Author Topic: A Picture of my New TOY! (Read 1506 times)

retrieverhunter · « **on:** August 09, 2005, 04:27:05 PM »

Here is a picture of my BP Xpress topped with a Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20 scope.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2005, 05:23:49 PM »

Very Nice.

TN.Frank · « **Reply #2 on:** August 10, 2005, 09:13:09 AM »

Nice rifle, WAY TOO MUCH SCOPE. It's not a 22-250, back it down to a nice 1.5-4.5 or at the most a 2-7 and you'll be happier. After all, you're longest shot will be what, 200yrds. 7x should take care of that with no problem.

Buckskin · « **Reply #3 on:** August 11, 2005, 03:45:35 AM »

WOW, that has more X's than my 204 scope!!!

NONYA · « **Reply #4 on:** August 11, 2005, 05:56:09 AM »

nice rifle but i would say thats a waste of a very nice scope,throw a 4x on it and call it good,that scope belongs on a 22-250 or 25-06 with a heavy barrel!

Buckskin · « **Reply #5 on:** August 11, 2005, 07:06:09 AM »

Mine has a 1x on it! Only thing legal in Wisconsin

TN.Frank · « **Reply #6 on:** August 11, 2005, 09:56:40 AM »

And if you think this is bad. The other day at my local dealers I saw not one but two inlines with 3-9x32's on em and, get this, see thru mounts. LOL, I had to hold back the laughter. What kind of crazy person would over scope then try to fix it by putting see-thru mounts on the gun? If they'd just put a Variable scope with a lower power then they could crank it down and not even have to worry about iron sights. Some of my fellow "gun nuts" just amaze me sometimes. :roll:

retrieverhunter · « **Reply #7 on:** August 11, 2005, 03:59:19 PM »

I had a Conquest 4.5-14 on the gun and decided I liked the scope on my Encore 300 WSM, so I bought another for my BP Xpress. I am hunting in northwestern Oklahoma and could easily have a 300 yard shot. I am not a fan of shots over 250-300 yards at any game with any rifle, but after the 178" buck I killed in 2004, I want to be ready if a "world class" buck was to walk out.

TN.Frank · « **Reply #8 on:** August 12, 2005, 07:47:02 AM »

My general rule of thumb for scopes is 1x per 100 yrds. A 2-7x32 should take care of ya' out to 700 yrds unless you're hunting something small like woodchucks or ground squrilles. I'd just rather be under-scoped then over-scoped.

DEPUTY · « **Reply #9 on:** August 12, 2005, 06:02:10 PM »

the gun he is shooting is more than capable of 300+yds.

I have a 2x5x10-50 nikon monarch gold one

and a swarvoski 3x12x50 on my other one,

and a burris 6x24 i use for extreme long range load testing!

looks good, sure aint an omega is it! i ran some loads yesterday

4 pyro pellets and a 300 grain sst 2325fps :eek:

retrieverhunter · « **Reply #10 on:** August 13, 2005, 05:11:42 AM »

Quote from: TN.Frank

My general rule of thumb for scopes is 1x per 100 yrds. A 2-7x32 should take care of ya' out to 700 yrds unless you're hunting something small like woodchucks or ground squrilles. I'd just rather be under-scoped then over-scoped.

My taste in optics run just the opposite. I had rather be over scoped. I am not hunting squirrels or woodchucks, but mature 300 lb whitetail deer with "world class" racks. It is essential for me to be able to adaquately judge a deer on the hoof. Our deer management program requires a deer be mature (4.5-6.5), and I have imposed a 150" B&C rack or better. To better be able to judge a deer, I like high powered scopes. As an added plus, the high powered scopes allow for more precision shooting at longer distances during my range sessions.

TN.Frank · « **Reply #11 on:** August 14, 2005, 03:49:52 AM »

In the first place you should be using Binoculars to glass big game, not your scope. As far as scope power, I've got a Remington Model 7 in 7mm08 Rem, it'll accuratly take a deer at 400 yards all day long. What scope do I have on it, a 1.5-4.5x32. Why, because in the woods of Tennessee most shots are under 100 yrds and at close range I'd like to see more of the deer then just fur, I want to see the entire body of the deer so I can place an accurate shot on target. If I get a 300+ yrd shot then at 4.5x I've got more then enough scope to get a heart/lung shot at that range. Even if you figure 2x/100 yrds a 2-7x would still be good for 350yrd shots. Use what you want, it's America, we're all free to pick and choose but I'd much rather see the animal I'm shootin' then not know if I'm aiming at rump or shoulder because my scope is too powerful on a close shot.
Anyway, the rifle is a really nice one, love the stock. In Frith. :toast:

hemlock-45/70 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 14, 2005, 11:06:09 AM »

Ever think that maybe everyone doesn't hunt the same way or under the same conditions as you do? I think retrieverhunter's reasons for having higher powered scopes are valid and make sense if you think about it.

I must be real dumb, since I have a 3x9x40mm scope on my muzzle-loader. Why would anyone want to be overscoped like that you ask? Well it's like this. The 40 mm gathers more light, that's an advantage back in the woods and in thick swamps where your peering into shadows, maybe on overcast days as well. I still-hunt thick cover, most shots are well under 100 yards. If I do my part and go slowly enough, most deer are standing still or bedded with brush and branches covering parts of their body. A 9 power scope allows actually SEEING all that stuff and finding a hole to shoot through to the vitals. I had a 1-4x-20mm on and it doesn't cut it in those circumstances. I've hunted with 2x7-32mm, and they work quite well for most situations. I prefer the 9 power and bigger objective that comes with it because it works better for my style of hunting. Of course I don't hunt in TN. :wink:

retrieverhunter · « **Reply #13 on:** August 14, 2005, 11:35:11 AM »

My Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20 has a 50mm objective. You could almost hunt on a full moon night (just kidding). As far as using binoculars instead of my scope, there are not many bino's as powerful as my scope. Also when I spot a deer and am "judging" him, I might miss a shot at a real trophy in the time it takes to put down my bino's and pick up my gun. I have hunted with "high powered" scopes for several years and have never had trouble with my scopes being too powerful.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 14, 2005, 01:10:00 PM »

The only thing I can add is, I have to agree about not using a scope to judge deer. Bino's are made for that or a spotting scope. It is more of a safety issue with me.

Dago1 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 05, 2005, 03:23:30 AM »

Personal preference should be the rule. I know what I like and know what works for me. Oh sure, I've had a chuckle or two over the years by some of the equiptment I have seen. But the bottom line is what ever makes you happy.

AndyHass · « **Reply #16 on:** November 05, 2005, 06:33:40 PM »

I have a 3X9 40mm on my Omega too.

If you're considering shooting an animal, what is so wrong with scoping them with the hammer down/safety down before the shot? They're not people. If that is so unsafe, then you'd better remove the primer before you walk around with the gun slung over your shoulder, it could go off and land a slug on the guy the next woodlot over.

I have a bipod on my ML, it's easy to steady it and judge deer. Open field hunting, I stopped carrying binoculars because I had no way to steady them enough to judge a deer as accurately as my scope. I just don't scope they guy on the next property over to check up on him.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 05, 2005, 06:49:37 PM »

Quote from: AndyHass

I have a 3X9 40mm on my Omega too.

If you're considering shooting an animal, what is so wrong with scoping them with the hammer down/safety down before the shot? They're not people. If that is so unsafe, then you'd better remove the primer before you walk around with the gun slung over your shoulder, it could go off and land a slug on the guy the next woodlot over.

I have a bipod on my ML, it's easy to steady it and judge deer. Open field hunting, I stopped carrying binoculars because I had no way to steady them enough to judge a deer as accurately as my scope. I just don't scope they guy on the next property over to check up on him.

Like I said, I think it is a bad idea. And that is my opinion. If you want to do it, that's on you. I am think of the safety aspect here, no need to get ridicules in your example.