Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics If you were to build a hunting scope?

Are you ready, R_H_Clark, for a smart alec this morning? I really like to say 92%, or any number that comes to mind at the time , of statistics are made up at the time of use. There is another sight I frequent: https://www.longrangehunting.com. 99% of the guys there prefer the higher magnification scopes.
[/quote]

I got a big laugh out of that Rich. You know I enjoy pulling your chain. If you enjoy them them more power to you.

I would love to see someone produce a 2-10X44 with great glass and durable internals, made out of titanium if that's what it takes to make it light, with a mill dot reticle ,lit by tritium in the center. It needs 4" of eye relief and a tube long enough to easily mount on the longest action and have room for ER adjustment.

I don't care if it has capped turrets or locking turrets but they need to be low profile. A side focus all the way to 10 yards would be great as well,just in case I ever want to put one on my best 22 rf.


Now I think I pretty much described that Trijicon Accupoint 2.5-12.5X42 except for the weight,and the fact that I don't really know what the internals are made of except that they should be brass at 22.4 ounces.

I always wanted a Zeiss Conquest 4x32 that was 1 inch shorter and 4 oz lighter.
That would be the perfect scope for 99% of my hunting needs.

you should look for the old 2.5-10x32..

great little compact scope!

Where I'm at vegetation/ range wise, 5x on the low end might be too much =] also when it's in the 90's opening weekend of deer season, anything over 12x gets a little wavy.

I see the need for both high and low to cover all hunting situations across the country, so for the perfect 1 scope to kill all things... I think you would have to go with a wiiiiiide variable, factor of 8 or 10. I only have messed with Leupold VX-6 but In know there are other options out there with 8 and 10x zoom.

The problem with that wide of a zoom is reticles, if you go FFP the markings will damn near disappear on the low end, and cover up half your target at the high end. if you go SFP, you might as well keep it a duplex because you might not be able to use the 20x for ranging/ accurate subtension if you are shooting at 200 yards from against a tree at 6x.

I think sometimes solutions create more problems. Give me a scope with a range that falls somewhere around 2x on the low end, and 8-12x on the high end, with at least a 4mm exit pupil on the high end and a good heavy post, thin crosshair German #4 reticle

Kentucky windage works... or use your rangefinder and dial if you like to do that kind of thing...

I’ve given up on trying to stay within certain weight limits within reason. I don’t particularly use flyweight rifles either but as long as I can stay under the 9lb range and better yet the 8-8.5lb range I’ll take the wicked reliability of a 6X or 3x9 SS. I’ve been eyeballing the Bushnell LRHS scope a bunch as well. I’m just about done making excuses for crap that doesn’t track. Drives me nuts and I’m not a real LR shooter. 600 is my practiced limit so I’m not stressing out turrets or anything.

For a hunting scope....

SFP

An exact dupe of Conquest 3-9x40 optical and eye relief properties.

Nightforce SHV internals in a 1" tube. Don't care about less erector travel- it'll be way more than sufficient anyway. Capped turret. Side parallax.

MOA adjustments

3-9 or 3-10 x42

Reticle to be just like the 3-9 Conquests duplex, except with windage dots at 2 and 4 MOA.

My favorite scope is my Kakles KX 3.5 x 10 x 50mm. If I could dream up the ultimate I would stretch the KX to be 1.5x or 2x power on the low end and bump the top end to 12x. Hold the 50mm, but the hard part would be hold the same size and weight overall. Don't want it any heavier.

If Bushnell could get the weight of the LRHS 3-12 down to 18 ounces they’d have a winner.

Yup. That's all I'd own.

I'm thinking if anyone COULD make a lightweight scope with the dead nuts tracking, zero retention and return to zero that the LRHS has, they'd have already done it. They could loose marginal amounts of weight by going down to a 1 inch tube and maybe shorten it up a little but in doing so they'd loose adjustment range. Once you start going lighter weight components in the erector and adjustment mechanisms reliability is going to be compromised. I'm just not sure how much lighter you could get and maintain reliability. The SWFA 3-9 and fixed powers are lightest I'm aware of that you can count on when dialing and they're about 20 oz.

John

Give the swfa 3-9x42, a 1 inch tube (for weight reduction) 4 inch eye relief, make it a 4-12 power and upgrade glass. Keep the mil/mil reticle/turrets. Make the turrets lower profile and add a side parallax adjustment. To me glass has gotten worse in recent years. I looked through an older Nikon Ucc scope the other day from the mid 90s. It sat next to a current Zeiss and a swarovski. The old Nikon was much clearer and brighter to my eyes. Maybe I'm going blind but the old Nikon glass would be in my hunting scope.

John,
Agree...
I still wonder how the prototype scopes that Pat and George had built were 20 ounces and then when Bushnell got them into production they ended up at 25 ounces. Was disappointing at the time.
I reckon I’ll just keep on with the PMII 10x42 for my western rifle and call it good...

I grab every Monarch UCC I see at a reasonable price. They are some of my favorite scopes. I just traded off my last newer model Monarch. They have good glass, but not as good as the older UCCs IMO.

As far as a hunting scope goes, I'd be happy if SWFA would just offer a decent duplex reticle. That fine target reticle disappears into the background at dusk when I tend to see deer.

So to be clear... you think this reticle-



Is less visible than what reticle?

That one is less visible than one with an inner duplex subtension greater than .07 (?)....

You understand that it is .07 of a mil, correct?

The Leupold VX6 1-6 is just that.

And to just be doubly clear, you're saying that this reticle-





Is less visible than this one-

The one in the bottom pic sucks less........! At least for my 56 yr old eyeballs.

To be fair though, I haven't had any problems blasting pigs at last light with the 3-9x SWFA.