter on the other hand aims at a 2"x2" spot near the lower corner of the target; any hits outside that area mean tracking a wounded target and hoping it runs out of energy before you do. And that deadly area becomes pretty small once your distance goes past 200 yards. He also needs to use his scope to clearly identify the target (white tail or mule, 4 point or spike). With all the other influences that come with long distance shooting, you really don't want to add lack of magnification to your problems.
Not so fast there Hoss, "aims at a 2"x2" spot"? Not hardly. The vitals on big game are much much bigger than 2"x 2". Heck, even coyotes have much bigger vitals than 2"x 2". "Paper plate" accuracy(shooter/gun combo) is adequate. Know what range you can consistantly do that and you're good to go.

Last edited by L_Killkenny; September 7, 2012 at 10:13 AM.
L_Killkenny is online now  
Old September 7, 2012, 10:04 AM   #48
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,363
Here is the vital size of most animals we hunt in this country.

Quote:
Vital Size:
• Pronghorn antelope = 8.5"-9"
• Small deer = 8.5"-9"
• Medium size deer = 10"-11"
• Large deer = 11"-12"
• North American wild sheep = 12"-13"
• Mountain goat = 13"-14.5"
• Caribou = 14.5"-15.5"
• Elk = 14.5"-15.5"
• Moose = 18"-21.5"
Assuming the smallest animal, if you can hold 4 inchs off hand (which is hard to do) you're good to 200 yards.

If you get some sort of rest, prone, kneeling, etc and cut your hold to 2 inches you can extend that range to about 400. In my opinion there is no need to hunt further then that.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is online now  
Old September 7, 2012, 10:51 AM   #49
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,366
2 inches by 2 inches!?

Good Lord! You don't need that kind of accuracy to kill a squirrel!

I understand "Aim small, miss small." but that's a LOOOooong way from "any hits outside that area mean tracking a wounded target and hoping it runs out of energy before you do."
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old September 7, 2012, 04:41 PM   #50
mapsjanhere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,342
Sure you will kill most animals if you hit anywhere in the chest or belly area. At some point. Maybe you'll find it. Maybe not. Doesn't use the tag if you can't find it...
I like my animals to drop where I shoot, not two counties over. And that means aiming for that 2x2 area.
__________________
F 135 - the right choice
mapsjanhere is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14217 seconds with 7 queries