I moved on from four power scopes about twenty years ago, the reason for which I have forgotten. They were sufficient for all my hunting needs including lots of deer, pronghorn, sheep, javelina, elk, caribou etc. I guess that move to bigger more powerful scope was due in large measure to the old monkey see monkey do syndrome. All my friends were using 3x9 and some much more powerful scopes. Well in retrospect all that these bigger, heavier scopes did can be summed up as nice but really brought little to the party. So my go to 257 Roberts is back from gumsmith Kevin Weaver who restored to it’s pre-crash in the mountains state and I’m going to put an old, old Leupold M8 4x power scope on it, silly me!
There are a few of us bitter clingers out here, from whom they'll have to pry those 4x scopes from our cold, dead hands. I may actually a turncoat, though, since the last scope I mounted was a 3x Leupold.
Like MD regularly points out, though, the number of 4x scopes on the market (and the quality, thereof) these days speaks to how few we are.
If you’d like to test it out, just set your 3-9, or 2-7 at 4X And Leave it there for a day, or the whole season. Just One less thing to fiddle with.
It really helps make visual estimations using the reticle for reference, so much more intuitive. Not a bad thing within the scope of a 4X’s capabilities. 🥴
I agree. I have an older Leupold 4x on my Savage 99F in .243. It was the only scope I had that fit me on that rifle. I don't know why you'd need much more than that, especially in Eastern Woodland hunting.
I need to see if the brow tines are broken off, which is a non shooter. Hard to see if the brow tines are broken off at 4 x at some distance. 4x16 is my choice, I can always turn the scope down. Often, you do not have the time to pick up a pair of binoculars and scan the buck.
I suppose an old school 4x may have a purpose but optics coatings, tech, smartly designed reticle, resins, and components have come a long long way in the past 20 years as has lighting technology like flashlights, headlamps and all lighting in general.
I'd like to see an box test of an old 4x Leupold against an Chinese Athlon. While at it put 500 rounds thru to see if they hold a zero once it's been set. May a bitbof high angle field position shooting in the mountains from each?
There's a lot of super low powered variable optics with low profile features that will work for folks and they are optically superior to old scopes of yesteryear. Why not just use a new 1-4x variable if you need low power? We have more choices now than ever.
I have an old weaver K6 with a post reticle. Traded or sold lots of rifles but that scope always stays with me. But now I need to find another rifle to put under it. That's the fun I guess.
My wife has a 4x Zeiss Conquest on her rifle. This year our daughter was using it for her deer. She made a 247 yard heart shot on her deer with it (a nice 4 pt.), but when it came to telling which deer was a doe and which a spike or forky at the same distance she had a lot of difficulty. I talked to my wife about changing the scope to a more powerful variable, but she did not like the idea at all. She will let me, but she is not getting rid of the scope either.
I have a couple fixed 2.5 Weavers one is on my .44 Marlin and the other is in the cabinet. One 4x Burris on my ar. Two 6x Leupolds. One is on a 700 .300 Savage and the other is, I am not sure where. All the rest are variables. I like the ability to go from hi to low powder. I hunt mostly open country any more so that is my choice. But when I was about 20 hunting in heavy brush, we jumped a bunch of deer. I was able to pick a hole in the brush with my B & L 2.5 to 8x and drop a nice fat one when it hit that little spot. Been a fan ever since.
I now have swung over to more fixed 4s and 6s than variables. I have mostly click adjust newer models. but not all of them. I only have Leupolds. The higher power with variables seemed appropriate for load testing, but I always was screwing the power down to 5x or 6x when hunting so.....
I'd like to see an box test of an old 4x Leupold against an Chinese Athlon. While at it put 500 rounds thru to see if they hold a zero once it's been set. May a bitbof high angle field position shooting in the mountains from each?
That would actually be an interesting test: an Athlon and Hawke against an older Leupold or Burris.
Leupold passed the 60+ year test with flying colors.
Leupold deserves more respect than some bozo testing it against some Asian made toy that has as much chance as a fart in a whirl wind of making it to the 60 year test.
I'd like to see an box test of an old 4x Leupold against an Chinese Athlon. While at it put 500 rounds thru to see if they hold a zero once it's been set. May a bitbof high angle field position shooting in the mountains from each?
That would actually be an interesting test: an Athlon and Hawke against an older Leupold or Burris.
I don't see much point in the comparison, most 4X Leupolds are friction adjustments and I have yet to see anyone dialing with a fixed 4X. All I ask of the fixed 4 or 6 is that it hold zero, I could care less about how much it wiggled on the way getting there.
On my hunting rifle I used a 4X Weaver for over 3 decades, then a few years ago I moved to a 6x36 Leupold and am still using it. For a hunting rifle at normal ranges (50 - 300 yds) I have never felt the need for anything more. And as someone mentioned earlier - when you are used to seeing animals at the same magnification all of the time the range estimation becomes more of an automatic thought rather than having to sort out how large the animal should look like a various distances.
For punching paper I want all of the magnification I can get - 24X is ok but I really like 36X.
Just won a nice M8 4x last nite on flea bay . It’s going on my M70 Featherweight in 7x57 in a set of Talley QD’s. Beauty in simplicity. Most of my hunting situations don’t allow for fiddlin’ with gadgetry.
I've got lots of scopes. Some of which aren't mounted on any rifles. My current "go to" rifles wear either a 4X FXII or a 3X Big Game scope. Others have 6X42's or even a 2X Scout. Most of variables are sitting in a box. Except for the 3.5-10X40 on my .22-250. As far as 500 rd. or some sort of box test, how about a "drop test." The 3X Big Game scope past one this year. Lost my footing side hilling out in the desert. Tossed the rifle on the rocks and used my left forearm to break my fall. Took over 20 Butterfly Bandages to close the torn skin, but the rifle, in spite of some nice dings on the side of the scope, did not loose zero..... My 4X Leupolds, both the latest FXII's and my old M8, never did either. My old 3-9X33 Compact, and both my 6X42 Leupold held up as well. E
I'd like to see an box test of an old 4x Leupold against an Chinese Athlon. While at it put 500 rounds thru to see if they hold a zero once it's been set. May a bitbof high angle field position shooting in the mountains from each?
That would actually be an interesting test: an Athlon and Hawke against an older Leupold or Burris.
Well no, not exactly. Older scopes were designed to be sighted-in, then left that way, and were highly regarded if they retained zero. Accurate adjustments were pretty much irrelevant, whether defined by a box test, or today a "tall target test."
Have owned plenty of older Leupolds (especially fixed-powers) that held zero year after year after year. But they often required most of a box of ammo to get zeroed in the first place. In fact, still own one, the 4x33 M8 that's been on my 9.3x62 for 20 years. Have killed a bunch of big game with it, from North America to two lengthy safaris in Africa, and when I decide it's on the list for possible use "this year" take it to the range and shoot it once--and the bullet always lands within less than half an inch of two inches high at 100 yards.
But it's not a rifle meant for shooting at long range--and the longest shot I've ever taken was 300 yards, in Africa on a blesbok, about the size of a whitetail--which dropped. But would never dream of "dialing" it for longer shots.
Thanks, John. I guess when I said it would be an interesting test I wasn't really thinking about dialing or shooting long range. What I was thinking was "How does this $80 Hawke compare to a $300 Leupold when it comes to things like clarity, low-light resolution, zero retention, reliability and repeatability when making adjustments (limited, I know, but we still sometimes need to make adjustments when changing ammunition or swapping between rifles), mounting dimensions, eye relief, etc.? How does an Athlon or Hawke stack up against a Leupold or Burris when it comes to the normal way a fixed power scope is used?" That's sort of what I had in mind.
Last place I had a shot over 150 yards was Nam. I do have a 4x scope collecting dust, but all of my active duty glass is 2.5X. Old Weavers and a couple of Leupolds.
Thanks, John. I guess when I said it would be an interesting test I wasn't really thinking about dialing or shooting long range. What I was thinking was "How does this $80 Hawke compare to a $300 Leupold when it comes to things like clarity, low-light resolution, zero retention, reliability and repeatability when making adjustments (limited, I know, but we still sometimes need to make adjustments when changing ammunition or swapping between rifles), mounting dimensions, eye relief, etc.? How does an Athlon or Hawke stack up against a Leupold or Burris when it comes to the normal way a fixed power scope is used?" That's sort of what I had in mind.
I have the older 4x Leupold's and Swarovski's. They are bullet proof and easily refreshed at the repair centers. They are exceptionally clear and the bullet hits where I aim....if I do my part. The fact remains....how optically perfect do you need or/and is it a matter of being able to tell your buddies that your scope cost more than theirs? Maybe I'm too practical but, why fix what ain't broken.
Leupold passed the 60+ year test with flying colors.
Leupold deserves more respect than some bozo testing it against some Asian made toy that has as much chance as a fart in a whirl wind of making it to the 60 year test.
The Asia scope will also last 60 years if it's mounted up, sighted in, shot a few times on a light to medium recoiler every few years, hauled up into an enclosed stand to sit a few times, and otherwise spends the majority of its life taking up space in a safe or closet. This is what's expected out of many, many scopes. Further, a lot of guys might not even realize that their scope is failing them; they shoot a couple downrange, and if it's off a few inches from the last time they shot it, they re-adjust and go sit in their blind.
I saw a neat trick on Youtube about getting those old style Weaver rings on and off without scratching the scope tube....slip a piece of paper under the side with the hook when you and put them on and take them off.....
Have owned plenty of older Leupolds (especially fixed-powers) that held zero year after year after year. But they often required most of a box of ammo to get zeroed in the first place.
Didn't you say that people paid you to test scopes....
I saw a neat trick on Youtube about getting those old style Weaver rings on and off without scratching the scope tube....slip a piece of paper under the side with the hook when you and put them on and take them off.....
I wish I had known that years ago.
That's a good idea. Weaver makes another ring that has screws on both sides with no hook. The rings on a 721 are those rings.
I really should swap out those rings to the original Weavers with the big thumb screw and hook.
Have owned plenty of older Leupolds (especially fixed-powers) that held zero year after year after year. But they often required most of a box of ammo to get zeroed in the first place.
Didn't you say that people paid you to test scopes....
Hope they give you free ammo too.
Why in hell should it take a dozen shots to sight-in a rifle, just because the scope's adjustments are erratic? Especially when 3-9x Burris Fullfield II's with click adjustments at most might require 5 shots, for less money than used friction-adjustment Leupolds? When going to the range, I generally bring 3-5 rifles to be tested in various ways, often with a wide variety of handloads. That's part of my job, and having to shoot a rifle a dozen times just to get it satisfactorily sighted-in eats up plenty of time.
That said, right now I still have eight friction-adjustment Leupold fixed-powers on various rifles in chamberings from .257 Roberts to 9.3x62 Mauser. This isn't because I like the adjustments, but because the scopes fit the rifles, both physically and esthetically. I've killed 16 species of big game around the world with 4x Leupolds, and adding in fixed 3x and 6x Leupolds would double the number of individual animals taken, and lengthen the list of species. Then there are all the Leupold variables used over the decades--including one this fall, a 1-4x that (on 4x) took a pronghorn buck. So am not exactly unacquainted with their virtues and faults.
But at the same time the number of my scopes that can be adjusted reliably has increased considerably over the last couple decades. These include not only inexpensive Fullfield IIs, but brands such as Nightforce, Swarovski and Zeiss. Oh, and did you know that Zeiss has been having scopes made in Asia for around a decade now? In fact they have them made in the same factory that makes Nightforce scopes and parts. Another example of "cheap Asian optics."
I have three of the friction knob ones; two on rifles, one in the box, and I suffer them for the reasons you stated. I think the best way to zero them is to place them in a steady cradle of some sort and move the reticle to the bullet hole just like Old Jack described decades ago. The marks are just decoration.
I grew up using fixed powered 2.5 and 4x scopes never had too many issues. But, now as I age(79) my older eyes do better with more X's. I also have seen many improvements with scopes, both in optical quality and holding zero. I don't understand why anyone would pine for the good old days. Anyway, that's how I see it.
I suppose an old school 4x may have a purpose but optics coatings, tech, smartly designed reticle, resins, and components have come a long long way in the past 20 years as has lighting technology like flashlights, headlamps and all lighting in general.
I'd like to see an box test of an old 4x Leupold against an Chinese Athlon. While at it put 500 rounds thru to see if they hold a zero once it's been set. May a bitbof high angle field position shooting in the mountains from each?
There's a lot of super low powered variable optics with low profile features that will work for folks and they are optically superior to old scopes of yesteryear. Why not just use a new 1-4x variable if you need low power? We have more choices now than ever.
Read the post on LOW scopes in the optics forum. Athlon is LOW-made.
It might be more accurate to say SOME Athlon scopes are LOW-made--which is also true of many other companies these days, especially their higher-end models.
Quite a few of my rifles have 3x9X scoped. I like 9X when sighting in. On hunts, the scope is set on 3X. I figure if more power is needed, then the animal is far enough out that I can make the switch. On my last six elk hunts, with one exception the scope was set on 3X regardless of distance including one at 350 yards. The exception was a spooked elk running dead away from me. I just switched to a higher power without looking and took the shot. Elk down and dead. Later I looked at the scope and it was at 6X. Made the shot at the base of the skull easy. A couple of my rifles have old El Paso Weavers in 3X with post and crosshair reticles. They make things interesting when sighting in. Paul B.
My first scope was a Redfield 4X mounted on my Marlin 336 30-30. That wasn't a bad set-up but after a while it went tits up on me. Soon afterwards I was reloading and I wanted more power for load development. That's when I found the Leupold 2-7x33 gave me plenty of power in a similar sized/weight scope. Best of both worlds.
I watched the Youtube video on mounting a scope in Weaver rings. So simple it's crazy! That guy has a heck of a scope collection.
Have owned plenty of older Leupolds (especially fixed-powers) that held zero year after year after year. But they often required most of a box of ammo to get zeroed in the first place.
Didn't you say that people paid you to test scopes....
Hope they give you free ammo too.
Why in hell should it take a dozen shots to sight-in a rifle, just because the scope's adjustments are erratic? Especially when 3-9x Burris Fullfield II's with click adjustments at most might require 5 shots, for less money than used friction-adjustment Leupolds? When going to the range, I generally bring 3-5 rifles to be tested in various ways, often with a wide variety of handloads. That's part of my job, and having to shoot a rifle a dozen times just to get it satisfactorily sighted-in eats up plenty of time.
That said, right now I still have eight friction-adjustment Leupold fixed-powers on various rifles in chamberings from .257 Roberts to 9.3x62 Mauser. This isn't because I like the adjustments, but because the scopes fit the rifles, both physically and esthetically. I've killed 16 species of big game around the world with 4x Leupolds, and adding in fixed 3x and 6x Leupolds would double the number of individual animals taken, and lengthen the list of species. Then there are all the Leupold variables used over the decades--including one this fall, a 1-4x that (on 4x) took a pronghorn buck. So am not exactly unacquainted with their virtues and faults.
But at the same time the number of my scopes that can be adjusted reliably has increased considerably over the last couple decades. These include not only inexpensive Fullfield IIs, but brands such as Nightforce, Swarovski and Zeiss. Oh, and did you know that Zeiss has been having scopes made in Asia for around a decade now? In fact they have them made in the same factory that makes Nightforce scopes and parts. Another example of "cheap Asian optics."
Don't get made at me bacause you said it took you "most of a box of ammo" to sight in a Leupold.
Those old scope of yesteryear had one thing going for them and that was they were aesthetically better looking and they were mostly sleek in design and mounting. Other than that I actually don't like them much. The mounting systems of yore just weren't as reliable or mechanically stable either. Today we are spoiled with wonderful optics and extremely rigid sight fixtures. Blessed I suppose is the most proper term.
One downside of all the new choices and developments in optics is that there's not the choice in iron sights as there were up until perhaps the 1960's. I really like finding wonderful old iron sights and enjoy putting them to use, but the days of them dominating the hunting market are long gone. A shame really because a proper rifle set up with irons, quick mounted optic and red dot is a wonderful tool. Trifecta
[/quote]Don't get made at me bacause you said it took you "most of a box of ammo" to sight in a Leupold.
A Varx II 3×9 took me two shots today.[/quote]
You're amazing. Most people shoot at least a 3-shot group to confirm a scoped rifle is actually sighted-in.
I didn't say it always takes me most of a box to sight in a Leupold every time. But sometimes it does, because (1) the adjustments don't actually move the amount indicated, and (2) sometimes they don't move at all until the rifle's fired again--or even twice. Anybody that claims otherwise hasn't sighted-in many friction-adjustment Leupolds--but have also seen it a number of times with click-adjust models.
Mule Deer; Top of the morning to you sir, I hope you and Eileen are well and the weather's warmed up a bit for you all too?
We've still got lots of snow but it's warmed up a wee bit. As long as it doesn't rain now we'll be golden.
Way back in the day I started out with Bushnell and Tasco, but lusted mightily for a Leupold after seeing how long the eye relief was.
That said, I recall watching a shooting buddy down at the range sighting in his scope and had to ask him why he was tapping his scope with the base of a fired cartridge?
Willy was "a character" and replied something really funny and unprintable about Leupolds taking their own time to get set up but usually staying there once they were.
On my two main walking around rifles I'm still running the older friction adjustable Leupolds and one hasn't moved for at least a dozen years like you mentioned with your 9.3x62. Somehow that's really comforting to me to at least have that much continuity in our ever changing world!
I seem to remember some of the old friction scopes moving less willingly than others too. I've still got two of the 6X Compacts and one is a wooly bugger to move the vertical adjustments, as in a Quarter and the Leatherman..
[/quote]Don't get made at me bacause you said it took you "most of a box of ammo" to sight in a Leupold.
A Varx II 3×9 took me two shots today.
You're amazing. Most people shoot at least a 3-shot group to confirm a scoped rifle is actually sighted-in.
I didn't say it always takes me most of a box to sight in a Leupold every time. But sometimes it does, because (1) the adjustments don't actually move the amount indicated, and (2) sometimes they don't move at all until the rifle's fired again--or even twice. Anybody that claims otherwise hasn't sighted-in many friction-adjustment Leupolds--but have also seen it a number of times with click-adjust models. [/quote]
Have owned plenty of older Leupolds (especially fixed-powers) that held zero year after year after year. But they often required most of a box of ammo to get zeroed in the first place.
Didn't you say that people paid you to test scopes....
Hope they give you free ammo too.
Why in hell should it take a dozen shots to sight-in a rifle, just because the scope's adjustments are erratic? Especially when 3-9x Burris Fullfield II's with click adjustments at most might require 5 shots, for less money than used friction-adjustment Leupolds? When going to the range, I generally bring 3-5 rifles to be tested in various ways, often with a wide variety of handloads. That's part of my job, and having to shoot a rifle a dozen times just to get it satisfactorily sighted-in eats up plenty of time.
That said, right now I still have eight friction-adjustment Leupold fixed-powers on various rifles in chamberings from .257 Roberts to 9.3x62 Mauser. This isn't because I like the adjustments, but because the scopes fit the rifles, both physically and esthetically. I've killed 16 species of big game around the world with 4x Leupolds, and adding in fixed 3x and 6x Leupolds would double the number of individual animals taken, and lengthen the list of species. Then there are all the Leupold variables used over the decades--including one this fall, a 1-4x that (on 4x) took a pronghorn buck. So am not exactly unacquainted with their virtues and faults.
But at the same time the number of my scopes that can be adjusted reliably has increased considerably over the last couple decades. These include not only inexpensive Fullfield IIs, but brands such as Nightforce, Swarovski and Zeiss. Oh, and did you know that Zeiss has been having scopes made in Asia for around a decade now? In fact they have them made in the same factory that makes Nightforce scopes and parts. Another example of "cheap Asian optics."
Don't get made at me bacause you said it took you "most of a box of ammo" to sight in a Leupold.
Don't get made at me bacause you said it took you "most of a box of ammo" to sight in a Leupold.
A Varx II 3×9 took me two shots today.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
You're amazing. Most people shoot at least a 3-shot group to confirm a scoped rifle is actually sighted-in.
I didn't say it always takes me most of a box to sight in a Leupold every time. But sometimes it does, because (1) the adjustments don't actually move the amount indicated, and (2) sometimes they don't move at all until the rifle's fired again--or even twice. Anybody that claims otherwise hasn't sighted-in many friction-adjustment Leupolds--but have also seen it a number of times with click-adjust models.
There you go again.....
I never said I shot a two shot group....i said it took me two shots to sight it in at 100 yards
Mule Deer; Top of the morning to you sir, I hope you and Eileen are well and the weather's warmed up a bit for you all too?
We've still got lots of snow but it's warmed up a wee bit. As long as it doesn't rain now we'll be golden.
Way back in the day I started out with Bushnell and Tasco, but lusted mightily for a Leupold after seeing how long the eye relief was.
That said, I recall watching a shooting buddy down at the range sighting in his scope and had to ask him why he was tapping his scope with the base of a fired cartridge?
Willy was "a character" and replied something really funny and unprintable about Leupolds taking their own time to get set up but usually staying there once they were.
On my two main walking around rifles I'm still running the older friction adjustable Leupolds and one hasn't moved for at least a dozen years like you mentioned with your 9.3x62. Somehow that's really comforting to me to at least have that much continuity in our ever changing world!
I seem to remember some of the old friction scopes moving less willingly than others too. I've still got two of the 6X Compacts and one is a wooly bugger to move the vertical adjustments, as in a Quarter and the Leatherman..
All the best to you and Eileen this year John.
Dwayne
Good morning Dwayne, I always enjoy reading your posts. You have a way of bringing a bit of civility to the discussion. I'm a bit like your friend Willy as I always knock lightly on the turrets with my knuckles when making adjustments to my scopes. I don't know if I read it or heard it and I've never tested it to see if it makes any difference. I guess old habits die hard. Most of my scopes are Leupolds so maybe Willy is onto something, or maybe I'm a character too.
There you go again. I never said YOU shot a 2-shot group.
To refresh your memory (apparently you missed it when you quoted my post), I wrote: "Most people shoot at least a 3-shot group to confirm a scoped rifle is actually sighted-in."
Since you only fired two shots, and didn't fire a group afterward, you didn't confirm the the rifle was actually sighted-in. Apparently you consider one shot in about the right place as being sighted-in. Or did you mean something else entirely?
Even when sighting-in a very accurate rifle with a scope featuring very precise and repeatable adjustments, I generally fire at least 4 shots--the first shot to see where the bullet lands. Then I adjust the scope to where I want a GROUP to land, and fire a second shot to see if it's close. If it is, then I fired two more to confirm the zero.
There you go again. I never said YOU shot a 2-shot group.
To refresh your memory (apparently you missed it when you quoted my post), I wrote: "Most people shoot at least a 3-shot group to confirm a scoped rifle is actually sighted-in."
Since you only fired two shots, and didn't fire a group afterward, you didn't confirm the the rifle was actually sighted-in. Apparently you consider one shot in about the right place as being sighted-in. Or did you mean something else entirely?
Even when sighting-in a very accurate rifle with a scope featuring very precise and repeatable adjustments, I generally fire at least 4 shots--the first shot to see where the bullet lands. Then I adjust the scope to where I want a GROUP to land, and fire a second shot to see if it's close. If it is, then I fired two more to confirm the zero.
You like to try and read too much into things....
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Have owned plenty of older Leupolds (especially fixed-powers) that held zero year after year after year. But they often required most of a box of ammo to get zeroed in the first place.
You said it took you most of a box of ammo to sight in a Leupold scope.....I said I sighted one in yesterday in two shots.
I went on to shoot five 5 shot groups without any further scope adjustments.....sighted in in two shots like I said.
[/quote]Don't get made at me bacause you said it took you "most of a box of ammo" to sight in a Leupold.
A Varx II 3×9 took me two shots today.
You're amazing. Most people shoot at least a 3-shot group to confirm a scoped rifle is actually sighted-in.
I didn't say it always takes me most of a box to sight in a Leupold every time. But sometimes it does, because (1) the adjustments don't actually move the amount indicated, and (2) sometimes they don't move at all until the rifle's fired again--or even twice. Anybody that claims otherwise hasn't sighted-in many friction-adjustment Leupolds--but have also seen it a number of times with click-adjust models. [/quote]
A few weeks back I sighted in an M8 4x Leupold using my standard method with Leupolds:
1. Bore sight. 2. Shoot a 3 shot group. 3. Measure needed adjustment and adjust off of the closest 2 of the 3. 4. Shoot another 3 shot group to verify the adjustment took place on second and third shots.
Adjustments were repeatable...at taking effect on the second and third shot every time. If I had shot 1 shot and adjusted I'd have been chasing 0 all day. It takes 3 times (someone might get away with 2 times) as many rounds to sight a Leupold in as it does a repeatable scope. Below is the 3 shot group after the final adjustment....not hard to tell which was the first shot....and it did it every time.
That's pretty much what I do as well with friction-adjust Leupolds--though often with some old-fashioned tapping of the turrets with an empty case, in hope of settling the adjustments without having to fire yet another round. But that doesn't always work!
As mentioned, have seen click-adjustment Leupolds that were somewhat tough to zero as well.
Today most people consider a 30-06 with a fixed 4x scope a primitive , anachronistic weapon . About like their users
Phil,
Apparently I'm not as anachronistic as I used to be. Now have a 6x scope on my .30-06!
I have a couple 06's with 4x and 6x scopes. They are blued/walnut as well. A few years ago I had one of them and a few levers along at the rifle range, and a group of gents I was talking with, who were only a few years younger than me, but had tacticool everything, told me "they really dig my retro rigs". Hold onto anything long enough for it to drop from being commonplace and it crosses back into being stylish.
WRT low powered scopes, I suppose one could make the argument that targeted advertising might be able to reinvigourate this market. (No pun intended).
According to friends who live in Europe, low, fixed power scopes are still popular there. Europe seemed to be less affected by the tactical craze that hit North America years ago. I don’t think they can resist advertising any better than North Americans, but there is less wide open space. Maybe they know what works in their situation.
For those of us who don’t use our rifles over 300 or 400 yards for hunting, a high powered scope isn’t practical, except at the range. That never stopped anyone from buying one however.
Companies are going to go with what makes the money.
River Ridge; Good afternoon sir, thanks for the kind words which I do appreciate and will do my best to deserve.
My good friend, the late Willy, by his own admission was "drunk for about 15 years" and quit cold turkey when his doctor told him to stop drinking or his liver would stop for him.
Most folks who knew us thought we were an "interesting" pair to say the least because he was known as a bit of a scofflaw in his younger days, as mentioned a heavy drinker and had a colorful vocabulary. I was me, that is to say a regular church, on the board, didn't/don't cuss that much and was on the wagon along with Willy when we met.
Nonetheless he and I got along famously, did many, many firearm trades, swaps and deals and among many people who helped me a ton when I was learning reloading he stands out as my best mentor for sure.
The last thing I'll mention about Willy and my late buddy Dave who taught me stock making, checkering, rust bluing and was a handloading mentor as well was that they were both devout apostles of St. O'Connor, which meant that cartridge and rifle development had reached it's pinnacle with the .270 in a pre-64 Model 70m. There was some room for discussion on bullets however, they could be either 130gr or 150gr, but had to be Sierras and had to be propelled by H 4831.
Since I was hunting with an '06 for the most part when I first met them, they felt I was mentally deficient but must have decided to try and convert me over to the one true path as they put up with me until both passed on.
Thanks again for the kind words and for letting me share a wee bit about a couple wonderful and colorful shooting and firearm mentors from my past.
River Ridge; Good afternoon sir, thanks for the kind words which I do appreciate and will do my best to deserve.
My good friend, the late Willy, by his own admission was "drunk for about 15 years" and quit cold turkey when his doctor told him to stop drinking or his liver would stop for him.
Most folks who knew us thought we were an "interesting" pair to say the least because he was known as a bit of a scofflaw in his younger days, as mentioned a heavy drinker and had a colorful vocabulary. I was me, that is to say a regular church, on the board, didn't/don't cuss that much and was on the wagon along with Willy when we met.
Nonetheless he and I got along famously, did many, many firearm trades, swaps and deals and among many people who helped me a ton when I was learning reloading he stands out as my best mentor for sure.
The last thing I'll mention about Willy and my late buddy Dave who taught me stock making, checkering, rust bluing and was a handloading mentor as well was that they were both devout apostles of St. O'Connor, which meant that cartridge and rifle development had reached it's pinnacle with the .270 in a pre-64 Model 70m. There was some room for discussion on bullets however, they could be either 130gr or 150gr, but had to be Sierras and had to be propelled by H 4831.
Since I was hunting with an '06 for the most part when I first met them, they felt I was mentally deficient but must have decided to try and convert me over to the one true path as they put up with me until both passed on.
Thanks again for the kind words and for letting me share a wee bit about a couple wonderful and colorful shooting and firearm mentors from my past.
All the best to you.
Dwayne
Dwane we don’t know each other at all but I sincerely enjoy reading your posts. You come across sincere & caring along with a fun story that adds color to the conversation. Glad you’re here & I hope to read more of your thoughts over time.
Just bought another .30-06 today--which has a 2-1/2X scope! Now am wondering if I can actually hit anything with it! (Though killed quite a few big game animals with 2-1/2x and 3x scopes back in the Stone Age....)
JB you must immediately replace that scope with a 3-30x50 dialer. Game animals of today simply more tenacious & much farther away than they have ever been in the history of human hunting experiences. 😜
Just bought another .30-06 today--which has a 2-1/2X scope! Now am wondering if I can actually hit anything with it! (Though killed quite a few big game animals with 2-1/2x and 3x scopes back in the Stone Age....)
I believe you'll manage.
A few days ago I was verifying a load for one of my 308s, in this case a Remington 700 XCR LRT barreled action set into a 700 5R Milspec stock. The scope was a 1.5-4x20 with a duplex reticle. It was set to 4x. My target at 300 yards was a 4" dot and I fired a five shot group just under 1 7/8" center to center. The cartridges were assembled with thrown charges of IMR4064.
Unless the reticle is ill suited the chest of a deer shouldn't present a severe challenge for 2.5x.
Just bought another .30-06 today--which has a 2-1/2X scope! Now am wondering if I can actually hit anything with it! (Though killed quite a few big game animals with 2-1/2x and 3x scopes back in the Stone Age....)
I believe you'll manage.
A few days ago I was verifying a load for one of my 308s, in this case a Remington 700 XCR LRT barreled action set into a 700 5R Milspec stock. The scope was a 1.5-4x20 with a duplex reticle. It was set to 4x. My target at 300 yards was a 4" dot and I fired a five shot group just under 1 7/8" center to center. The cartridges were assembled with thrown charges of IMR4064.
Unless the reticle is ill suited the chest of a deer shouldn't present a severe challenge for 2.5x.
Just bought another .30-06 today--which has a 2-1/2X scope! Now am wondering if I can actually hit anything with it! (Though killed quite a few big game animals with 2-1/2x and 3x scopes back in the Stone Age....)
Just bought another .30-06 today--which has a 2-1/2X scope! Now am wondering if I can actually hit anything with it! (Though killed quite a few big game animals with 2-1/2x and 3x scopes back in the Stone Age....)
Minute-of-BBQ.
Do most of my field shooting in that range.
Surprisingly, it tastes the same.
GR
With his track record if it's a Leupold scope I hope he takes extra ammo when he goes to shoot it.
I really like my Leupold FXII 4x33 and 6x36 scopes. They’ve held zero and are nice and light. Here is a 6x36 on an M70 in 7x57.
perfect set up! and nice looking traditional rig..
Very nice looking rifle. terrific chambering, love that fore end. Scope is a great fit too.
I was a 6x on everything kind of guy for as long as I remember Figured having all rifles with identical magnification was a good idea....for some reason. The fixed had fewer parts and were considered more robust. The main reason though was that fixed were noticeably brighter. More recent variables, however, are just a lot brighter and feature rich at entry level than they used to be. For me a good, fully multicoated ( which is pretty much most of them these days) fairly recent variable gets me well past legal shooting hours. Burris e1 and Leupold Vx-3 for instance. The surprise to me was how much more I prefer going in to the field at 3 or 4x for a wider field of view. Most folks tend to consider the upper magnification as more help for target shooting but in the field lower is an unsung benefit to me. I still have 6x that the purist in me enjoys but if getting replaced will go to variables as I feel they offer more for me- if I am being honest with myself.
Never owned a fixed power till I bought a mid sixties sav 99 with a M8 4x on it with weaver tip offs. Verrrry cool! It doesn’t gather as much light as the new stuff, but it works fine for my eyes till close of shooting hours, and for where I hunt, the magnification is ideal. If it broke tomorrow I’d be looking for another fixed 4x for it. Changed my opinion of fixed power glass.
I’ve been buying M8 4x’s and M8 6x’s for a few years. The last M8 6x compact I bought here on the fire now rests on the Ruger #1 in 280 (which I also bought on the fire recently) and with low scope mounts. I think it’s a perfect setup on my first Ruger #1.
Just bought another .30-06 today--which has a 2-1/2X scope! Now am wondering if I can actually hit anything with it! (Though killed quite a few big game animals with 2-1/2x and 3x scopes back in the Stone Age....)
MD - Retro Triumph ! I hope for your sake it’s CRF ;-)
Straight tube 2-1/2x has amazing low-light performance for dusk & dawn , 8mm, Even a 4 x 20 mm has a 5 mm Exit Pupil
My 700 & 721 30-06’s have M8 4x scopes. I have an 03-A3 that has an older scope and that’s a Scope Chief 2 1/2x. That Springfield was probably sporterized back when Springfields could be bought for around $10 - it will stay as is, unless the scope fails.
Most of my other rifles, other than varmint rifles and a rifle set up for long range shooting, have M8’s or FX’s mostly in 4x or 6x.
Why would I want a higher power scope than 4x or a variable on a ‘06??? I no longer take them varmint shooting/hunting.
I do not like variables for a few reasons I’ve whined about before - heavy, poorer eye relief, weak, and the scope may be on high power when a deer runs close. All in all, a poor choice for a rifle set up for hunting bug game.
I find the old Leupolds pretty much stay sighted in, so I don’t worry too much about how many shots it takes to sight in - I’m retired and shooting is my past time.
If, like a gun writer, I were having to get a lot shooting through in a day by reviewing different rifles the amount of time of sighting them in would be an issue.
Having to knock on the scope, after dialing it, reminds me of the days of the El Paso Weavers. My El Paso scopes were 2 1/2x through 6x & one 12x. BUT NO VARIABLES!
Other than scopes, I like the old steel Lyman aperture receiver sights or International match sights.
Picked up 2 mint M8 4x’s this week. Love the low power scopes with no gizmos. I laugh at some of my hunting buddies with the hubbel telescopes on their rigs. I don’t need the magnification , I just need the crosshairs to aim by. Maybe these two M8’s will snake bite me but I have enough of the old Leupolds that have treated me right I’m not scared. Plus I like nostalgic style stuff. At one time that old stuff was state of the art lol.
I gotta say , when these threads run off the rails there isn’t any bringing them back.
I’m a late arrival to this site and am not in the know on a lot of these personality conflicts and arguments , but damn some of this stuff is just off the chain. Anyone here just agree to disagree without all the hate and vitriol?
I gotta say , when these threads run off the rails there isn’t any bringing them back.
I’m a late arrival to this site and am not in the know on a lot of these personality conflicts and arguments , but damn some of this stuff is just off the chain. Anyone here just agree to disagree without all the hate and vitriol?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the past few years have been a chore. Keep smiling.
I gotta say , when these threads run off the rails there isn’t any bringing them back.
I’m a late arrival to this site and am not in the know on a lot of these personality conflicts and arguments , but damn some of this stuff is just off the chain. Anyone here just agree to disagree without all the hate and vitriol?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the past few years have been a chore. Keep smiling.
It's a skillset and a mindset few possess these days.
I gotta say , when these threads run off the rails there isn’t any bringing them back.
I’m a late arrival to this site and am not in the know on a lot of these personality conflicts and arguments , but damn some of this stuff is just off the chain. Anyone here just agree to disagree without all the hate and vitriol?
When their azz gets handed to them a lot of guys go to attacking folks....their brains are so warped they go to accusing people of being someone they're not.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/IurKK8Y.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/bdu2Pni.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/LOBY9xS.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/D3wNgkPl.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/176593.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/176592.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/Yqw1n0Ny/FC917261-8-C19-4-CFF-8-B87-671-D072-F4-BDD.jpg)
