PDA

View Full Version : Ruger Hawkeye Predator in 204


chipchip
March 10, 2014, 10:28 PM
Just ordered one of these now pondering a scope. What power range should I get.

Unlicensed Dremel
March 10, 2014, 11:07 PM
Depends upon budget: High magnif. scopes exponentially more expensive as you go up both the quality and magnif. scales.

So getting more quality and less magnif is the better route if budget is limited. So it's a complicated choice depending on budget, which is?

But generally, get the best one you can afford in the 4-16, 6-24, 5-20, or similar ranges. But the cheaper the quality, the "more bad" the scope is, the higher the magnif. So it becomes counterproductive to go higher magnif on a low budget (which I think is another way of saying what I already said above).

Get a 5-25x50 Nightforce or better if you can. But as always, it's all about budget. And...new or used?

trg42wraglefragle
March 10, 2014, 11:18 PM
Depends on budget and intended use.

chipchip
March 10, 2014, 11:30 PM
walking varmiter and coyotes buget is $600

Unlicensed Dremel
March 11, 2014, 12:25 AM
$600 new or $600 used?

chipchip
March 11, 2014, 12:28 AM
new

hammie
March 11, 2014, 12:45 AM
I have a Burris Fullfield II, 6.5-20X, 50 mm obj. on my .204 ruger KVT. It works fine and is almost always more than I need. It does have a rather short mounting length which can make it problematic on long actions, but mounts OK on the ruger short action.

Midwayusa.com has them for 399$.

If you want a smaller scope, I just mounted a burris timberline, 4.5-14X, 32mm obj. on my Remington 700, .221 fireball. The scope cost was 280$.

trg42wraglefragle
March 11, 2014, 02:43 AM
I'd look at a Burris C4 4.5-14x42AO. Lightweight, good glass and good price.
I had a 3-9x40 FF2 on my 17hmr but have just replaced it with a 3-9x40 C4, in that price bracket, I think the C4 can't be beat in term's of quality and features.
You can find them for less than $300

A Nikon Monarch 4-16x42 can be had found for about $400, and are pretty darn good value for money. I have one and found it has as good glass as my mate Vortex Viper PST 4-16 and was a heap lighter and smaller.

For a varminter you want a decent amount of zoom on the top end, but for walking you don't want too much on bottom end in case you need to make a quick shot. I'd say limit yourself to 4-5x as maximum minimum magnification if you know what I mean.

I'd look at getting Aluminium rings, I got steel rings and bases for my rifle and it added quite a bit of weight.

Unlicensed Dremel
March 11, 2014, 07:32 AM
$600 new... ok, NOW the table is set for advice... Let me think on this a little bit and get back with you. :)

chipchip
March 11, 2014, 08:10 AM
I'm thinking a Leupold VX3 4.5x14AO with duplex reticle.

603Country
March 11, 2014, 08:27 AM
And I'm thinking a Leupold 4.5-14x40AO with the Varmint Hunter reticle. My newest scope is that one and I am delighted with it. For less money, I agree that the Burris is a good choice. I have two of the FFII in 4.5-14, and they have been great - bright and clear.

hammie
March 11, 2014, 10:49 AM
@chipchip & 603country: The leupold is hard to beat and perfect choice.

Didn't Col. Townsend Whelen say, "Only accurate scopes are interesting and a leupold is never a mistake." (er...uh...or something like that)

@Dremel: You're right. The 600$ budget gives us a pretty wide field. If you can settle for 12 X maximum, you can get into a zeiss or meopta. I recently bought a zeiss terra, 2-7x for my .30-06 and I've been impressed with the scope.

Brian Pfleuger
March 11, 2014, 11:17 AM
Sightron SIIB 6-24X42 MD

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SIGHTRON-SII-BIG-SKY-SCOPES-3-12X42MM-MILDOT-SIIB31242MD-/321342108812?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ad17b748c

603Country
March 11, 2014, 12:17 PM
Though I recommended a 4.5-14, both of my 'pure' varmint rifles have more magnification. The 223 has a 6-18 VX2 Leupold and the 220 Swift carries a 6.5-20 VariXIII. For what we'll call fine work, I much prefer the finer crosshairs on the 6.5-20. Since my shooting varmints is done on the edges of pasture, the 6.5 minimum magnification is not an issue. I have decided that I like to hunt with all my scopes on 8 power. Works for me, even on moving critters, as long as they aren't real close. Had it on 20 power the other day (forgot to change down to 8) and had a coyote come trotting out of the woods at 75ish yards. I got him in the scope, but I can't tell you which patch of fur I was looking at. He got away. Dang.

hammie
March 11, 2014, 01:45 PM
@603country: I understand the need for high magnification when shooting small bullets at small targets at long ranges, and my .204 ruger has a 6-20x, although my swift stops at 14x.

For me, at 14X or above, the moving sight picture gets distracting - even from a bench. When the cross hairs are bouncing in synchronization with my heartbeats, then I figure that, maybe, it is too much. I guess I could stop my heart with drugs, take my shot before unconsciousness sets in, and then have a friend revive me. But that method seems at best impractical and at worst dangerous.

603Country
March 11, 2014, 05:14 PM
Shooting at high magnification (off a bench or from the window of a box blind) doesn't give me any trouble. Could be that a former GF was right in that I don't have a heart.:D

I don't shoot much at max power unless it's paper, though I have shot few coyotes at past 300 when I did use the scope at 20 power.

Brian Pfleuger
March 11, 2014, 07:07 PM
Heck, my deer gun wears a 4-20x. I used to have a 10-40 on my .204. I'd go higher if I could.

hammie
March 11, 2014, 08:06 PM
Some laughs and good times here.

Let's hope that when chipchip gets the new scope mounted on his .204, he will share some pictures.

chipchip
March 11, 2014, 08:15 PM
OK. Also thinking maybe a Leupold VX2 6x18x40AO with CDS. Have one on my RugerVT 6.5 Creedmoor but it has target turrets. What do ya think.

chipchip
March 11, 2014, 09:15 PM
or maybe a plain old VX3 3.5x10. Remember this a walking varmiter. This was my origanal thought and I'm still considering it. Why shouldn't this work.

Brian Pfleuger
March 11, 2014, 09:34 PM
If that's what you want it'd work fine. The weight of my varmint gun never bothered me much. I've walked many a mile with a 10+lb gun on my shoulder.

chipchip
March 11, 2014, 10:16 PM
My RugerVT 6.5 Creedmoor is my long range gun and it"s about 12lbs. I don't mind carrying it but it is more of a stationary gun. Once I see how this new Ruger shoots I will probably get in 6.5 Creedmoor as well with a more powerful scope.

trg42wraglefragle
March 11, 2014, 10:50 PM
What you want in a reticle and turret style will be a limiting factor with some scopes.

I'd be inclined to go for Nikon Monarch. They seem to get reviews saying they are as good as the VX3s, but a fair bit cheaper.

Unlicensed Dremel
March 12, 2014, 09:01 PM
OK, after some thought, I have a few for you which are sub-$600 pre-shipping:

Vortex Viper 4-16x44: http://swfa.com/Vortex-4-16x44-Viper-HS-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P48287.aspx

Meopta MeoPro 4-12x50: http://swfa.com/Meopta-4-12x50-MeoPro-Rifle-Scope-P53877.aspx

Sightron S2 6-24x42: http://swfa.com/Sightron-6-24x42-SII-Riflescope-P40519.aspx

Bushnell Elite Tactical 5-15x40mm: http://swfa.com/Bushnell-5-15x40-Elite-Tactical-Rifle-Scope-P48272.aspx

Or, you could cut your budget in half and get a really good fixed power one like these, as long as you know you'll only be shooting at beyond 50 yards:

SWFA SS 16x42: http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-16x42-Tactical-Riflescope-P53715.aspx

SWFA SS 20x42: http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-20x42-Tactical-Riflescope-P53716.aspx

I have that last one and it's a helluva scope for the money. It's what's on my dedicated long-range varminter (analagous to your .204).

I'm thinking a Leupold VX3 4.5x14AO with duplex reticle.

Well that's good too - can't go wrong there.

Also, this one right here is half your budget due to being on clearance/closeout - very good choice:

Nikon Monarch 4-16x42: http://swfa.com/Nikon-Monarch-Riflescopes-C10194.aspx

I also cannot disagree with the Burris FF2 6-20x50 advice. Have a few Burrises and they'll all good. http://swfa.com/Burris-65-20x50-Fullfield-II-Rifle-Scope-P53360.aspx
It will be *slightly* less quality than the other ones I mention, but still quite good.

Longshot4
March 13, 2014, 07:55 PM
Isn't the 204 about a 300-400 range rifle? The AO will help see well near and far won't.

Brian Pfleuger
March 13, 2014, 10:02 PM
Isn't the 204 about a 300-400 range rifle? The AO will help see well near and far won't.


.204 is good for a good deal more than 300 yards. At 300, I don't even bother with adjustments. Hold and shoot.

I don't know what your comment about AO means. AO has nothing to do with seeing well. AO corrects parallax in case the shooters eye is not perfectly aligned on optical center.

chipchip
March 19, 2014, 08:24 PM
Decided to get a Leupold VX6 2x12x44. Thanks for all your input.