|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 6, 2000, 05:16 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: June 2, 2000
Location: reading, pa. usa
Posts: 64
|
I use a Leupold 1.75-6x32 on my .270 for everything, thinking about a fixed 2.5 Leupold for a 300 Win. Mag, would that suffice?
|
June 6, 2000, 05:36 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
|
I would imagine that it will do. At what magnification do you prefer the variable you already have? There's your answer, usually.
|
June 6, 2000, 05:40 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: October 6, 1998
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10,229
|
Personally, I think the 2.5 is perfect. The only drawback to it is poor light gathering ability, but this is a function of objective/ocular rather than power.
Personally, I'm amazed by those who can shoot, under hunt conditions, up to the magnification of a 4X+ scope at over 300 yards....gotta be real steady, estimate distance expertly, do the drop compensation perfectly, etc. Under 300 yards, I think you give up more in acquisition time than you gain in "accuracy". That said, remember my hunting days started only recently. YMMV. Rich |
June 6, 2000, 06:37 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2000
Location: Mechanicsville, VA USA
Posts: 302
|
To a certain extent, it probably depends on where you will be hunting. If you are planning to go to South Africa, the shots could be considerably longer and the additional power may prove beneficial. Then again, if you aren't comfortable taking shots greater than a predetermined limit and the 2.5 works for that, stay with it. My shortest shot this past safari was 156 yards, the longest 386 yards, all measured with my range finder. My .338 A Bolt rifle carried a 2X7 Leopold Vari-X II.
Another reason to consider staying with the 2.5 fixed would be consistency. You are familiar shooting through that scope. If you changed scopes and the new scope has a thicker center post or different lines, and you weren't as familiar with it, it might throw you in a quick shot situation. I don't think your choice between fixed or variable can be a bad one, so long as you are comfortable with it. You may also want to check out Craig Boddington's book, "SAFARI RIFLES - Doubles, Magazine Rifles, and Cartridges for African Hunting". From this and your other post, this could be a great reference tool for you. Good Luck! |
June 6, 2000, 11:11 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2000
Posts: 551
|
fixed power scopes have less lenses to look through so everything being EQUAL a fixed will have better light gathering than a varible.i personally like 4x scopes.they give me just enough power for game recognition and just enough power for the 300 yard shots.
|
June 7, 2000, 09:11 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 4, 2000
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 149
|
Your current variable will work just fine. I've used Leupold 1.5x5 on three extensive safaris on .30'06 and .375 rifles. The 2.5x is my choice on the .416 and up. Lots of eye relief and quite compact. We always pack at least one extra telescope on our trips across the pond. Daughter Jen annihilated everything in her path with a Steyr Scout in .308 with the 2.5x glass( 2.3x actual magnification.) Rob
|
June 8, 2000, 02:37 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 13, 1998
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 853
|
The marvel of quick disconnect mounts is not to be underestimated here. Take a 1.5-5x and a 3.5-10X or 4.5-14x with a 50mm objective, and you will have all of the bases covered.
The Leupold QRW series allows very fast change out, and retains zero very well. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|