Low power scope for deer.

[Bfh_auto]

How many of you have scopes that go below 3 power on their deer rifle?
I just recently found that a 2-7x32 beats a 3-9x40 for up close hunting.
I bought my first low power scope 2 years ago and have been nothing but impressed.
From now on the biggest I want is a 2.5-10 with the best glass I'm willing to buy.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I like a good, durable, 4x fixed, so that makes me like vintage Leopold scopes. I can place the shot with iron sights at 100 yards, so IF I was inclined to try a 400 yard shot...… it would be looking at the deer as if with the naked eye at 100 yards. BUT since the farthest I would likely be shooting with a cartridge rifle would be 200 yards, that looks like 50 through the 4X, and 100 yards looks like 25, so.... I think I might look into a fixed 2.5x scope for muzzle loaders (and hang that on a cartridge rifle) but I'm told that would be a pistol scope if it's "fixed" power...., since finding vintage 4x scopes in good shape is getting very hard to do. I've heard that Simmons is making a fixed 4X scope, but I've also heard it's very "low ball" on the scope spectrum..., I may take a look at that one. Bushnell is making a 4x fixed...,

LD

 

[troy fairweather]

yes i like fixed 4 power even the fixed 6. every year hunting with a variable power scope the thaut crosses my mind, what power did i sight in my rile with and will my poa move.i wish there were more fixed power scopes made, my next deer rile may vary well have a fixed 4 on it. i would even pay 300 or 400 or a good one, i don't believe leupold makes a 4 any more. i like the lower power variable scopes to but they tend to be more money and seems like i use 3-9x40 the most. i do hunt a wide variety of ranges from 20 yards in the brush to fields.

 

[Captcurt]

The longest shot that I have made on deer was with a 1.5X4.5 power Bushnell. A one shot kill at over 400 yards. I have a 2X7 Vari-XII on my 300 WSM. It is a 6 1/4 lb Savage 10 Sierra and is my goto gun. It is what I carry when I am in the timber. It has taken deer from 20 yards to 200+. A 3X9 works well all around if you shoot it enough to be familiar with it. I also have 4X14 and 6X18 on my long range rigs, but I could hunt deer anywhere with the 2X7.

 

[Patocazador]

I used to hunt with 4x fixed scopes until my eyes got old. Then I moved up to a 6x. I have never found a need for a 8x plus lens. When 3-9x variables became popular, I bought one. I put it on 9x and jumped a deer 20 yards in front of me. I never did find it in the scope. I turned that scope down to ~ 5x and never changed it.

I have 10x40 binocs for spotting and judging game. Scopes should only be used for shooting not judging game IMO.

 

[Patocazador]

I've heard that Simmons is making a fixed 4X scope, but I've also heard it's very "low ball" on the scope spectrum...

No, No .. not a Simmons. .. Look harder for a used Leupold.

 

[jmr40]

I can't tell enough difference between 2X on the low end and 3X to matter. In fact very few scopes are true to the magnification printed on them. Most 2-7X scopes will actually be somewhere between 1.75X to about 2.5X on the low end and somewhere between 6.5X to 7.5X on the high end. Depending on how each individual focuses the scope will change the actual magnification for different users. That is true for all variable scopes regardless of the manufacturer BTW. I used to use a lot of 2-7X scopes in the past, but use 3-9X40s as my go to general purpose scopes anymore. As a general rule you get more quality for the dollar at that point. I just don't see any advantage to 2X over 3X but the difference between 7X and 9X on the upper end helps slightly. To be honest I can make a fixed 6X scope do a lot.

If I want low end magnification something with 1X on the low end really makes a huge difference. I have 1-4X or 1-6X scopes on all of my AR's and anything else intended for fast close work. I find 1X faster to get on target than anything else including iron or dot sights.

 

[troy fairweather]

No, No .. not a Simmons. .. Look harder for a used Leupold.

im looking for one now. i cant trust simmons no more.

 

[PapaG]

!X-$4.5X on my Savage 220. 1.75-5.5X on my 336 Marlin. 1-5 on my Mossberk 695K. My deer takin herd of guns. Everything else runs from 3-9 to 6-24.

 

[Bfh_auto]

I like a good, durable, 4x fixed, so that makes me like vintage Leopold scopes. I can place the shot with iron sights at 100 yards, so IF I was inclined to try a 400 yard shot...… it would be looking at the deer as if with the naked eye at 100 yards. BUT since the farthest I would likely be shooting with a cartridge rifle would be 200 yards, that looks like 50 through the 4X, and 100 yards looks like 25, so.... I think I might look into a fixed 2.5x scope for muzzle loaders (and hang that on a cartridge rifle) but I'm told that would be a pistol scope if it's "fixed" power...., since finding vintage 4x scopes in good shape is getting very hard to do. I've heard that Simmons is making a fixed 4X scope, but I've also heard it's very "low ball" on the scope spectrum..., I may take a look at that one. Bushnell is making a 4x fixed...,

LD

I can't tell enough difference between 2X on the low end and 3X to matter. In fact very few scopes are true to the magnification printed on them. Most 2-7X scopes will actually be somewhere between 1.75X to about 2.5X on the low end and somewhere between 6.5X to 7.5X on the high end. Depending on how each individual focuses the scope will change the actual magnification for different users. That is true for all variable scopes regardless of the manufacturer BTW. I used to use a lot of 2-7X scopes in the past, but use 3-9X40s as my go to general purpose scopes anymore. As a general rule you get more quality for the dollar at that point. I just don't see any advantage to 2X over 3X but the difference between 7X and 9X on the upper end helps slightly. To be honest I can make a fixed 6X scope do a lot.

If I want low end magnification something with 1X on the low end really makes a huge difference. I have 1-4X or 1-6X scopes on all of my AR's and anything else intended for fast close work. I find 1X faster to get on target than anything else including iron or dot sights.

I was talking about field of view more than magnification.
There places I've been hunting are a lot of 10-80 yard shots with a fence row at 300 as you walk out.
One or two x gives me both eyes open, three or four makes me struggle.

 

[earlthegoat2]

I like lower power scopes for less weight mostly. I have a deep stable of Vari-X 1.5-5x20 scopes. Use it on my slug gun, Marlin 30-30, Marlin .44 Mag, and my CMMG LR308. I’m thinking of changing that one to the VX3 2.5-8x36 I just acquired. I use a VX1 2-7x33 on my .22 mags.

 

[BigSteve57]

One of my deer rifles is a Browning bolt action rifled slug gun. On it sits a Comp M4S. It's very accurate and deadly on deer. 1x magnification. As a side note I personally think most hunting rifles are over-scoped. I took a bunch of animals in
Africa using a 1.5-6x.

 

[Mn Fats]

The type of hunting is the major factor here. I hunt out of a stand and over look fields with possibilities of close to 400 yard shots. I'm certain a fixed 4 power will do it, but I like a 3-9 or even a 4-12. Zoom in to see if it's even a buck (I know they make binoculars) but I like the ability to dail it up if need be.

Wobble isn't a factor for me since when I'm not hunting out of a stand, I'm making a drive. And for that I prefer my Model 8 in 35 rem or my 30-30 lever. Both have buckhorns. Sure I could drill and tap a fixed 1x or 2x scope, but all I'd gain is a clearer picture in low light, which we make drives around noon so that'd be moot. I've been wearing glasses since I was 4 years old and prefer irons in the brush and variables across the field.

 

[Bfh_auto]

The type of hunting is the major factor here. I hunt out of a stand and over look fields with possibilities of close to 400 yard shots. I'm certain a fixed 4 power will do it, but I like a 3-9 or even a 4-12. Zoom in to see if it's even a buck (I know they make binoculars) but I like the ability to dail it up if need be.

Wobble isn't a factor for me since when I'm not hunting out of a stand, I'm making a drive. And for that I prefer my Model 8 in 35 rem or my 30-30 lever. Both have buckhorns. Sure I could drill and tap a fixed 1x or 2x scope, but all I'd gain is a clearer picture in low light, which we make drives around noon so that'd be moot. I've been wearing glasses since I was 4 years old and prefer irons in the brush and variables across the field.

I do have rifles set up for field hunting. That's why we have more than one rifle.
My hunting style had changed recently and the scope needs have also.

I'm out on a 4x scope for 400 yards. I'll sneak closer or watch it walk away.

 

[Mn Fats]

I'm out on a 4x scope for 400 yards. I'll sneak closer or watch it walk away.

Can't sneak in a bean field.

I get what your saying though. Kind of. "A 2-7x32 beats a 3-9 for up close hunting". Going from 3 to 2 power is insignificant to me in up close hunting.

 

[MCgunner]

Years ago when I won my Remington stainless M7 in .308 as a door prize at a gun show, I put a 2x10x40 Weaver on it in Millett rings and mounts. I love it, very versatile in the woods or on the ridge lines. I've got a 1.5x4.5 Bushnell I like, but the 22mm objective isn't bright enough to suit me. I had it originally on my SKS, but pulled it off that rifle and put it on a .22. I really prefer a 40mm or larger objective. Most of the low power scopes, for some reason, have small objectives which is not good as it gets dark in the woods. That Weaver matched to that M7 just does it all.

 

[MCgunner]

Hmm, seems Weaver now makes a 2x10x42. Read about it here..... https://www.chuckhawks.com/weaver_super_slam_2-10x.htm

 

[jmorris]

I agree with “it depends”, you don’t need or want a 6-20x if a long shot would be 100 yds. That said an 8 MOA reddot would be all but useless at 400.

It’s a battle between target acquisition speed and precision, not right or wrong.

How about a 60 yard comparison,

 

[stillquietvoice]

I used a Bushnell fixed 4 on my win mod 88 for several years it worked fine out to 250. I've been using 4-12 and 4-16s most recently. The field of view is lower at closer ranges but half ofy hunting is open corn fields with 500 possible. I haven't shot at game at that distance yet but would be comfortable at 300 to 350.

 

[EIB0879]

I have a 2-7x on my Marlin 336 30-30. Taken a lot of deer with it. Generally never go over 4x with it.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Most of the low power scopes, for some reason, have small objectives which is not good as it gets dark in the woods.

Has to do with maximum exit pupil compared to the maximum size the average human’s pupil can get in low light. At least in theory. I do tend to agree with you though. I’m sure it’s so the scope can save a little weight by using a smaller objective. Variables are usually OK to their middle settings but the exit pupil gets too small at the upper settings. I would much rather my 1.5-5x scopes have a 32-36mm objective.

 

[labnoti]

1.5-5X here. I like the wide field of view the 1.5X gives. 1X might be the best, but 1X optics that also offer magnification tend to be imperfect and only less so at a high cost. But I definitely appreciate the wide field of view of a low power optic. Indeed there's nothing wrong with irons, aperture sights, and reflex sights. I also appreciate some magnification for longer shots.

5X is certainly enough to see game targets at 200 yards, but at that range and beyond that there are some other factors that come into play. With a FFP reticle, the crosshairs get fatter with magnification and could obscure a target at a longer range, but it depends on the reticle. My scope's reticle is SFP and even though it doesn't fatten with magnification, it also doesn't thin when zooming out. As much as I like 1.5X for it's wide field of view, it's hard to be precise with shot placement on a small or distant target when the reticle is so large compared to such a tiny view of the target.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Hmm, seems Weaver now makes a 2x10x42. Read about it here..... https://www.chuckhawks.com/weaver_super_slam_2-10x.htm

Nikon makes a 2.5-10x40 that sits on my inline. It's what got me on the low power rabbit trail. It blew my mind compared to my 4-16 and 4-12. It does give up a little on targets, but made up for it in the woods.

 

[labnoti]

Has to do with maximum exit pupil compared to the maximum size the average human’s pupil can get in low light. At least in theory. I do tend to agree with you though. I’m sure it’s so the scope can save a little weight by using a smaller objective. Variables are usually OK to their middle settings but the exit pupil gets too small at the upper settings. I would much rather my 1.5-5x scopes have a 32-36mm objective.

That's right, so what you want to look at is not the objective diameter, but the ratio. It's called the f-number. The f-number is the ratio of the system's focal length to the diameter of the objective. It's the f-number that will show how bright a scope is. You will find that low-power (short focal length) scopes are much brighter than long-focal length scopes even with 50mm objectives.

This is another reason I favor low-power optics like my 1.5X -- they're the brightest in low light even with just a 20mm objective. Theoretically, it's not impossible to have even lower f-numbers, but they come at extreme expense. Take a look at f1.0 or f0.75 camera lenses.

 

[Bfh_auto]

That's right, so what you want to look at is not the objective diameter, but the ratio. It's called the f-number. The f-number is the ratio of the system's focal length to the diameter of the objective. It's the f-number that will show how bright a scope is. You will find that low-power (short focal length) scopes are much brighter than long-focal length scopes even with 50mm objectives.

This is another reason I favor low-power optics like my 1.5X -- they're the brightest in low light even with just a 20mm objective. Theoretically, it's not impossible to have even lower f-numbers, but they come at extreme expense. Take a look at f1.0 or f0.75 camera lenses.

I knew there was something to short scopes. I just thought they are better quality so they were brighter.
Thanks for explaining that.