Minimum scope power for hitting small targets?

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Mescalero
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6180
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:21 pm

Re: Minimum scope power for hitting small targets?

Post by Mescalero »

Yep!
cshold
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 5372
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:09 am

Re: Minimum scope power for hitting small targets?

Post by cshold »

Old Savage wrote:Well Mike, I like the .243 and both my rifles are very accurate but still .... :) it is no 6mm Rem.
Yep! Just the: AT THE END OF THE DAY WINNER :wink: :D
User avatar
El Chivo
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3611
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:12 pm
Location: Red River Gorge Area

Re: Minimum scope power for hitting small targets?

Post by El Chivo »

vancelw wrote:I understand that a fixed power scope should theoretically be inherently more rugged.

But..I have a Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-9X40 scope on my Ruger All Weather M77 MkII that I bought new in 1990. I mounted the scope in 1991. That rifle (in my hands and in the hands of fellow hunters who had problems with their own guns) has taken approximately 200 deer/pronghorn over the years, not to mention coyotes, porcupines, elk, bear...All I mean by saying that is that that rifle and scope combo has been carried hundreds of miles in rough terrain, through temperatures varying from 110 to -20 (F). It has been transported thousands of miles via pickup, airplane, horseback, and even a little by ATV. I used the same ammo for years (several boxes of Remington Core-Lokt I bought from one lot) and the only time I had to adjust the crosshairs was when I reloaded some GMX Hornady bullets for my black bear hunt. I've dropped it :oops: , fell one it :oops: , and probably committed other horrors I have blocked from my shameful, abusive memory.

I only mean by saying this that with the abuse I've put this combo through, it seems pretty rugged. I know there are exceptions...but I'd buy a variable scope from the major manufacturers with confidence that it was going to hold up. When I'm walking around my scope is usually set on 6x, and if I'm making a shot where I have plenty of time I usually crank it up to 9x.
I agree. Worrying about it is picking nits. How great a shot are you anyway? A threaded tube moving a lens element in and out is a solid, time tested system (think millions of 35mm SLR lenses). The fragile part of a scope is going to be the adjustment screws of the reticle. That's what determines whether it holds zero or not. If you can in any way use variable power then go for it. Same with variable focus (adjustable objective); if you can use it don't be afraid of it.

I have these great fixed view camera lenses that don't turn to focus, you move the front of the camera in and out. They're better than regular camera lenses that screw the front element to focus, but 99.99% of the photographers out there use the latter, not the former.
"I'll tell you what living is. You get up when you feel like it. You fry yourself some eggs. You see what kind of a day it is."
Mescalero
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6180
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:21 pm

Re: Minimum scope power for hitting small targets?

Post by Mescalero »

Reticles do not move in modern scopes, have not in MANY years.
Post Reply