2.5x at 100yds paper punchin' ..how crazy am I

[sansone]

I was an "iron-sights-only" kinda guy until eyeballs got the idea to stop cooperating
I have this nice japanese manufactured 2.5x Sightron that has perfect glass.
Thinking of using it at 100yds to punch paper
I have a spare 3-9x that will bring the target closer but it's a cheap chinese (you know)
how crazy am I to consider a 2.5x scope for 100yd target work?

 

[Cop Bob]

For 'Target Work" there are a lot better choices out there. But for a good rapid target acquisition, hunting optic... 2.5 power is not a bad choice....

I guess one would have to define the overall intended use of the rifle... If is a hunter, ot tactical, 2.5 to 4 power is fine for short and medium ranges...

If is is strictly a paper puncher, and finite accuracy is the goal.. gonna have to bump it up a bit...

I am not familiar with the "Sightron" brand, but there are a few Japanese made products out there that are not too bad at all... I had a Lt. that shot a Japanese made knock off of a Nightforce what was a heck of a nice piece of glass...

 

[sansone]

I have an Elite 3200 that I can use but the ocular bell interferes with the charging handle.
Also would have to remove it from another rifle.
I'ld rather not shop for another scope, but maybe gotta

 

[Art Eatman]

Snicker. Sixty years ago, I could get one MOA from my '06 with a Weaver K2.5 on it. "Ah, youth! 'Tis a pity it's wasted on the young!"

So it's a cheap 3x9. Stick in on. If no bueno p'nada, take it off. Easy enough.

 

[hardluk1]

It does depend to a point what your rifle is. The 2.5 sightron is great for a close up only or dangerous game rifle but even the cheapy can work better at a 100 yards and beyond. If the bolt is hitting the scope maybe the scope can be raised on stightly higher rings or is the rifle a straight bolt mi spec rifle.

ART i can hardly remember when I could see both the target and the open sights at the same time. Thank gosh for scopes and dots.

 

[TonyAngel]

Many of the better scopes either come from Japan or are using Japanese glass. My larger Nightforce scopes came with a sticker that said "made in Japan."

Which scope you should use depends on what you expect from it. I've seen plenty of guys shooting some impressive groups using scopes from Barska and such brands. I'd throw the cheap scope on it and see what happens. Either it will hold zero or it won't. Whether it is usable to you is completely subjective. If you can shoot with it, then shoot with it.

Generally speaking, more magnification is a good thing when shooting for groups.

Based on my experience with Sightron scopes in the SII and SIII line, I have to say that they are fine scopes. They have good glass and track very well.

Personally, all of my hunting and plinking rifles (that are scoped) have scopes of 4X or less. My target rifles wear variables that run up to 24X. My AR carbine has a 1.5X ACOG on it. I can't shoot sub MOA groups with it, but I can certainly hit a clay pigeon with it at 100 yards very consistently.

 

[dirtyjim]

I have quite a few rifles with 2.5x scopes with fine crosshairs & they will exactly cover a 2" bull at 100 yards. It works out good that way because if you can see any of the bull your not centered

 

[FlyinBryan]

"Ah, youth! 'Tis a pity it's wasted on the young!"

lol, that was great!!

O.P. for target work i like a scope that will let me see my hits (or misses) without having to fiddle with a spotting scope.

 

[sansone]

this is great advice comin' at me, thanks all.
I'm gonna try benchin' the rifle and see what the bullseye looks like at 100yds.

DirtyJim gave me an idea, the crosshairs ARE thin and his suggestion might work for me.
I would like the 2.5x to remain on the rifle for hunting and since the woods are thick here there rarely is a long shot.

ART: the last time I used the cheapy 3-9x the reticle would jump 2-3 inches when trying to make small adjustments.

the wife is loosing patience with my gun related purchases lately, otherwise I would buy another scope

 

[sarduy]

THE 2.5 IS GOOD, but if you want something like irons get a reddot

 

[PreMod70]

I started out that way years ago when my eyes first lost their sighting ability, I'm up to 20 power and shopping for more.

 

[TonyAngel]

For what it's worth, I suffered when my eyes started failing me. I just can't focus on the front sight. I tried red dots, but my astigmatism made the dot just look like a comet and when I was in the woods clowning around, I sometimes found myself fiddling with the knob to adjust the brightness. It was still a zero magnification scope too.

In the end, I went to using TA44S-10 ACOGs. As small as, or smaller, than a red dot and nothing to fiddle with. That extra little magnification also helped me out a lot.

 

[Picher]

A 2.5X scope can be fairly accurate, provided the target can be easily bisected by the crosshairs. For instance, if you use a Williams Sighting-In target with four 2" black squares separated by two inches in each direction, the crosshairs will fit in nicely and you can be quite accurate. A 4" diameter black circle with a 2" white center might also work well.

If you want to be accurate on several different types of targets, consider something like a 4.5-14X Mueller with AO. I was shooting my .223 Tikka this week and managed to shoot a 3/8" 5-shot group with my Mueller. Got it at SWFA.com, and think it was under $200. Great optics and adjustments.

 

[sarduy]

I started out that way years ago when my eyes first lost their sighting ability, I'm up to 20 power and shopping for more.

try to get one of these mounted, you'll be able to see .223 holes on target at 1000 yards and the come with a smaller scope for CQB. it also doubles as a planet finder

 

[35 Whelen]

Believe it or not, it is possible to shoot small groups at 100 yds. with a 2.5X scope. If you don't believe it, attend a High Power match and watch those guys shoot groups under 1.5" @ 100 yds. prone with open sights! Match target to your sughts or to your crosshairs. For example, if your crosshairs, at their juncture, cover 2", then target consisting of a 6" black circle with a 2.5"or 3" white center will allow you to accurately center the crosshairs in the center of the bull.

For years, my 6.5x55 (custom) had mounted on it an old steel Weaver 2.5" scope with plain crosshairs. I have targets of groups with that rifle that went under 1" at 100 yds.

35W

 

[ball3006]

My M1D Garand has a 2x scope. That combo worked just fine for the army for a few years. I have the same problem you do, old eyes............chris3

 

[BADUNAME37]

For hunting out to 100 yards or so, the 2.5 should work just fine. In the lesser-expensive scopes, I believe a fixed power would be more accurate and less things that move that can go wrong (such as in a variable-power).

 

[madcratebuilder]

I using a Weaver K2.5 one a few mil-surps, plus WWII sniper rifles well normally have a 3.5-4X scope. More than adequate out to 300yds.

 

[Sav .250]

It will work but do yourself a favor.......buy a decent multi power scope.

 

[sansone]

well until Christmas I will try to get by with the fixed 2.5 Sightron.
Like many have stated, if I get the right paper target, the fine crosshairs might "match-up" enough to accurately sight the bitch in.
..Which reminds me, my sweet wife has always been generous at Christmas, can you guess what I'll be wishing for?

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I tend to be a 3 MOA shooter no matter the scope power on most days. For me, I have a 2.5x scope on my favorite hunting rifle. I find it to be enough and I felt it was enough to shoot 24"x24" steel out to 400 yards.

 

[NuclearMeltdown]

Here's what my Weaver K2.5 looks like at 100 yards:

That's probably an 8 inch bull. I can't remember really.

But accuracy-wise, it will do this with cheap Wolf 7.62x39:

It takes more effort to get everything lined up. I found it easier to shoot at a square like the one drawn in the picture than trying to guess where the exact center of the bull was.

 

[Art Eatman]

I bought a bulk pack of Redfield targets for my rifle shooting. Orange ink. One-inch grid, with a primary central aiming point and four smaller aiming points at the corners. The aiming points are 45-degree diamonds, rather than the usual circles or boxes. Easy to see, very easy to align the crosshairs.

Glasses? Started those at age three. Eventually, tri-focals. But since my cadillac surgery got me back to 20/30, life is better. Glasses for reading, is all.

If the sights are sharp, it's less important that there might be some slight blurring of a target. Hey, just center the blur!

 

[Caliper_Mi]

2.5x is plenty at 100yd depending on what you are doing. Benchrest competition? Maybe not. Most other things it will be fine.

It just comes down to you preferences and your eyes. Remember that no sight of any type will make a rifle more accurate. It will only help you shoot it more accurately. If you like more magnification, get it. The idea here is to enjoy shooting after all.

Personally, I went on a high magnification kick for a while, but have pulled back of recent. I now have a red dot on a .22 that recently had a 4-16x scope on it. I am also shooting better groups with the rifle than I used to. Of course, it is a .22 so I am not shooting huge distances, but as others here have pointed out it is certainly possible to shoot very long shots with little to no magnification.