Working on my elk rifle

[sleepyone]

I'm about to get my new FN Winchester Model 70 FW in .30-06 out of lay away (yea!) and will start saving for a scope. I think for this rifle I want to use a 50mm scope for the extra light gathering ability. I also think I should go with a higher mag scope maybe up to 12x. I have nothing but 3x9 40mm Buckmasters on my other rifles, but they don't make a 50mm version. I can upgrade to a Monarch for the 50mm.

I've been a Nikon guys for years. I recently tried out a Vortex and did not care for it. Also don't care for the narrow FOV of the RedFields. What is Leupold's model that compares to the Monarch or Buckmasters in a 50mm 12x configuration?

I know the benefit of investing in a good quality scope. However, I don't want to overspend or get the wrong features. This rig will be for an elk hunt I want to make in two years hopefully. I will use it for other hunting, but my longest shots where I hunt whitetail and hogs is 200 yards.

I want to be able to make a 400-500 yard shot. There are some ranges nearby that go to 1,000 yards. I plan on practicing with my hunting load, which will be a 180 grain bullet in either Federal Nosler Partition, Federal Nosler Accubond or Hornady InterBond. They are all good bullets just depends on which one shoots best in my rifle.

So, for those of you who have made those long shots on elk what magnification would you recommend? Is there any reason NOT to invest in a 50mm scope? Is there any compelling reason to buy a Leupold model over the Nikon Monarch? Also, is there a real benefit to a BDC or other compensating reticle? Set me straight also if you think 12x is overkill. I have read about people getting the higher power scopes if for no other reason than using the 12x or 14x as their spotting power to avoid having to lug around a pair of binocs or a spotting scope.

 

[jim243]

Is there any reason NOT to invest in a 50mm scope?

Just a personal opinion, but yes they are very large and heavy. For a hunting rifle I would not go larger than 44mm. As to power, that's up to you, the higher the power the higher the cost.

Jim

 

[jmr40]

I'm responding from my phone so ill be brief. A 50 mm scope is a waste of time and money ill reply in depth when I get home. Short version a 50 mm has a slight theoretical advantage in very limited use. The negatives far outweigh the positives

Buy a leupold VX 2 for around $300 and be done with it for life. A 3-9X40 is all you'll ever need. You can pay more but wont see a difference in quality till you nhit the $700-$1000 scopes. I paid $30 more for long range dots and think it was money well spent

 

[X-Rap]

Smaller bell better quality glass and larger tube. (30mm)

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I agree that 50mm scopes have more disadvantages than advantages, with the weight being the most noticeable.

 

[Silent Sam]

Not a fan of big objectives either. Results in more weight, bulk and higher mounts along with higher cost. Better glass is more important. You don't need 12x to hunt elk or deer for that matter. Just my opinion but most hunting rifles are "over" scoped. Riflescopes are poor excuses for binoculars or spotting scopes where appropriate.
Learning your load is much more important than any BDC reticle. And you have to do it whether you use a BDC or not. A properly zeroed duplex is much less cluttered and simpler to use than even the best BDC. There is a time to shoot and a time to "fiddle and figure". A legal elk under the crosshair is the time for shooting.

 

[mdauben]

I want to be able to make a 400-500 yard shot.

Just as long as you are aware that a 500 yard shots is expotentially more difficult than a 200 yard shot. Intimate knowledge of actual range, your cartridge's ballistics, wind deflection and even the effects of temperature and humitidty come into play. Its the exceptional hunter who can realistically and ethically take shots at those ranges and honestly, very few animals are harvested at those ranges even in the wide open western US.

Is there any reason NOT to invest in a 50mm scope?

Well, obviously its larger and heavier. This may matter if you are going to be humping your gun up and down mountains on an elk hunt. Also, for the same quality a 50mm scope will be more expensive than a 40mm one. In exchange, they probably add a few minutes to your hunting time at dawn or dusk. In the end, this is really a personal decision. Some people like the bigger scopes, some don't.

Set me straight also if you think 12x is overkill.

I tend to think optical quality and clarity is more important than magnification. A good 3-9X is better than a meiocre 4-12X. If you are willing to spend more for the extra magnification, I don't see any other real downside.

I have read about people getting the higher power scopes if for no other reason than using the 12x or 14x as their spotting power to avoid having to lug around a pair of binocs or a spotting scope.

Personally, I cringe at the idea of using a rifle mounted optic as a spotting scope. Have you ever checked a suspicious shape in the woods with binocs only to find yourself looking at another person?

 

[rickb2202]

wow i havent looked at the new fn rifles, but i bet it will be a tack driver!! let us know how it shoots when you get it set up.

 

[natman]

I'm about to get my new FN Winchester Model 70 FW in .30-06 out of lay away (yea!) and will start saving for a scope. I think for this rifle I want to use a 50mm scope for the extra light gathering ability. I also think I should go with a higher mag scope maybe up to 12x.

12x is too much for big game and 50mm is to big for 9x. This "gathering light" thing is commonly misunderstood, your eye can only take in so much and above that a large objective lens just means more weight, expense and a higher mounted scope. Look up up "exit pupil rifle scope".

http://www.chuckhawks.com/straight_scope.htm

I want to be able to make a 400-500 yard shot. There are some ranges nearby that go to 1,000 yards. I plan on practicing with my hunting load, which will be a 180 grain bullet in either Federal Nosler Partition, Federal Nosler Accubond or Hornady InterBond. They are all good bullets just depends on which one shoots best in my rifle.

In the real world 500 yards is a really long shot. Sure it's possible, but it's a lot harder to do in real life than on the internet. I suggest taking one of your other rifles and setting up a white paper dinner plate on a white background and seeing if you can keep 10 out of 10 shots on it from a hunting position. Keep moving it closer until you can. I suspect the distance where you can do it will be a lot closer than 500 yards and a fancier scope isn't going to make that much difference.

I have read about people getting the higher power scopes if for no other reason than using the 12x or 14x as their spotting power to avoid having to lug around a pair of binocs or a spotting scope.

There is nothing that says "Slob hunter" faster than pointing your rifle at something when you don't know what it is. Imagine how you'd feel if you were looking through your rifle's scope and you saw someone pointing his rifle at YOU.

Carry binoculars.

 

[dprice3844444]

sleepy,check redfield also

 

[elkdomBC]

3x9x40 scope is about optimum,
so is a 30-06 that is dependable and very acurate,

500 yard shots on elk should be ONLY taken if you are an expert shot!

if you are capable of shooting consistant 10 inch groups from a suported position at 500 yards !

then , just,,Maybe? consider shooting at elk at 500 yards,,,,,,

elk suck up a lot of energy, they are tough,a well palaced shot is KEY to a clean kill !

I have killed over 25 bull elk, most of them I killed within 40 yards,, a few at 100 or 150 yards, a couple at 450 or 500 yards,,,

and yes, I CAN consistantly shoot 4 or 5 inch groups at 500 yards with my elk rifle, from a supported position ! can you ?

 

[PlaneJain]

I aggree with everyone here that the 50mm is way to large for a hunting gun in elk country.(unless its on someones private hunting 'ranch' and a guide is driving you up to shoot it after you have pet it).
The 3x9x40 will reach out to 500 yards easily as a 12 power, but will also let you focus in on closer ranges in thick brush or forests, than the 4x12 power scopes will. If you ever do hunt in forests, an even smaller power reigns over a larger scope.
And as someone mentioned earlier, get a 30mm over an inch tube,and that will HELP help gather in more light. (But the really expensive ones like ziess, etc are supreme for light gathering optics).
They will however give you more windage and veticle adjustment for the crosshairs.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Vortex Viper HS 4-16x44mm on my elk rifle....a slightly customized FN made M70...also a 30-06.

 

[sleepyone]

Personally, I cringe at the idea of using a rifle mounted optic as a spotting scope. Have you ever checked a suspicious shape in the woods with binocs only to find yourself looking at another person?

Actually, I have not because I hunt my own land. If I were to see someone, it would either be a poacher or the Game Warden!

There is nothing that says "Slob hunter" faster than pointing your rifle at something when you don't know what it is.

Yeah, I guess that violates the cardinal rule of never pointing your weapon at an unidentified target. I use 10x50 binoculars now, so I'm good.

You all have given a lot of good feedback! Sounds like the 3x9 40mm is the way to go, which is what I have always used anyway. Since an elk is several times larger than a whitetail, I'm guessing it looks pretty large at 9x even at 300 yards away. I might go with a Monarch, which comes in a 42 or 43mm version, so I would not be increasing weight too much.

As far as the 30mm vs 1" tube, Chuck Hawk said this about them:

Let's start with the notion of the 30mm tube compared to the standard one-inch tube. What does that get you, except for the premium price? The answer, optically, is essentially nothing. No better low-light performance, no better clarity, a whole bunch of nothing in the part you look through. It doesn't automatically get you a better scope; in fact, a 30mm scope might be an advance to the rear. It does give you a stronger, but heavier, tube. Mainly, it allows for more internal adjustment range, which is the real motive behind 30mm tubes. Fine if you need it, but if you don't it is of no value. Increased adjustment range and a higher price is what you really get.

I had a BDC scope once and traded it for the standard NikoPlex reticle as it was too cluttered for me. Guess I'll learn my load ballistics and not worry about learning a reticle as well.

 

[sleepyone]

Nice rig, Ridgerunner! Is that a 24" barrel?

 

[jerkface11]

30mm tube max power between 9 and 12.

 

[X-Rap]

But Chuck says 30mm a waste! I wonder what he says about large objective bells? I say put things in context, a cheap 30mm tube will be no brighter than a cheap 50mm bell, quality lenses and coatings will both aid in brightness. You can get a smaller compact 30mm scope of medium magnification that will still give good twilight performance if it is of good quality.
A good 1" scope will perform well too and I bet Chucks reference is based on top quality glass.
Cheap knock offs mimic the features of quality equipment but never measure up in performance.

 

[magnatecman]

Learning your load is much more important than any BDC reticle. And you have to do it whether you use a BDC or not. A properly zeroed duplex is much less cluttered and simpler to use than even the best BDC. There is a time to shoot and a time to "fiddle and figure". A legal elk under the crosshair is the time for shooting.

This is very true !

Which is why I would recommend you get a Leupold vx2 or vx3 and get it with the CDS. Also, you need a good rangefinder, of the laser variety.

Then you need a good deal of range time, verifying your load matches the CDS.

After that all you have to do is range, dial, and shoot, wind permitting.

Takes 80% of the guess work out of the equation and makes for an ethical shot at 500 yards very do able for the average hunter.

My 16 year old boy dumped his spike elk last year at 571 yards, first shot!

 

[jmr40]

The EW and 30-06 are a great choice. Here is my all arounder. It is an older Classic FWT in a Mcmillan Edge stock with VX-2 with long range reticle. Weight is 7.5 lbs including optics and mounts. And yes it shoots



The above Leupold weighs 11 oz. and works in low mounts The Nikon in a 4-12X50 will weigh 19.4 oz and will need high rings and move your cheek off the stock. It also has almost an inch less eye relief.

A larger objecive does not improve a scopes brightness. It MIGHT improve the volume of light, but the quality of the lense determines how bright the light is coming through. You have to consider the magnification. Divide the scopes front objective size by the magnification to determine the "exit pupil". This is the diameter of the light beam coming through a scope, but not how bright that beam is.

A 50mm scope set on 10X, a 40mm scope set on 8X and a 20mm scope set on 4X all have the same volume of light. If the 20mm scope has better glass, then it will be the brighter scope at these power settings. On lower powers the 40 and 50mm scopes will allow more light volume through, but the human eye cannot process much over 5mm. Some people still in their 20's with above average vision can use 6 or 7 mm, but for most of us anything over 5mm is a waste. And will be eventually for those young guys.

A bigger objecive allows you to use higher powers in low light. Assuming you have equal quality glass, a 50mm lense will have a very slight advantage when set on about 8x or 9X over a 40mm scope at the same settings. At any power higher, neither are allowing adequate light for you to see. At lower powers the 50mm glass will let in more light, but once you get below about 8X both 40 and 50mm scopes let in more than the human eye can process.

Not worth the added cost, weight and other factors.

 

[Robert]

I run a Leupold VX3 2.5-8x30something mounted in low rings on my elk rifle. I hunt dark timber and high mountain valleys and it is a great scope. Low enough power to be able to make a snap shot in the timber and enough top end to reach put as far as I am comfortable with.

 

[dvdcrr]

Don't get a vx2 the new leupold/Redfield finger adjustable knobs can be somewhat sloppy. I don't like em. A vx3 may be better.

 

[jerkface11]

Have you considered sightron ?

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Nice rig, Ridgerunner! Is that a 24" barrel?

Yes...its the factory barrel...it wasn't broke so I didn't fix it.

 

[sleepyone]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyone View Post
Nice rig, Ridgerunner! Is that a 24" barrel?
Yes...its the factory barrel...it wasn't broke so I didn't fix it.

That is the length I actually prefer, but the FW only has .30-06 in 22". I was seriously considering an Ultimate Shadow or Sporter to get the 24" barrel. The stock on the Shadow is pretty cheap, but it is all stainless. If I bought the Shadow, I would probably put some nice wood on it. I can't find any Sporters in .30-06. That would be my first choice. I just don't care for synthetic stocks, but I do like nice walnut; especially with a stainless barrel.

 

[sleepyone]

jmr40, I'm an older guy, 48, so I completely relate to the what you are talking about. Your explanation was very clear and in layman's terms. I think you and others have convinced me to stick with a smaller scope; probably 44 or less. The Monarchs I'm looking at are 42mm. Has anyone seen or used the new Monarch 3 line of scopes? They are marketed as compact scopes, but the model below is 12.6" long and weighs 16.6 oz. That is not much shorter than my 3x9 40mm Buckmasters which is 13.1" long and weighs 16.1 oz.

They are less expensive than the standard Monarch line.

MONARCH 3 2.5-10x42 Matte Nikoplex for $390 MSRP.

I'm thinking a little shorter scope would look pretty nice on a FW with the 22" barrel. I wonder if the shorter tube affects the performance at all.