Low Powered Scopes 1x -2x are very handy
- Thread starter Missionary
- Start date
Bret4207
Northern NY Dangerous extremist...???
Jeeze! Are you nuts?!!! Don't ever admit to being talked into ANYTHING by me!!!!! They'll toss you in the psych ward in a heartbeat!!!!!
Familiarity. Reliability. Simplicity. Weight. But then again, I'm a guy who has a spare 9.3x62 (because, who knows? maybe I'll figure out a way to break a 98 Mauser action), and factors use-as-an-impact-weapon into CCW selection.
For the most part, I think the downsides of variables outweigh the advantage of being able to "dial in" magnification. Fixed scopes tend to be more-reliable, and weigh less--and they don't have reticles designed by laid-off NASA optical engineers. Eventually I'll come across a Leupold VXII 2x7 and give it a try. IF it is reliable, and IF the reticle doesn't give me a headache, or make me waste time trying to figure out what point actually corresponds with where the bullet is (hopefully) going to hit, THEN I'll maybe keep it around. If not, I'll still have the Weaver 6x.
Bret, I used to work at the only real psych ward in Nebraska. Other than the lousy food, it wasn't that bad a place to be.
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
My son did three summer internships at the Norristown State Hospital outside of Philly. Most were just crazy, but some were dangerous he said. Multiply killers and rapists were always watched closely.
todd
Well-Known Member
i'm with ya on the reticles designed for NASA. i used to be a fixed scope guy, the old Swift or Weaver 4x scope. then i used old Swift variables (late 80s to early 90's). then Swift had a variables of bean counter owners and their reputation went downhill fast. i used Meuller's and Bushnell variables, then i broke down and bought a 3-9x and a 2-7x Leupold. then i bought a 2-7x Vortex. my youngest son has a 3-9X Vortex on his 6.5x55. i bought a few more 2-7x Leopolds and Vortexes. the last scope i bought is a new 2-6x Weaver handgun scope for my TC Contender in 22 Hornet that i have to shoot.
a good old duplex reticle is good enuff fer me,
Duplex® Reticle | Leupold
<ul> <li>Invented in 1962 by Leupold®</li> <li>Defined by heavy posts</li> <li>Stands out against cover in low light</li> <li>Quick target acquisition with thin lines at the center</li> <li>Most popular reticle in the world</li> <li>Rear (second) focal plane </li> </ul>
www.leupold.com
None of my variables have busy reticles. There are a multitude of different reticles offered.............including the duplex. Just need to purchase the right model. For hunting, I prefer the lighted duplex or German post.
Rick H
Well-Known Member
The old fixed power scopes are much beloved but are really inferior to modern stuff. Heavy, short eye relief box, decidedly inferior glass and coatings which leads to poor light transmission and light gathering performance. The modern Leupold 2-7X is lighter, brighter, more compact with better optical performance and is available in simple to wild reticules. The modern inert gas purging and seals are better as well.
I used old steel Weavers before my conversion to Leupold's and even have an older Redfield 2-7x and 40 year old Leupold M8 4x scope. Compare the old glass to the new side by side at dusk. The only advantage the old fixed scopes have is you can pick them up dirt cheap. There is a reason for this, you get what you pay for.
I used old steel Weavers before my conversion to Leupold's and even have an older Redfield 2-7x and 40 year old Leupold M8 4x scope. Compare the old glass to the new side by side at dusk. The only advantage the old fixed scopes have is you can pick them up dirt cheap. There is a reason for this, you get what you pay for.
todd
Well-Known Member
try a 2-7x Vortex and a 2-7x Leopold, i did and they were both good.
RBHarter
West Central AR
I can buy a lot of conscious for $300 and passing a shot 25 min before sunrise or 5 minutes before solunar sunset with little to no remorse .
My 199? Pronghorn is a vastly more visible optic than any of the ElPaso Weavers .
Honestly even the 2010-15ish counterparts are clearer brighter etc .
Enter the "where you hunted etc your whole life" clause .
See 25acp as a minimum deer cartridge in Maine vs minimum 2" OAL of 22 cal or lager with a minimum energy of 1000ftlb at 100 yd for Nevada .
I hunted big game often 1-3 miles from the truck and a 300 yd shot across a white granite flagstone ridge saddle 500'-1000' above the last tree was just a fact of the October lottery drawn 1 by tag only hunt . A 3-9×40 duplex was the gold standard, but 90% of the time they never left 5-6x even when a shot was 400 yd . The why is simple you were just as likely to score on a spot and stock in the next canyon as to kick a rogue out of a bed in the quaking aspens at 50 yd, 100 yd from the truck . What I wouldn't give for 1970 Weaver series shaped 6×40 duplex with only 2 knobs under low profile caps that doesn't need a medium ring to clear the ocular bell with the bolt on a 98,700,70,110 with 4" of eye relief .
I can have one but the ocular bell and lock ring on the new Weavers and Leopolds are as much as the 4 knob variables. The lower cost guys don't make any fixed power optics .
I understand that one pays for the glass not for the mechanics but it seems to me that the guts
My 199? Pronghorn is a vastly more visible optic than any of the ElPaso Weavers .
Honestly even the 2010-15ish counterparts are clearer brighter etc .
Enter the "where you hunted etc your whole life" clause .
See 25acp as a minimum deer cartridge in Maine vs minimum 2" OAL of 22 cal or lager with a minimum energy of 1000ftlb at 100 yd for Nevada .
I hunted big game often 1-3 miles from the truck and a 300 yd shot across a white granite flagstone ridge saddle 500'-1000' above the last tree was just a fact of the October lottery drawn 1 by tag only hunt . A 3-9×40 duplex was the gold standard, but 90% of the time they never left 5-6x even when a shot was 400 yd . The why is simple you were just as likely to score on a spot and stock in the next canyon as to kick a rogue out of a bed in the quaking aspens at 50 yd, 100 yd from the truck . What I wouldn't give for 1970 Weaver series shaped 6×40 duplex with only 2 knobs under low profile caps that doesn't need a medium ring to clear the ocular bell with the bolt on a 98,700,70,110 with 4" of eye relief .
I can have one but the ocular bell and lock ring on the new Weavers and Leopolds are as much as the 4 knob variables. The lower cost guys don't make any fixed power optics .
I understand that one pays for the glass not for the mechanics but it seems to me that the guts
There is an element of risk, one that goes higher if you are not part of a functional team. I had a good team, so the risk was less. But it is one of those jobs where you learn to not discuss work with people who aren't part of it.
I"m not questioning that, at least on paper, the newer scopes are "better". My questions are more along the lines of "can I make use of the improvements?" and "are the improvements worth the cost to me?"
Bret4207
Northern NY Dangerous extremist...???
Exactly. If my choice is between a $300-600.00+ and the $50-100.00 Weaver/Redfield out of the used box at the gun shop...I'm likely going with used if possible. I suppose when you own 3 or 4 rifles that you want to scope vs having 15-20 rifles you want to scope is part of it. I did shuck out relatively big buck for a Lyman Targetspot Jr 6x for my Win 52, but I wanted a period correct scope for one of the very few collectable rifles I own. Fortunately, I did that 20-ish years back then prices were far more reasonable. And then there is the question of, "Can I still shoot well enough that the scope that is 3 gnat hairs "better" than the scope that's $200.00 less will make any difference? Maybe if I was sniping ground squirrels at 500 yards or more it would. But the longest shots at anything living I'm taking is likely going to be well under that and at a much larger (coyote sized) animal. Or if I was shooting competitively it would be different. That $2-500.00+ difference in price could buy a lot of primers and powder.
OTOH- there is nothing at all wrong with pride of ownership and getting exactly what you want, of building a rifle up to suit your taste/dreams. To each their own. I won't disparage the guy with the $1500.00 scope on his $2500.00 gun nor the guy with the used Tasco on his surplus Mauser. I just hope both are able to practice enough to hit their targets.
Last edited:
Glaciers
Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
I’ve been watching this thread thinking I would throw out my two cents. Since then inflation has taken my 2 cents down to a penny and a half. Figured I better chip in before that totally disappears.
Cost is always a consideration as I’m not a trust fund child. But for carrying in brushy areas weigh clarity and field of view are the most important factors. I’ve been a fan of Leopold 1x4’s and 2x7 compact. The 1x4 is right at 10 oz and the 2x7 I believe is 12 or 13 oz. Have 3 1x4’s and a couple of 2x7’s, my 458x2 had a 1x4 until I upgraded to a Vx 6 -1x6 with a 30 mm tube. Fantastic scope. One of the best features of the 1x4’s is a 65 foot field of view with good light gathering. The 1x6 has an unbelievable 123 foot field of view and the clearest, brightest scope this guy can afford. Had to save up for that one. And not to forget only 4 oz heavier than the 1x4. Absolutely a great addition to my 458x2 thumper.
Will never sell a1x4 Leo or the 2x7 great scopes. A Remington 141 35 Remington sports 1x4.
Another scope is the Athlon 2x12 (1 inch tube) that I have on an CDR or we used to refer to them as AR’s, but a 55 foot field of view with once again great clarity and fairly light scope.
The new scopes on the market are very bright and clear. But the trend is BIGGER than is practical for a brush gun. Nice but I don’t need a 30mm 4 to 40 power scope on my 1895 Marlin or for that matter any rifle I own.
Cost is always a consideration as I’m not a trust fund child. But for carrying in brushy areas weigh clarity and field of view are the most important factors. I’ve been a fan of Leopold 1x4’s and 2x7 compact. The 1x4 is right at 10 oz and the 2x7 I believe is 12 or 13 oz. Have 3 1x4’s and a couple of 2x7’s, my 458x2 had a 1x4 until I upgraded to a Vx 6 -1x6 with a 30 mm tube. Fantastic scope. One of the best features of the 1x4’s is a 65 foot field of view with good light gathering. The 1x6 has an unbelievable 123 foot field of view and the clearest, brightest scope this guy can afford. Had to save up for that one. And not to forget only 4 oz heavier than the 1x4. Absolutely a great addition to my 458x2 thumper.
Will never sell a1x4 Leo or the 2x7 great scopes. A Remington 141 35 Remington sports 1x4.
Another scope is the Athlon 2x12 (1 inch tube) that I have on an CDR or we used to refer to them as AR’s, but a 55 foot field of view with once again great clarity and fairly light scope.
The new scopes on the market are very bright and clear. But the trend is BIGGER than is practical for a brush gun. Nice but I don’t need a 30mm 4 to 40 power scope on my 1895 Marlin or for that matter any rifle I own.
todd
Well-Known Member
@Winelover mentioned Trijicon a few pages back - "buy once, cry once." I took a peek and found that they actually HAVE a basic 1-4x20 rifle scope without a back-up camera, USB charge ports, Bluetooth and servo-driven foldoing rear seats! It's not made in the US, but at least they tell you it's made in Japan, and I've had marvelous luck with Japanese scopes over the years. I didn't think the price was bad either, but I've never owned a Trijicon and am curious if this is a robust scope.
Has anyone any experience with this particular Trijicon?:
www.natchezss.com
Has anyone any experience with this particular Trijicon?:
Natchez Shooters Supplies
www.natchezss.com
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
@Winelover mentioned Trijicon a few pages back - "buy once, cry once." I took a peek and found that they actually HAVE a basic 1-4x20 rifle scope without a back-up camera, USB charge ports, Bluetooth and servo-driven foldoing rear seats! It's not made in the US, but at least they tell you it's made in Japan, and I've had marvelous luck with Japanese scopes over the years. I didn't think the price was bad either, but I've never owned a Trijicon and am curious if this is a robust scope.
Has anyone any experience with this particular Trijicon?:
Natchez Shooters Supplies
Mine is an older version (20+ years) with the amber post reticle. Also, it's a 1" tube. It's on my 338 Winchester Magnum. The other one I have (older) is a 3 x 9 with same reticle, also 1" tube, on Cindy's 308W. Back then, they only offered these two flavors.
Thanks, @Winelover .
I doubt whatever is being offered today is remotely like what they offered 20 years ago, so hard to say now.
I doubt whatever is being offered today is remotely like what they offered 20 years ago, so hard to say now.