I've got a Redfield 4-12x40 on my Model 70 Alaskan in .300 Win Mag I picked up last fall and it's a great budget scope. I did just pony up for a Nightforce NXS for my Model 70 I'm building into a LR target gun, and after dropping $2k on it, I got that sinking feeling in my stomach knowing I want one for my 'designated' hunting rifle too... FWIW
Working on my elk rifle
- Thread starter sleepyone
- Start date
- Status
I'll get back to the optics discussion later as its a pain to type on my phone....
But as for the weight...I'm all for lighter weight stuff where possible...but if the weight if your rifle scope/ rifle is going to make or break your hunting trip, chances are you are too weak to be out hunting in the first place.
But as for the weight...I'm all for lighter weight stuff where possible...but if the weight if your rifle scope/ rifle is going to make or break your hunting trip, chances are you are too weak to be out hunting in the first place.
There are too many generalizations in this thread. I don't own any hunting scopes with objectives larger than 44mm but I'm not going to fault anyone for choosing a scope with a 50mm or larger objective if they feel they need it. Scope selection should be on a case by case basis.
I'm about to order a new Zeiss Conquest HD5 2-10x42mm scope for a Kimber Montana 84M in .308 Win but it's more expensive and heavier than a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x50mm. The main tube won't sit any lower either since both objective bell housings will clear the barrel with the same low rings. On 10x the exit pupil for the 50mm scope is 4.8mm which is a 31% increase over the 4.2mm exit pupil of the HD5. So in this case, the 50mm scope is cheaper, lighter, won't sit any higher and has a larger exit pupil on max magnification. I chose the HD5 because I want the 2X option and the RZ600 reticle because those features are more important to me.
http://sportsoptics.zeiss.com/hunting/en_us/riflescopes/conquest/conquest-hd5.html#inpagetabs-3
http://sportsoptics.zeiss.com/hunting/en_us/riflescopes/conquest/conquest.html#inpagetabs-3
natman said:
I'm about to order a new Zeiss Conquest HD5 2-10x42mm scope for a Kimber Montana 84M in .308 Win but it's more expensive and heavier than a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x50mm. The main tube won't sit any lower either since both objective bell housings will clear the barrel with the same low rings. On 10x the exit pupil for the 50mm scope is 4.8mm which is a 31% increase over the 4.2mm exit pupil of the HD5. So in this case, the 50mm scope is cheaper, lighter, won't sit any higher and has a larger exit pupil on max magnification. I chose the HD5 because I want the 2X option and the RZ600 reticle because those features are more important to me.
http://sportsoptics.zeiss.com/hunting/en_us/riflescopes/conquest/conquest-hd5.html#inpagetabs-3
http://sportsoptics.zeiss.com/hunting/en_us/riflescopes/conquest/conquest.html#inpagetabs-3
Let's walk through it slowly:
How much magnification do you need to hunt elk?
Realistically, 7 power is plenty, 9 power max. Any more than that, you're too far away to begin with. Perhaps not on the internet, but certainly in the real world. Remember we're talking about elk, not ground hogs.
Besides, the low end of a 9 power scope is 3x, which is about the maximum you'd want for close shots in timber, a far more realistic possibility than a 500 yard shot.
So 9 power. Given a generous 6mm eye dilation / exit pupil (and if you don't understand eye dilation and its relationship to exit pupil and why it's important there's no point it posting), the maximum useful objective size is 9x6 = 42. Anything over 42 is WASTED because while it may pass more light, your eye can't let it in, and 40 is close enough to make no practical difference.
So a 3x9 40mm is all you need for elk hunting in the real world. QED.
mdauben
Member
I know not everyone agrees but I'm with natman on this. I think the 3-9x is optimum for all medium/large game (deer and bigger). I recognize my own limitations and would not take a shot over 300 or 350 yards and even then only with a good rest. I just don't feel the need for any more unless I'm sniping groundhogs or prarie dogs at long range off a bipod. YMMV.
Lets assume we're shooting between anywhere between 100-300yds.....I'm sure I could take a shot fine at 7-9 power......but if I have the option, IDE feel much better at higher power(10-18x)....that is where a larger objective tends to help.
I may not alwarys shoot at high magnification, but at least I have the option to....something that I not as easily done with a lower objective.
The larger objective doesn't handicapped you in any way......so I take it wheni can get it.
To me, the few ounces of additional weight are worth the versatility.
sleepyone
Member
seems to be some strong opinions on this. I am tending to agree with the smaller objective and lower power crowd; 2.5x10 max and 42mm max. I have had great success with the Buckmasters 3x9 40mm. I know people don't rate it as highly as Leupolds or even Burris in some cases. I have compared mine to those brands and even Vortex lately, and I still like my Buckmasters better. After all the feedback, I'm not convinced I need to upgrade to a Monarch, but the person who suggested the mildot reticle made a good point.
Don McDowell
Member
When you spend a lot of time sloggin around at 7-10000 ft in elevation in the sort of country elk live in, and especially after they get shell shocked the first day of the season and take to the thick steep country. Every bit of bulk you can get rid of in your clothing and or equipment will go along ways to keeping your hunt happy.
Natman pretty well nailed it, for the most part more elk are probably killed at 200 yds or way less , than anything over that.
Having spent a lifetime hunting the buggers, I can honestly say a good fixed 4x is probably the most viable elk rifle scope followed by a 2-7 , and 3x9, and while I've never used one I can well imagine the benefits that a 1.5x5 would be large.
Big bulky objective lenses are just going to get in the way, of a lot of tree limbs, and scrub brush, by the end of the second day of hunting.
Natman pretty well nailed it, for the most part more elk are probably killed at 200 yds or way less , than anything over that.
Having spent a lifetime hunting the buggers, I can honestly say a good fixed 4x is probably the most viable elk rifle scope followed by a 2-7 , and 3x9, and while I've never used one I can well imagine the benefits that a 1.5x5 would be large.
Big bulky objective lenses are just going to get in the way, of a lot of tree limbs, and scrub brush, by the end of the second day of hunting.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Amen -- although I never see elk below 11,000 during season!
Remember an elk rifle is carried 50 or 60 miles each season, and shot only one time. A fixed power 4X scope is plenty -- spend your money on quality, not magnification.
Remember an elk rifle is carried 50 or 60 miles each season, and shot only one time. A fixed power 4X scope is plenty -- spend your money on quality, not magnification.
sixgunner455
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,052
My position/takeaway:
Elk are big. I don't need to be able to thread a needle with my elk rifle. I don't need to hit a squirrel in the eye, I need to be able to hit a target the size of two oversized basketballs at 300 yards or less. The bullet needs to smash the bones (ribs to shoulder) protecting those basketballs and pop them. The scope needs to be able to see the large buff colored body clearly whether it is 50 yards away under pines in falling snow in early morning "light", or in the middle of a meadow 300 yards away, and the crosshairs need to help me place the bullet somewhere on those basketballs. If I'm smart and the shot-gods bless me, I won't have to try to shoot through more than the ribs.
At 300 yards, 4x appears to be about 75 yards, 7x appears to be about 41 yards, and 14x appears to be about 21 yards.
I would hope that most folks who are going elk hunting would be able to work up to making that kind of a shot from a non-benched shooting position, with whatever their chosen gear might be.
Personally, I think that 10x and up are more magnification than is useful, and more bulk than a 3-9x40 is excessive.
Elk are big. I don't need to be able to thread a needle with my elk rifle. I don't need to hit a squirrel in the eye, I need to be able to hit a target the size of two oversized basketballs at 300 yards or less. The bullet needs to smash the bones (ribs to shoulder) protecting those basketballs and pop them. The scope needs to be able to see the large buff colored body clearly whether it is 50 yards away under pines in falling snow in early morning "light", or in the middle of a meadow 300 yards away, and the crosshairs need to help me place the bullet somewhere on those basketballs. If I'm smart and the shot-gods bless me, I won't have to try to shoot through more than the ribs.
At 300 yards, 4x appears to be about 75 yards, 7x appears to be about 41 yards, and 14x appears to be about 21 yards.
I would hope that most folks who are going elk hunting would be able to work up to making that kind of a shot from a non-benched shooting position, with whatever their chosen gear might be.
Personally, I think that 10x and up are more magnification than is useful, and more bulk than a 3-9x40 is excessive.
Skylerbone
Member
How about 1.5-8X with Schott Glass, 13 oz. for under $300? http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/minox.pl?page=66100
sleepyone
Member
That's what I like about this forum; have always liked about it. I can get some real world insight from people who have been there and done that. When I first started my search, I was real close to buying a high-powered 50mm scope. The advice has been overwhelmingly for small glass. Thanks for all the input.
Rem700CDLSF3006
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 282
really love my Trijicon accupoint 3x9x40
Having hunted elk in the Bob Marshall and Scapegoat (as well as less challenging places), I still prefer my Leupold Vari-X III 2.5 x 8 scope on my .300 Win Mag. The 2.5 was perfect for my biggest elk at roughly 20 yards coming at me in response to the guide's call. On the same hunt the 8x let me take a small black bear at about 400 yards. An identical scope on my .270 let me take my biggest mule deer at over 400 yards several years earlier. I'm not saying Leupold is the best scope but for most big game I believe the lowest power for a variable should be no more than 2 or 2.5 and the highest power should not require rings that force a higher head position for the shooter.
montanaoffroader
Member
There is nothing wrong with the Nikon Buckmasters scope you already have, it should work fine for elk at reasonable ranges.
If you want to go with larger lenses/more magnification then by all means do so, whatever makes you comfortable. Whether or not it makes any real difference in light gathering or visiblity, if you are comfortable with what you are shooting then chances are you will shoot better.
FWIW, for years my hunting rifles all had fixed 4x scopes on them, worked fine for me and brought home plenty of big game.
If you want to go with larger lenses/more magnification then by all means do so, whatever makes you comfortable. Whether or not it makes any real difference in light gathering or visiblity, if you are comfortable with what you are shooting then chances are you will shoot better.
FWIW, for years my hunting rifles all had fixed 4x scopes on them, worked fine for me and brought home plenty of big game.
- Status
