Author Topic: How much magnification needed in a variable under 250 yds? (Read 854 times)

Smokey · « **on:** August 23, 2003, 10:39:14 AM »

I'm set to pick up my Mauser M48 project rifle from my gunsmith. It is equipped with two barrels - .260 Remington and .358 Winchester. I'm trying to select a scope for it and have settled on a variable but I'm still uncertain as to magnification. I'm trying to decide between a 1.5-6x42, a 2.5-7x32, a 2-7x32, a 3-9x42 or a 2.5-10x32. I'll plan on using the .260 for deer out to 250 yds. and the .358 for elk to the same distance. I'd appreciate thoughts/experience/advice re:magnification needs.

Thanks, in advance, for your advice.

Dave in WV · « **Reply #1 on:** August 23, 2003, 12:19:26 PM »

I have a Burris 1.5x6 and a Pentax 2x8 and feel confident both are up to 300 yds for deer or larger game. There is a 275 yd swinger at our range I can hit regularly if I do my part. I bought my Pentax scope before I knew of the Nikon Gold 1.5x6. It has a 30mm tube and 4" eye relief and would have stongly cosidered it. It's a little pricey but seems well worth the money. ($409 at The Optic Zone) I can recommend the Burris or Pentax scopes. I like a wide field of view and both have the most in their class. BTW, the Burris has a small objective lens size but is plenty bright. Dave

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #2 on:** August 23, 2003, 01:14:41 PM »

I would have to agree with Dave, the Nikon Golds are great scopes. I have a Leupold 2.5-8 and I never turn it up past 6 and I have shots out to 400-500 yards, so I would go with the 1.5-6 power scope. Another scope in that size that is excellent is the Bushnell Elite 4200 1.5-6x32. I guess it all depends on the size of the tube. Are you considering a 30mm? I would stick with the 1" if you are only going to shot out to 200 yards. The Nikon will give you more light, only due to the larger objective, but it will add weight also.

Dave in WV · « **Reply #3 on:** August 23, 2003, 02:41:57 PM »

While I agree with Jon, I'll have to say the Nikon Gold will have more light because it has a 30mm tube and has internal optics that are sized for the 30mm tube and a 42mm objective lens. It is only 1.9oz heavier than the Elite 4200 . It has 4" of eye relief VS 3.3 with the 4200 Elite 1.5x6. Both are great scopes. On a long action the Nikon Gold may be a little short for mounting. Jon could probably answer that one since he's in the business. The 4200 Elites have a rep for sheer ruggedness and great glass. Dave

Zachary · « **Reply #4 on:** August 25, 2003, 07:19:17 AM »

I'm one of those kinds of hunters that enjoys higher magnification scopes. As such, if it were for my purposes, I would definately get the 3x-9x.

As for scopes, I have never even held a Nikon Gold in my hands, but it seems that everyone is raving about them. Granted, the Nikon Gold was the Outdoor Life Editor's choice, but I really can't give a great deal of credibility to any magazine, per se. However, I can say that if Jon likes them (and he obviously does) then I'm much more inclinded to go with his recommendation. :wink:

Zachary

Smokey · « **Reply #5 on:** August 25, 2003, 08:25:33 AM »

I've just heard and read too many positive things about Sightron to not go with them. I have one of the early Nikons in 3-9x42 and love it but I like to try different products from time to time provided there is enough good feedback on them. That's true in this case.

I opted for the 1.5-6x42 because I don't think I need the added magnification with the .358 barrel or even the .260. And, the edge-to-edge clarity and coatings on the Sightrons, combined with their indexing system is are reputed to be excellent features that really work, in the field. Nikon makes a nice 3-7x32 but, again, I wanted to see why so many are so complimentary on the Sightrons. My father in law said that the folks who operate Sightron are actually a bunch of 'renegade' folks who broke away from Leupold to make a new product. If that's true, that may suggest why the Sightron products are receiving so many accolades.

I'll keep you posted...and thanks for your feedback!

Zachary · « **Reply #6 on:** August 25, 2003, 12:51:13 PM »

That's interesting about the "renegade" comment. Leupold has essentially stuck in neutral while a lot of other companies are making better products. The Vari-X III really hasn't changed in over 12 years - what's up with that? And don't tell me that there's no room for improvement because their always is and, in my opinion, the Elite 4200s are better than the Vari-X IIIs. The only exception is that I really like Leupold's Illuminated reticles. So, again, as for the "renegades," I really look forward to some true innovation.

As for the Sightrons, I too have heard many good things, but it's really hard to pull me away from the Elites and Monarchs.

So okay, go with the Sightron and let us know how she shoots. :grin:

Zachary

Dave in WV · « **Reply #7 on:** August 25, 2003, 12:57:42 PM »

Smokey, I hope you like your scope. I've too have heard good things about Sightron scopes. I looked at the stats on your scope and they are impressive. Good luck and goood hunting. Dave

Smokey · « **Reply #8 on:** August 25, 2003, 04:51:59 PM »

WV Dave and Zacchary:

I have the "advantage" of never having owned a Leupold or Bushnell. I know guys who own them and wouldn't have any other brand so I know they're both awfullyy, awfully good products. I love my Nikon and would have bought another if they'd have had one with the specs I was looking for.

I'll let you guys know how my "experiment" turns out.