Scope: Adjustable objective - necessary?

[Dave3006]

I really appreciate all the advise given to me regarding bolt guns, scopes, and shooting techniques lately. After considering scoping my Garand for deer hunting, I am leaning towards a Win70 Classic in 30-06 with a Leupold Vari III X scope.

It was recommended that I get the 4.5-14 with adjustable objective. I was wondering if AO is necessary and 4.5-14 a good choice? I like the price on the Vari II scopes. However, the Vari III scopes are said to be much better in terms of optics quality. Any comments?

Thanks.

 

[BMiracle]

I have 2 4.5-14X's AO that I absolutely love. Just perfect for hunting. I have used them at ranges from 50 yards to 300+ successfully. The AO really helps alot, but is not necessary...I just like IT ! 4.5-14 is great. You can turn it down for short range or turn it up for supported shots on long range animals. My advice is it would be a good set up. Have one on my 30-'06 and just put one on my new 25-'06. Good luck!

 

[Keith Rogan]

It's funny, but I was just commenting on this in the hunting forum - anyway, I think that choice in scope is absolutely the worst you could make!
Even in open country, most deer are taken at short to medium range. Why choose a scope that blinds you at close range?
That scope would be great for prairie dogs at 500 yards, but for deer you need something that gives you the greatest visibility WITHIN THE RANGES YOU'LL LIKELY SHOOT. IE: from 3 yards to 300 rather than 100 to 500.
For me, that means a 1.5 X 5 power variable with it kept at its lowest setting until I wish to take a long range shot.
You'll be surprised though, how little difference magnification makes in making even fairly long range shots. If you shoot groups with a variable at it's highest and lowest magnification and you'll find very little difference in group size - certainly not enough to make a difference.
It's never the deer at 250 yards that you miss, it's always the one the breaks out of the brush at your feet - the one you can't find in you high power scope till he's lost in the next brush patch or down the nearest gully.




------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan

 

[Kernel]

I agree with Keith, it's hard to imagine a worse scope for a deer rifle. Lower magnification (and the resulting wide Field-of-View) is key on a deer rifle. Secondly, A/O is less than useless since it adds cost, complexity, weight, size, and frailty and offers no perceptible advantage in any setting other than bench shooting off sandbags. I know a lot of people use varmint scopes successfully on deer rifles, I just think there are better choices like the classic 3-9x40 or a good 1.75-5x32. FOV is what fills my tags. - Kernel

 

[Al Thompson]

Ditto the low power scope. I use a 2.5 x 8 on my deer rifle and have the 1.5 x 5 for back up. I do more sitting than stalking and more morning/evening hunts than mid-day. So the 2.5 x 8 is the ticket. Change those habits to moving more and mid-day hunting and the 1.5 x 5 gets slapped on. Mount is a Leupold QD.

Giz

 

[Good Guy]

Ditto Keith, a 1.5 X 5 or a 2 X 7 variable is perfect for most big game hunting. I also like the 2 X 7 for small edible game hunting as well. I prefer low magnification for most game hunting, since the close ones are the shots that surprise you and you can't find anything up close and fast with high X's. Under 100 yards for deer I like iron sights, but any further than that my eyes do need optics. Part of growing older.



------------------
Just one of the Good Guys

 

[Michael Priddy]

Sorry fellows. I have to disagree with you on the A/O. Do you fellows remember the Nikon scope add on that beautiful custom rifle several years go. Well,it was love at first site. I had a close copy of the rifle made and wanted to top it with the Nikon scope. After what I spent on the rifle, I put the cheaper Nikon Monarch scope on. It was not clear at 100yds to me or several other shooters. I took it of an put in on my black powder rifle. I put a leupold with an A/O that I can focus at any distance. It is a great looking and shooting rifle. I am not saying that nikon makes poor scopes, but this one did not work for me. If it had an A/O, I could maybe dialed it with a sharp focus.

 

[labgrade]

Depending on the scope, I find the AO more than worthless = a hinderance for big game hunting. Ditto for the higher magbifications. I use either a 2X8 or 2X7 & always dialed down to the lower setting unless on a stand that I know I'll have only long shots. & usually, for those, you'll have the time to dial it up. 99%, my scopes stay at the low end.

For prarie dogs & targets, I do like the high magnifications & AO. I've the time to dink with it if I want & losing one of either's no biggie.

 

[Herodotus]

There was something wrong with that scope of yours, M. Priddy. You should return it to Nikon with a well thought out complaint, not put it on another rifle.
Unlike the Leupold (150 yds parallax setting), Nikon Monarch scopes have the parallax set at 100 yds. The Nikon should have been sharper, brighter and absolutely parallax free if you shot it at 100 yds. It should have out performed the Leuplod Vari X-III.
Sorry you got a lemon of a scope. I guess it does hapen. It must be an awflully nice rifle.

 

[BMiracle]

I am still going to stick to my guns as far as my chooice for the scope on my rifle that I use to deer hunt with. IMHO 4.5X is not overboard even at 50 yards. Personal preference. Besides, I agree with what you all are saying about the deer that you junp up on while doing a drive or walking through the woods. I however live and hunt in north Texas. I also still hunt and the land is pretty open. I have taken deer out to 350 yards from a well-supported rest. That AO and 14X magnification sure helped. Was it necessary, probably not. Did I use it, Yes. As far as weight and complexity, I don't buy that. The weight added is a few ounces and AO are simple. I have a standard 1.5X on my "short range rifle." I guess what it comes down to is what you want to carry, if you don't mind the extra weight and things to adjust, and what type of hunt you will be doing.

 

[labgrade]

No disagreement, Bmiracle.

You are correct that it all comes down to personal preference.

In the manner & places that I normally hunt, 4X is too much magnification for me (& me alone) - others would say they like more & that's what it comes down to = what you, personally, do best with.

If I was going to be using a (fer instance) 7mm STW or some other "laser" & known shots were to be at 250 - +yds, I'd probably go for a 10X or so & just keep it right there abouts.

Tailoring the tools to the most expected job AND what you do best with.

& that problem with MP's scope might not have had anything to do with the AO at all. All decent scopes have an adjustment at the ocular (that end closest to your eye) that can be dialed in to give you a clear deffinition of the crosshairs. May be that all need be done there is to back off the lock ring & turn the ocular in or our till you get a clear cross hair ....

 

[BMiracle]

Yep, you got to just the back end of the scope.

 

[Art Eatman]

I've used variable scopes for 30 years. I've also used Weaver K4s. I've killed somewhere over 40 deer, at ranges from 30 yards to 450 yards.

I'd venture that over 90% of the time, my variable scopes were set on 2 or 3 power. My 350-yard deer, 3X. On my 450-yard deer, I had a good rest and a very cooperative buck--plenty of time to crank the scope up from 3X to 9X.

I just picked up a Weaver V3, today. It weighs 9 ounces. I'm building up a lightweight walking-hunting .308.

If you're hunting with 9-1/2 pounds of Garand, why try for 11 pounds?

Variable scopes above 7X to 9X makes sense for specialty shooting, or for such things as long-range prairie dog hunting as a test of you and your gun. Otherwise? Save the money, save the weight. Why take a backhoe to a pick-and-shovel job?

FWIW, Art