2X scope on my 460?

[mac57t]

Do you think a 2X scope will be OK on my 460?Allmost all shots will be within 100 yards.I am currently looking at a Simmons 2X20 model 7733.Is the 20 mm a disadvantage compared to a 32mm?

[Lone Star]

For 50 to 100 yard shots a 2X scope will work well, giving a good sight picture with a large field of view.  However, I'd think twice about the Simmons.  I do not know about the scopes currently produced, but several years ago the 2X Simmons pistol scopes would not hold up to .357 recoil.  First-hand experience here.

[Grumulkin]

Why put a 2X scope on a gun that with proper loads should be good to at least 200 yards?  I have a Bushnell Trophy 2-6X on mine; I have about 50 rounds through mine and the scope has held up so far and just cost me $100.

[Lone Star]

Why put a 2X scope on a gun that with proper loads should be good to at least 200 yards?

"A man should know his limitations", and the OP wisely does.  Very few hunters can connect at 200 yards in the field with a revolver, particularly one with the looping trajectory of a .460.  Hunters with limited field experience on game sometimes think otherwise....

[Grumulkin]

Lets see; I get 2 inches at 100 yards which should, off of a good rest, translate into 4 inches at 200 yards.  I'm shooting a 15 inch (counting the muzzel brake) Encore with 200 grain bullets which are probably going 2,300 to 2,500 fps (once I chrono them I'll know for sure).  This shouldn't be much more of a "looping trajectory" than many rifles considered good for 200 yards and beyond.  Off of a good rest, I'll take a 200 yard shot at a big animal any day.

Of course, if your "revolver" isn't capable of at least 4 MOA, you probably shouldn't take a 200 yard shot.

[jro45]

I own the 500 S&W and shoot the 270 gr bullets to 200 yds. with my 2x20
Leupole.

[Lone Star]

Lets see; trajectory" than many rifles considered good for 200 yards and beyond.  Off of a good rest, I'll take a 200 yard shot at a big animal any day.

Let's see, how many animals have you taken in the field with your rifle-like .460 at 200 yards?  Oh, that's right, none.  The inexperienced hunter always thinks that long range shooting is so easy...those of us who have killed dozens of game animals with handguns know differently.  hunting ain't range practice.  But to each his own I guess.   :roll:

["TEXAS"]

Handgun hunting is not about how farr we can shoot, it's about how well we hunt!

[poncaguy]

I had a new Simmons on my 15" Encore 460 S&W , it held up fine. I put it on my Contender 223 and put a Burris 3x with AO on my 460.

[corbanzo]

Texas hit the nail right on the head.  One of the great things about pistol hunting is the fact that we are hunting with a smaller weapon, which makes our approach on an animal much easier.  Planning on taking shots under 100 yards is no big deal in handgun hunting.  I know fellas who's shots are mostly under 50, and no, not because they can't hit past that, it is because they are good enough stalkers to get up close and have a good shot.  If you want to compete about how far you can shoot, take it to the range.  For handgun hunting purposes, a 2x scope would work great for the ranges at which you prefer hunting.  Though I do not have experience with the simmons scope, I would recommened listening to those who do.

[Redhawk1]

Lets see; trajectory" than many rifles considered good for 200 yards and beyond.  Off of a good rest, I'll take a 200 yard shot at a big animal any day.

Let's see, how many animals have you taken in the field with your rifle-like .460 at 200 yards?  Oh, that's right, none.  The inexperienced hunter always thinks that long range shooting is so easy...those of us who have killed dozens of game animals with handguns know differently.  hunting ain't range practice.  But to each his own I guess.   :roll:

Lone Star,
Here we go again, just because "YOU" can't do it, does not mean other can't. Yes, it is good to know you abilities and stick with them, but some people will surprise you with there shooting ability with handguns in field conditions. So don't be to quick to criticize others. As for (the looping trajectory of a .460.) You may want to educate yourself with something before you make a statement that you probably don't have hands on experience with. The 460's trajectory will surprise you, it is flat.

"TEXAS", hunting is hunting no matter the distance.  I don't judge anyone on haw far there shot was or how close it was. I bow hunt, handgun hunt and rifle hunt. I have killed animals from 5 yards to 350 yards. All of the kill I made were equally as impressive to me , no matter the distance.


I don't know why people always have to turn a simple question into a, well this is what I think topic?

mac57t, the 2 X scope will work go for your needs, but I would consider a different scope other than the Simmons. There are better selections such as a Leupold, Bushnell and a few others, also consider a red-dot for 100 yards and less shooting. I have two 460 Mags with Ultra-dot sights and one with a Bushnell 2 X 6 X 32 on it. All will shoot as good as the other at 100 yards.

[Lone Star]

Here we go again, just because "YOU" can't do it, does not mean other can't.....

Redhawk, nowhere did I say I could not, or have not, shot animals at over 200 yards.  You have jumped to a conclusion based on something I never said.  Here is what I actually said:

The inexperienced hunter always thinks that long range shooting is so easy...those of us who have killed dozens of game animals with handguns know differently.

Shame on you for miss-representing me.   :roll:

I have indeed shot numerous deer in the field at over 200 yards with handguns (.35 Remington, .300 Savage, and a .45 LC Dan Wesson of all things).  Since you have experience as well, you know that it is not something that is so easy for a beginner to do with any handgun, let alone a revolver.  I have watched enough revolver shooters on the IHMSA Long Range course (15 years in International-level classes myself) to know that relatively few can even hit the large target more than 50% of the time at 200 meters, even with a rest at a known distance.  

My intent here was simply to dampen the overly enthusiastic theories about how easy it was to use the .460 at 200 yards, and to educate those who have never shot an animal with a revolver about the difficulty in doing it in the field.   Please note that I actually answered the OP's original questions, I did not question his ideas.  You've made your point.  I'm through with this thread.

[Cheesehead]

In my experience, with a 2x hand gun scope, it can be entirely adequate at 200 yard targets. With less magnification, there is less noticeable "wobble" and for me it helps get the round off faster. With my encore hand gun, with a good rest, I keep all my groups at 200 yards under 6 inches. I admit this is not shooting a deer, just a 6 inch black target on a white back round.

I have had good luck with Burris hand gun scopes being very durable. I had one on my model 29 44 mag. With over 1000 full power loads, this scope is ready for more.

Cheese

[Tom W.]

Gee guys, I have a 2X Leupold on my .480 Ruger SRH and was busting clay targets @ 100 yards with it. But the first time I got to shoot it at a deer about 50 yards away, I missed. The problem was I hadn't practiced with it while shooting in the blind I was in, and just before I shot, I looked and saw that I was about to ruin a new scope, so  I repositioned, and then saw that if I fired I would probably damage my barrel, so by time I got to where I could take a shot, I was in such an awkward position that it was almost foolish. :oops:

Practice shooting from where you'll be shooting during the season, so you can have your area set up for a good shot, with good rests in place, and obstacles out of the way.

[Redhawk1]

Lone Star, the reason I wrote my comment was, to let you see how it was to jump on Grumulkin's post. He wrote (Lets see; I get 2 inches at 100 yards which should, off of a good rest, translate into 4 inches at 200 yards.)
Your reply was, (Let's see, how many animals have you taken in the field with your rifle-like .460 at 200 yards? Oh, that's right, none.)

I guess you have jumped to a conclusion based on something he never said.

I do agree with you on the Simmons scopes. I have shot the radical out of one on my 44 Mag.

 I think everyone agrees that only someone with experience and lots and lost of practice should attempt 200 yards shots with a handgun with a good rest. Notice I said a good rest. You are 100 % correct when you say, (The inexperienced hunter always thinks that long range shooting is so easy...those of us who have killed dozens of game animals with handguns know differently.)

The whole thing is, know your limitations with a handgun.  

[Grumulkin]

Guys, I have quite thick skin and don't get my feelings hurt easily.  I value the opinions of others and, of course, I value my own.

1.  I've never taken an animal with my 460 S&W because I just got it but is seems to have great potential.

2.  I will agree that long range handgunning isn't easy unless you have practiced.

3.  I think taking rabbits, as I have with open sites on a .44 Magnum, a Glock 19 and a Contender handgun in 22 LR count for something in the practice department.

4.  Though I haven't done a lot of big game handgunning, I have taken a Black Wildebeest, Cape Springbok and a Mountain Reedbuck with a scoped 10 inch 357 Herrett.  A whitetail deer should surcumb just as easily as those animals did.  The 357 Herrett does have a looping trajectory but is accurate enough that if the accuracy held up to 200 yards I would probably hit a 200 yard target every time off of a good rest.  Of course, when bullets slow, they aren't stabilized adequately so the accuracy (1.5 - 2 MOA) I get with that handgun (considerably lower velocity than a 460 S&W) might not hold to 200 yards.

5.  I probably wouldn't be successful hitting a 200 yard target with my 44 Magnum revolver.  The looping trajectory is one factor but mine just doesn't seem to have the accuracy potential as judged by shooting at 50 and 100 yards.  The 460 S&W seems to be quite different.  Though I would like it to be a bit better, 2 MOA with a handgun isn't bad.  My friend with a 460 S&W revolver has told me he gets similar accuracy.  Although a 2X scope would work, I like more magnification at even 100 yards and why not have it when economical variable power handgun scopes are available?

[mac57t]

I was also wondering about the Field of View of alower powerd scope being larger.

[Grumulkin]

The field of view of a lower power scope should be larger.  For close range shooting, you definitely are better off with the larger field of view.  That's why I like the variable power scope; you can have it both ways.

My first handgun scope was a T/C 3-9X scope.  I tried a very few shots at 9X and then turned it down to 5X and mostly left it there.  For me at least, anything above about 6X is wasted.

[Cheesehead]

I choose a fixed 2x scope as compared to a variable for the following reasons, which are for the "most" part true.

More compact.

Less expense.

Fewer moving parts.

Less weight.

Less prone to damage due to compactness.

Entirely adequate at 100 and even 200 yards on deer size game.

No surprises when needing 2x and the scope is on 7x.

The 32mm will work better at low light but is larger in size and weight and expense.

Cheese

[DakotaElkSlayer]

May I suggest you start looking around for a Leupold M8 in 2X?  Since the M8 line has been discontinued, lots of places have been puting them on clearance.

Jim