The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old September 4, 2013, 01:09 PM   #1
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Give Me Some More Scope Options...

I already have a strong idea of what I want. It's going to be mounted on a Savage 11 chambered in .243AI for use against deer primarily and woodchucks/coyotes/vermin secondarily. Low light capability is a major factor.

I have done considerable research but I want to make sure I haven't missed anything. The current favorite is the Sightron SII Big Sky 4-16x42 HHR.

Requirements (essentially non-negotiable) are:

Minimum power no higher than 4x

Maximum power no lower than 16x

Budget absolute cap of $650 (within a few dollars, I'm not going to refuse to spend $655), preferably closer to the Sightron's ~$450
__________________
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 offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 01:36 PM   #2
cmdc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 1, 2010
Location: kansas city, mo
Posts: 491
Are you seriously able to get the Sightron for almost 50% of MSRP?
cmdc is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 01:49 PM   #3
allaroundhunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 6, 2012
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 1,670
Give Me Some More Scope Options...

I would look for a Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50. Optics planet sells them for $699, but you can find them for closer to $675 if you look around.
allaroundhunter is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 02:01 PM   #4
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Sorry, fat fingers, that's $550, maybe a bit more, probably should say $570.
__________________
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 offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 02:38 PM   #5
Doyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Starkville, MS
Posts: 5,091
According to your requirements, you are wanting a minimum of a 4x zoom (4-16) and would like even more. That kind of limits your field of available choices.
Doyle is online now  
Old September 4, 2013, 02:40 PM   #6
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,588
Well, I think you are truly missing some good scopes by your limitations on the power ranges. 12 and 14 powers are extremely effective as well when shooting small varmints. Another thing I don't like is the AO on your current choice of scope. AO is extremely inconvenient when hunting not so much when shooting varmints and targets, I know this because I have a couple.

I think however for less money and to get a side mounted Parallax Adjustment vs. the Adjustable Objective I'd go with the 4-16X44 Viper HS.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 02:49 PM   #7
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
I like a lot of magnification. I rarely set any of my scopes to less than 5x and that's with shots that average under 50 yards on deer.

AO is no inconvenience to me when hunting. I typically set it at 100 yards. Anything less and out to 150 or more it's close enough, anything more and you've got time to change it.

Yes, when you want something specific, you do tend to limit your choices.
__________________
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 offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 02:54 PM   #8
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
I like a lot of magnification. I rarely set any of my scopes to less than 5x and that's with shots that average under 50 yards on deer.
Then why not start out with something in the 6X power and up? I like more magnification as well when shooting targets and varmints, but I could hunt all big game with a fixed 6X and not feel handicapped.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 03:05 PM   #9
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
I find 5x to be about the limit if the animal is too close or moving too quickly. I've honestly never tried 6 exactly but I have had my scope on 7 when I needed to make a quick shot and it's much worse than 5. 6 might be OK but I don't want to buy a scope on "might".

4 is definitely OK and 16 is sufficient for woodchucks even to 400, probably 500, yards and certainly deer at any reasonable distance.

Honestly, I'd prefer like 2.5-30 or something but the budget dictates.

In any case, tell me what you think I'm missing. I don't have to buy it.
__________________
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 offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 03:30 PM   #10
SSA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Posts: 414
Minox ZA-5 4-20x50 at CameralandNY. Closeout price. Never seen one myself, but it's an option.
SSA is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 03:32 PM   #11
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
I've been hearing a lot about Minox lately.
__________________
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 offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 05:51 PM   #12
Boomer58cal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
I'm very very pleased with my Nikon Monarch 3, 4-16x42 about $500 + or -.

Boomer
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war.
We're from the government, we're here to help
Boomer58cal is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 06:20 PM   #13
Kimber84
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2013
Location: US
Posts: 391
Give Me Some More Scope Options...

I have a 4.5-14 VX-3 on my one varmint gun, in my opinion its plenty of juice to shoot varmints at 500 yards and out to 600.

I killed 2 g hogs at 495 & 502 this past summer with it, no problems and never felt like I was underscoped.
Kimber84 is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 08:07 PM   #14
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Right now, that Minox is looking hard to beat...
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 08:48 PM   #15
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 3,222
Damn...
A 1" tube, with 80 minutes of elevation. AND four inches of eye relief! Nice.

Not sure whether I like the 1/8 minute clicks though... but that is definitely one HECK of a deal. I was thinking of getting another Vortex Viper 6.5-20, but this one deserves a serious look!
__________________
Custom Bent Bolts and Gunstocks for the Mosin-Nagant
www.biggorillagunworks.com
tobnpr is online now  
Old September 4, 2013, 08:52 PM   #16
Cowboy_mo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 931
Have had Minox Binos and Minox scope for 2+ years.

You won't be disappointed if you try one!

Camerland has an open box special right now on the Minox ZA-5 3-15x50 w/Side Focus for $499.99.

I know 15x is one less than your specs and I understand "I want what I want" but just a suggestion.
Cowboy_mo is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 10:16 PM   #17
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
I couldn't resist the deal. $449 is a steal for that scope. Most places have it at $699-$729 Reviews seem to be excellent, though in short supply on that exact model.

It's ordered and I'm going with DNZ mounts for the first time too.

I'll be ordering up a Boyds' stock for it too so it's finally "Done" before deer season gets here.
__________________
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 offline  
Old September 5, 2013, 01:41 PM   #18
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,588
I'd have a real hard time buying a 25 ounce scope for a hunting rifle. Just too much weight added for me. I'd pick up a VX2 2-7 or 3-9 put it and the Minox in Leupold QR rings and run two scopes if it were mine and I was going to pull double duty with it.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old September 5, 2013, 03:01 PM   #19
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
I understand that sentiment but weight doesn't matter much to me. The gun currently weighs just over 7 pounds with a Nikon 3-9 and factory stock. I'll be dropping a few ounces with the DNZ mount and adding about a pound with the scope and stock. It'll probably be 8 1/2 or so finished.

I spent the first 20 years of my hunting life (and still have to occasionally) carrying a 10+ pound shotgun for deer hunting. Anything feels small and light in comparison. Plus, I might walk a mile or so in the whole days hunt, maybe two if I really stretch it, so it's not a huge factor.
__________________
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 offline  
Old September 5, 2013, 09:07 PM   #20
steveNChunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2012
Location: Southern Appalachian Mtns
Posts: 1,405
I know you said no higher than 4x but...

You still might wanna consider the Burris Fullfield E1 6.5-20x50. (or the 4.5-14x42)

They sell for around $400 and every Burris I've ever owned has been brighter and clearer than any other scope in its price range that I've looked through. Dollar for dollar, feature for feature, IMO it's hard to beat a Burris.

My second choice would be a Vortex Viper 4-16x50
__________________
"I don't understand all that I know"

"I never said half the crap that people on the internet claim I said" - Abraham Lincoln
steveNChunter is offline  
Old September 5, 2013, 10:49 PM   #21
JustinBiscuit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 18, 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 184
If low light performance is a big deal to you, get the largest objective in your price range. The larger the bell the more surface area for light. Large objective lens will also give you a better eye box.

The Minox ZA5 is by an order of magnitude better then any thing from Leopold or Vortex. German glass is hard to beat. My guess this scope will go up in price over the next couple of years.
JustinBiscuit is offline  
Old September 6, 2013, 05:30 PM   #22
Boomer58cal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
Quote:
If low light performance is a big deal to you, get the largest objective in your price range. The larger the bell the more surface area for light. Large objective lens will also give you a better eye box.
It's all about exit pupil size. The Pupil of your eye is only so big, So if the exit pupil of your scope is bigger than the pupil of your eyes it's wasted. The larger the objective lens the smaller the exit pupil, unless you go to 30 or 35 millimeter tube. With modern lenses 50 millimeter objective lens scopes are becoming unnecessary.

It doesn't matter how much light gets into your scope if that light can't get into your eye.

Spend your money on quality lenses. Clear and crisp beats big every time.

Boomer
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war.
We're from the government, we're here to help
Boomer58cal is offline  
Old September 6, 2013, 05:41 PM   #23
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Well, partially true but not entirely....

An exit pupil larger than your own pupil is "wasted" in the sense that the portion not entering your eye is unseen. It's NOT wasted in the sense that any portion that is larger than your own pupil gives you "wiggle room" for head positioning.

In terms of "clear and crisp", Minox optics are very highly regarded.


In any case, I have the FedEx tracking number in my grubby little paws so I'll be looking forward to a reasonably thorough review in a few days. I won't have everything until at least Tuesday, unfortunately, so it'll be the following weekend before I get any shooting done.
__________________
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 offline  
Old September 6, 2013, 06:14 PM   #24
Boomer58cal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
Well you got me on that one. "Wasted" was the wrong word.

"Sarcasm" is my primary language, I'm working on this whole proper English thing.

I hope you enjoy your new toy let us know how she works.

Boomer
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war.
We're from the government, we're here to help
Boomer58cal is offline  
Old September 6, 2013, 06:46 PM   #25
JustinBiscuit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 18, 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 184
"It doesn't matter how much light gets into your scope if that light can't get into your eye. "

This is fundamentally wrong based on how a refracting scope works. Light is BENT from the first lens to a focal point of the second lens. The whole point of which is to collect more light then the human eye could collect. Tube size is important based on the shape (convex) of the lens






http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2078


In practice I find that my 56mm gets about 15 minutes of more useable field time then 50mm
JustinBiscuit is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:07 PM.


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 0.11469 seconds with 7 queries