what power scope for load developement?

[northny]

I am all set on choice of scopes for hunting (3 - 9X Nikons or Leupolds). But for range work, to determine accuracy and develope a true moa load, I wonder if 9X is enough power. I have a redfield 12x on my .222 and 16x on 22 250. Both will shoot to touch shots at 100 yards, and do nicely to 250 yards. So I am thinking I should get at least a 12x for load developement with the ML11 (and if it is a 4X to somethingX, it may stay on for hunting season). What is the minimum magnification that you feel is necessary so the scope is not the limiting factor in group size at 100 and 200 yards?

[Harley]

I wouldn't answer your question the way you've phrased it: "what is the minimum?" What I would do for load development is mount the most powerful scope I had that gave adequate eye relief to guard against recoil, and which would not suffer from heat distortion under your shooting conditions. The more precisely you can call your shots, the better. Having said that, your 3-9 is adequate for 100 yd load development, though I would be tempted to borrow one of your other scopes from an inactive rifle.

Harley

[ET]

Northny

These are just my thoughts being expressed here that I apply to myself.
When hunting deer I always leave my scope set at 6X for all shots out to 200yds because when a shot possibility occurs there seems no time to play with my scope settings. At the range I prefer a higher magnification for 200yds to check my accuracy. But you also have to be aware that changing your magnification may change your point of impact. Something you need to check at the range.
For me 9-10X magnification is sufficient out to 200yds. Anymore and I seem to focus more on wobble control than focusing on the shot.

Each shooter has his preference for magnification and what they are comfortable with at a given distance. Something you need to discover for yourself with what you are comfortable in using.

Ed

[rossman40]

Depends on what range you want to shoot and even the range you shoot on and the style of target you use. A 36 power at 100yds is a waste if your using a bull target that fills the scope. If the range you shoot at has a mirage problem and your shooting 200-300yds or more your sometimes better off at around 10 power. The main advantage to higher power is that it allows you to see your holes and more important your precise aimpoint. If all your going to shoot is 100yds 12-14X would let you see your holes. I would love to get a dedicated target scope to switch between rifles. A good all around target scope IMO would be like a 6.5-20X40 and would do good easily out to 600yds shooting bulls. On my "long ranger" I use a 4-16X56 and I have no problem out to 600yds with my old eyes but most of the targets I shoot with it are silhouettes. Last time we shot down at the farm at 600yds got me thinking about more power though.

[northny]

Roossman, Harley, ET - thanks for taking time to comment. You have it right on what I am trying to do.

I am mostly concerned with seeing a precise aimpoint. I have concluded 9X may not getting it done, so I am uncomfortable. I am looking to get a dedicated target scope to switch between rifles (and don't want to move the higher mags set ups that I have on CF rifles) You are correct in that the question should not be what is the minimum.

So, if I want a dual purpose (range and hunting) 4 - 16X seems to be the ticket. If just a range scope, then 6.5 to 20X. Time to go look at a few. thanks again for the comments.

[rbinar]

8-)I can't say there is a rule of thumb I can come up with. I know I shoot better when target acquisition is easier.

Sometimes I shoot more magnification when range shooting rather than hunting because it's hard to acquire a near target with high power scopes.

When at the range I try to shoot 16 power or above. However I don't always get to do that.

I guess you can say I believe higher power scopes help at the range but if you have to get by with less you have to get by.

[Harley]

Northny, I'd argue with you that a 6.5-20X is "just" a range scope. I've had success hunting with my Leupold Vari-X III 6.5-20x40 E.F.T. for more than a decade. It's also my favorite load development/target scope. My choice for a "handier", lighter, brighter, wider field scope would be either the Leupold or Zeiss 4.5-14. Unless you are a competition shooter or just plain obsessed (like I am) with accuracy, the 14X is plenty for your 100 yard work.

Harley

[sagittarius]

I like a 3x to 12x scope for ranging and hunting.
I hunt with both of mine set on 5x as the power is pretty good and field of view is acceptable.

[edge]

A number of years ago I had a 6-24 on my ML. I found that picking up a deer at close range on 6x very difficult.

I now normally use a 3-9 or 12. When on stand it is on 3x and it stays there unless the deer are more than 100 yards or so then it goes to max power.

edge.

[Harley]

Edge's comment about difficulty with increased magnification at close range reminds me that I should consider other shooters' situations. I never set up to hunt with close shots a possibility unless I'm shooting a pistol, so 6.5X doesn't hurt me. It wouldn't be so good for hunters in the woods.

Harley

[jims]

I use the same scope for load development and hunting with my Savage, a 6.5x20. I shoot out of a fixed stable stand so that works well for me. I do not have to switch scopes then for either.
I would not use that combination if I was hunting in close cover however. The higher magnification is handy on the bench.

[sincyrman]

I agree with edge. I am a fan of using the lowest power when sitting on stand. If the big one runs by, I should be able to find him in the scope. If he comes walking in at some distance, I should have time to crank up the magnification.
If the scope has a change in impact at different magnifications, It will not be resting on any hunting rifle that I own!

[northny]

Harley, your last post has it right. Some of my favorite stands I can have them appear anywhere 20 to 200 yards, so I would not be comfortable with anything above 3 or four power on the low end. But I can understand that 6.5 to 20X could well be a hunting scope for some people. I do usually hunt with the scope at 3 power (and even then have let a deer walk away to get a little distance). year before last, I also tried to pet a button buck that was walking past....that did not work out well.

[dougedwards]

At 100 yard range my kahles CL 3-9x42 can see the 45 caliber holes made in the target where my 3-9x42 Nikon Monarch can't seem to pull it in as well. When shooting at longer ranges (200-400) is where my Bushnell 6500 shines with it's 6.5x erecter tube. Whether the 2.5-16 or 4.5-30 models I have plenty of magnification to see the holes in the target at almost any of those ranges and still enough low range to hunt with. The extra magnification never hurts and you just don't have to use it if you choose not to for hunting purposes.

[Dave W]

Like Harley accuracy is my biggest concern and high magnification scopes definitely help my groups, the higher mag. allows you to be much finer with your aimpoint, and they also are a help in calling your shot. Some guys here can roll out of bed and go shoot a MOA long range group with a 9X scope, I'm not one of them unfortunately so I need all the help I can get.
I also have hunted with a 6.5-20 VXIII for many years, it takes practice to acquire a deer in the woods quickly but I have never had a problem with it but I also stand hunt and most of the deer I see are not on the run so the 6.5 setting does not pose a problem. Practice shouldering and aiming with the scope on 20X, once you get used to it 6.5X will seem like nothing. The .45 had a 6.5-20 SII BS on it last year and I would have used the VXIII on the Sav if it drew as much light as my 4-16 Elite 4200. The Elite is nice at 16X but I much prefer either of the 6.5-20's over it.

I have already made up my mind, this will be my next scope.
theopticzone.com/detail.aspx?ID=4996
Great magnification range for hunting as well as range work and the glass is better IMO than my SII BS from what I have seen out of a guys 2.5-12.5. Also has a 30mm tube and it is not overly long in length.

[smokeless77]

DaveW, what height ring's will you need for that scope? It looks like a good one. when you get it you will have to let me no. I'am looking for something for another rifle.

John

[Dave W]

Feb 18, 2009 19:58:28 GMT -5 smokeless77 said:

DaveW, what height ring's will you need for that scope? It looks like a good one. when you get it you will have to let me no. I'am looking for something for another rifle.

John

On the Savage with medium Burris Sig. Zees, that scope would be very close to touching the barrel.

I think the guys name is John(HELP DAVE D) at Clearidge, he should be able to tell you. Dave D has 4 Clearidges I believe so he might know also.

[smokeless77]

Thanks dave, Probably wont get any type of scope cover's on it.

[Dave W]

Feb 18, 2009 20:31:26 GMT -5 smokeless77 said:

Thanks dave, Probably wont get any type of scope cover's on it.

Absolutely no chance on the Savage without high rings.

[dougedwards]

DaveW.......will this scope go on your Savage?

[Dave W]

Feb 18, 2009 21:40:46 GMT -5 dougedwards said:

DaveW.......will this scope go on your Savage?

Yeah I know, another AO scope, but it will go on the .45 #1, although it probably won't make much difference as far as recoil since I have been shooting mostly sabotless.

[sw]

The easiest way to reduce group size is to go to a higher power scope(or get a 40 PacNor . I use a Weaver T-36 for range work if a lot of development will be done: such as I will be doing with the 40 - it's already on the rifle. The Weaver CE(2.5X10) will be the hunting scope. A 4X16 should serve anyone's purpose, close or far. A 3X12, non-AO such as the Sightron 2 42 mm mil-dot is very good , IMO. A 2.5X10 4200 is also hard to beat. 9,10,12,16,20,24 will all work well out to past 300 yds. Carlos Hathcock killed a 4-Star @ appx 800 yds with a 10 pwr:heart shot.
I like the T-24 and T-36 since they are fixed power and known for reliability/toughness. Generally speaking AOs seem more delicate but there are some very tough AO'd scopes out there(Nightforce and hopefully the WCE).

[Harley]

DaveW, I can't keep up with all the new scopes being offered. Here's another one that gets good reviews at a good price and should fit medium height rings. You can find it considerably less than the MSRP. I think probably Rossman40 could advise you which is quality and which is junk.

vortexoptics.com/riflescopes/view/vortex_viper_6.5-20x44_pa_(black_matte)

Harley

[dougedwards]

Feb 18, 2009 22:08:00 GMT -5 Dave W said:

Feb 18, 2009 21:40:46 GMT -5 dougedwards said:

DaveW.......will this scope go on your Savage?

Yeah I know, another AO scope, but it will go on the .45 #1, although it probably won't make much difference as far as recoil since I have been shooting mostly sabotless.

No I was thinking that if the Clearidge were to go on a long distance shooting rifle you could run out of elevation adjustment but within 400 yards 48 MOA should be plenty. The AO thing seems to be something that we will have to live with on any newer scope that has over 12x as it's high magnification of a variable.

[huntrrr]

Just set up new ml and went with a leupold 4.5-14 VX-L50 mm. It has plenty of barrel clearance with warne bases and low rings. It sits just right when shouldered At 14x seems like plenty for 100-200 yd rangework. I figured I would be fine both on the bench and in the field and shouldn't have to switch scopes out.

[chuck41]

Feb 18, 2009 8:39:39 GMT -5 northny said:

Roossman, Harley, ET - thanks for taking time to comment. You have it right on what I am trying to do.

I am mostly concerned with seeing a precise aimpoint. I have concluded 9X may not getting it done, so I am uncomfortable. I am looking to get a dedicated target scope to switch between rifles (and don't want to move the higher mags set ups that I have on CF rifles) You are correct in that the question should not be what is the minimum.

So, if I want a dual purpose (range and hunting) 4 - 16X seems to be the ticket. If just a range scope, then 6.5 to 20X. Time to go look at a few. thanks again for the comments.

This is just like most everything else. Everybody has an opinion. So for what it might be worth, here is mine.

I had a 3-12x50 and loved it both at the range (100yd max) and in the deer stand until it died, a victim of "Savagery". At the range I set it to max and in the stand usually 6x depending on conditions. I now have a 3-9x40 Burris and love the scope, but really miss that extra magnification of 12x at the range and also occasionally to examine those points on the deer from the stand. If I had 14x to 20x I am sure I would love it even more.

For me if I were picking another scope for dual use I would pick something that goes down to a min of no greater than 6x and the higher the max the better for the range as long as it fits in the budget. For the range, even at 100yd I think its hard to have too much magnification. Helps you be sure of where the crosshairs are on the target when that hammer falls. On my deer stands I am limited to shots of 150yds or less and the 3-9 is quite sufficient, especially if you have a decent pair of binoculars to supplement it. I also never have to acquire a fast moving target from my elevated stands so a minimum of 6x would not be a problem at all to me.

It appears you have a good handle on your needs from your post. I think a 4-16x50 or 55 would be fabulous for dual use. Just make absolutely sure you get one that will withstand the very significant recoil environment of the ML10-II you are putting it on and you will have a winner.