Archie wrote:It depends a little on what you mean by scrub, but, rule of thumb - do not go to a higher mag. I honestly reckon anything over 10 times on a hunting rifle is just goading you into shots you shouldn't take. If you're picking a mountain goat off a ridgeline a kilometre away, maybe. But I doubt it.
Really tho, the problem is not how high your scope goes, its that as your upper magnification goes up then usually your lower end magnification goes up as well (outside of ridiculously expensive high end scopes). You are usually trying to put a hole in an area around the size of a saucer, not nail a fly, and if the mag is too high in scrub, one of two things will happen:
1/ You'll see the animal, raise the rifle to your shoulder and not be able to find the animal because your field of view is too small an angle and your natural point of aim wasn't absolutely dead on. And in the scrub you'll just get a circle full of leaves and by the time you figure out where the thing is, its gone.
2/ Up close, you'll see the animal, raise the rifle to your shoulder and if you do get lucky and find the animal you will get a circle full of fur and not be able to tell which bit you are aiming at. Makes for poor shot placement.
I reckon you'll spend much more time with the scope turned to 3.5 than 10. I usually have regretted getting higher mag scopes. I have a 4x12 on a varmint rifle that works well but its a varmint rifle. I have a 3.5 x 10 on a 243 that is alright, just, but I wish could go lower, and 3-9 scope on a deer rifle that I should have saved money on and got something with a lower bound closer to 1 or 2, and I'd have had more success if I had done.
The less important reason, and this varies between people, is that some people shoot more accurately at lower magnifications because the inevitable wobble doesn't put them off.
in2anity wrote:FWIW I like a compact 1-4x scope in the sticks! Save the high-powered stuff for the range.
Daddybang wrote:Archie wrote:It depends a little on what you mean by scrub, but, rule of thumb - do not go to a higher mag. I honestly reckon anything over 10 times on a hunting rifle is just goading you into shots you shouldn't take. If you're picking a mountain goat off a ridgeline a kilometre away, maybe. But I doubt it.
Really tho, the problem is not how high your scope goes, its that as your upper magnification goes up then usually your lower end magnification goes up as well (outside of ridiculously expensive high end scopes). You are usually trying to put a hole in an area around the size of a saucer, not nail a fly, and if the mag is too high in scrub, one of two things will happen:
1/ You'll see the animal, raise the rifle to your shoulder and not be able to find the animal because your field of view is too small an angle and your natural point of aim wasn't absolutely dead on. And in the scrub you'll just get a circle full of leaves and by the time you figure out where the thing is, its gone.
2/ Up close, you'll see the animal, raise the rifle to your shoulder and if you do get lucky and find the animal you will get a circle full of fur and not be able to tell which bit you are aiming at. Makes for poor shot placement.
I reckon you'll spend much more time with the scope turned to 3.5 than 10. I usually have regretted getting higher mag scopes. I have a 4x12 on a varmint rifle that works well but its a varmint rifle. I have a 3.5 x 10 on a 243 that is alright, just, but I wish could go lower, and 3-9 scope on a deer rifle that I should have saved money on and got something with a lower bound closer to 1 or 2, and I'd have had more success if I had done.
The less important reason, and this varies between people, is that some people shoot more accurately at lower magnifications because the inevitable wobble doesn't put them off.in2anity wrote:FWIW I like a compact 1-4x scope in the sticks! Save the high-powered stuff for the range.
Both of these▲▲▲▲▲
I don't have anything over 3-9x and and never been in a situation in the scrub where I thought "I need more magnification".
Austwave wrote:Thanks guys it seems like a bit of clarification on my initial thoughts.
Was looking at a CZ 455 in .22 as a bunny come plinking, practice rifle either that or a ruger american
Austwave wrote:Thanks guys it seems like a bit of clarification on my initial thoughts.
Was looking at a CZ 455 in .22 as a bunny come plinking, practice rifle either that or a ruger american
Stix wrote:I
The bulk & type of terrain you cover & the species you are mostly targeting, along with the shots you take will play a part in your decision.
Daddybang wrote:Stix wrote:I
The bulk & type of terrain you cover & the species you are mostly targeting, along with the shots you take will play a part in your decision.
This▲▲▲▲
I think most of us read "heavily scrubbed" and based our advice accordingly.
As ya say stix no right or wrong just advice and opinions
Stix wrote:
I head shot a goat off my knee couple years ago in a gorge--very heavily wooded & steep terrain...
It was facing the other way & i could only see the goats head & part of its bum...
I dont like the texas heart shot so i head shot it at 120 yds sitting down resting on my knee...absolutely NO WAY id have the confidence for that shot on 4x-6x...
The extra mag (i took the shot on 16x) also showed how much the heart was racing so i could take a min to calm the hell down & get an effective shot away...
flutch wrote:a mate recently put me onto Tac Vector Optics and for $250 I put a 3-15x50 on my 300win, great scope and hopefully see some donkeys soon... but yeah, my 2 cents is go the venerable 270 over the 308 for hunting, flatter shooting and I buy ammo around the $25 a Pack mark, better for longer shots hunting too less holdover.
SCJ429 wrote:flutch wrote:a mate recently put me onto Tac Vector Optics and for $250 I put a 3-15x50 on my 300win, great scope and hopefully see some donkeys soon... but yeah, my 2 cents is go the venerable 270 over the 308 for hunting, flatter shooting and I buy ammo around the $25 a Pack mark, better for longer shots hunting too less holdover.
Do you mean the 270WSM?
I agree the WSM case is an awesome design.
SCJ429 wrote:The 300 WSM has less muzzle velocity than a 30/06? What action has problems feeding the WSM from a magazine?
SCJ429 wrote:My bad, you are comparing the 300 WSM with a 300 Win Mag? There cannot be much difference in the muzzle energy between the two.
I have a Wincherster M70 that uses the WSM case and it feeds quite well. I have not heard of feed problems before.
All in all the WSM is a very good case design which is very capable and accurate. The short fat powder column is in line with modern design and guys are getting good results using it.