Optic Overkill?

[rnovi]

For me, any hunting 300 yards and under is readily managed with a 2.5-8x36 VX3. Site at 200, the top of the bottom post is the 300 yard hold for cartridges like the 30-06. I think it's something like 3moa distance, which equates to 9 inches of drop.

My favorite hunting rifle is a Rem M7MS in .257 Roberts topped with a 2.5-8x.

My favorite stalking rifle is my Merkel K1 topped with fixed 6x42 FX3 with the long range dots. My load is built to the dots and I'm dead on to 500 yards.

My favorite foul weather lightweight rifle wears a Leopold VX3 2.5-8x36.

The trend here is that there just isn't that much power needed for hunting under 300. Now if you plan to hunt at 500 yards plus, then sure, the added power is nice. Then you get to play the weight game...and the smaller scopes are often a 1/2 pound less weight.

I also have scopes by Leica up to 15x and the Leopold VX6 in 2-12 and 1-6 ratios. Those tend to be more "range guns" than actual hunting rifles. Although they would be darn nice in a blind...

Good luck!

 

[petrusg]

i don't think its overkill... you can easily take further shots with your 30-06 if you get comfortable with the setup. think of it this way, when you hunt in bush you will rarely use it over 9x magnification but the option is there to zoom it in even more when the opportunity presents itself for a longer shot. It also helps when shooting paper to have a good zoom.

 

[ZG47]

@ZDresner I see three potential challenges with that piece of kit:
1. Balance - it may make your rifle top heavy, which would be an issue with snapshots and any deliberate shots from kneeling or standing positions;
2. Sail effect - it will catch the wind, more than a regular hunting scope;
3. Ease of use, particularly for snap shots and uphill shots - an adjustable-objective scope takes a lot more time and effort to get the reticle focus right and the shallower depth of field translates to reduced latitude of eye relief.

If you can satisfy yourself (through dry-firing exercises) that the above issues are not of serious import, go for it! Otherwise, I suggest that you consider it as a possible fun optic for a lighter rifle.

 

[Nyati]

For hunting roe deer in low light conditions I use a 2-10x45, for driven hunts and Africa a 1-4x22.

Both with 30mm tube.

 

[rookhawk]

Could someone explain the math to calculate the improvement of a 30mm tube over a 26mm (1 inch)? I thought it was irrelevant unless the glass was bigger than the tube? Meaning a 24mm lens isn't benefiting from a 30mm tube.

Always wanted to know. I just know fancier scopes are 30mm as it perceived imporovement even if not really.

 

[wesheltonj]

My understanding is your right with math & physics its meaningless. The 30 mm tube does give you more room for turret turning. My reasoning on this gentlemen's Tikka was it's a European gun, and European scopes are 30mm not 1 inch.

 

[thi9elsp]

@rookhawk Doing a quick search, multiple sources (Spoomer on Swarovski site, Chuckhawks, opticstalk...) state the 30 mm really gives the advantage of more MOA adjustment all other things being equal (lense size, magnification, coatings,etc.). There is some other mention of the ability to make the tube stronger but that seems negligible vs. the added weight.

 

[Goose Cracker]

To answer your specific question first - I think the answer is "it depends". Largely on what/where/how you'll be hunting with that combo. WY antelope? Heck yes. GA bean-fields? Yep. TX senderos? Uh-huh. Goats, sheep, etc? Sure. But if you are hunting heavy timber where you can only see 80 yrds or if all your shots will be sub-100 yrds, then clearly no. But that's what a different rifle is for - with different glass.

So apparently I disagree with what appears to be an emerging consensus. I'm generally a believer in consensus, because I believe "consensus" develops for some very good reasons. Same as heuristics (rules of thumb) and stereotypes.

I have 50mm scopes on virtually everything I own and I prefer more magnification. My 300WM has an HD5 3-15x50 on it. It's going to Africa with me. "Aim small, miss small." "If you can't see it, you can't kill it." My groups at the range are better with more magnification. My shots on game are as well.

For my rifles that started with 40mm scopes, they gradually got replaced with 50s. Yes, they look huge. Yes, there are some rifles that need padded cheekpieces to get the correct cheek-weld. Yes, I'm a data-driven guy and know all about exit pupils, etc. At daylight and dusk - when I'm generally staring at whitetails in the crosshairs, the 50s are brighter *to me*. The 50s allow me to sit later - I've taken both 40s and 50s with me to the same stands and timed when I could see well enough to shoot. The problem with good glass in a 50mm bell is that you can see well enough to shoot before and after legal shooting time (at least here in GA). If the majority of your hunting isn't dusk/dawn then a 40mm is more than adequate and is lighter/can be mounted lower.

With all that said, my 375 H&H has a VX6 1-6x24 (30mm tube) scope on it. So consensus. But I kinda wish I'd gone for the 2-12x42.

All IMHO and YMMV

 

[sheephunterab]

Unless you are setting up for strictly long rage shooting I'd say your low end magnification is too much. You'd be way better served by a 3-15x42. I routinely shoot to 600 yards with my 3-15 but you still have the advantage of 3x at the lower end.

 

[Philip Glass]

I have the opportunity to put a Zeiss Conquest HD5 5-25 x 50 Scope on my Tikka T3 30-06. I am not confident shooting over 250 metres. The great thing is that it is brand new and I am getting it for half of what it normally costs. Overkill or not ?

Overkill. I love 30-06 but there is no reason for so much scope on that gun. It's just not a long range gun. That said I'd like that scope on say a .300RUM.
Regards,
Philip

 

[Longwalker]

I find high powered variable scopes are "fussier" to use. More critical eye relief, a smaller area where the shooter may have his head / eye positioned and still see a full field of view - not only fore and aft, but side-side and up/down as well. And scopes with powers over 9x or 10x also perform best with a parallax adjustment turret or adjustable objective bell. ALL that stuff makes the magnification work for precision aiming at tiny targets far away, but makes the scope less user friendly in "shoot now or go home" situations that are very common when hunting wary large animals. High powered scopes can be a serious handicap at close range, which I believe is more important than long range >300M capability. My highest powered hunting scopes ( other than varmint scopes) are no more than 3.5 -10 x.

 

[Ridgewalker]

A bit of my experience. When I started hunting about 1955, a 4x scope was a long range scope. Worked even through the 70s on my 30-06 for elk to 350 yds and antelope over 400 yds. Of course variables weren't reliable and they were very expensive...Balvars, etc. A 6x was used for varmints. I could shoot <3" groups at 300 yards with the 4x Redfield on my 06. As a matter of fact I believe Jack O Connor used an old Weaver J2.5 a lot on his 270. Target shooters used 30-40x fixed power scopes.
Moving on, variables improved in quality and reliability. Prices dropped so everyone started getting them. They are great today and I use variables on most of my long rifles and my Contender. That said, I rarely have them turned up to high power (except for range load testing) including my prairie dog gun that is a 6-24x. It is almost always set in the 15-18x range (heat waves).
Summation: IMO we don't need the high powers of the variables today if we are "hunting". I don't agree with shooting a big game animal at 1000 yds. Bullet energy and animal movement can lead to a bad shot, wounded and lost game too easily. I am a hunter, not a shooter. Shoot targets. Hunt animals. JMO.

 

[Bullthrower338]

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to justify a new gun for perhaps coyotes to put that good deal scope on. I wouldn't pass up a half priced zeiss ever but I'd stick with a 3x9x40 on the '06.
Or possibly a 2x7x32 or straight 6 power.

 

[nztimb]

Buy the 5-25x50 Zeiss and onsell it or trade for a more suitable scope in the fixed 6 or 2-7, 2.5-8 range.
I have 2-7's on rifles that I would prefer a fixed 6 on simply because there is a severe lack of fixed 6 scopes available

 

[edward]

so much depends on your eye sight.

 

[ZG47]

Buy the 5-25x50 Zeiss and onsell it or trade for a more suitable scope in the fixed 6 or 2-7, 2.5-8 range.
I have 2-7's on rifles that I would prefer a fixed 6 on simply because there is a severe lack of fixed 6 scopes available

My situation as well. Variable power scopes got a big lift when the original Weaver company went out of business AND ... the pathetic list of fixed powers offered with the new alloy tube range (circa 1990?) pretty much put the nail in the coffin, for the average shooter. They could have brought back the the KT 10, T10 and 8x56 right then, especially given that Leupold only had one scope with multi-coated optics at the time and Redfield/Burris prices were not exactly low; but they 'saved pennies and lost pounds' by putting out a small selection.

 

[Rule 303]

My take. It is too much scope for general hunting. Chasing Chamois or Tahr in the New Zealand Alps, may be. All my scopes stay on the lowest setting, unless really needed. That said I hardly ever come off 2, 2.5 , 3 or what ever is the lowest power. Remember a 10 power scope brings a an animal at 1000mts into 100mts as far as visibility goes. So why do you need more than that unless you are shooting rabbits/small animals or greater than 1000mts.

The 50mm objective lens may well require the scope be mounted that high that you can not get a good check weld. I do have a 2.5 -10X50 Kahles that I use on my New Zealand trips and general hunting. It sits on a Steyr Pro Hunter and the stock design puts my eye just where it is needed, not sure the Tikka stock will.

 

[Savage Hunter]

i don't think I would ever want a scope that is 5 power on the low end. My scope stays on the lowest setting (3.5) in case something pops up close.
At 300 yards, I don't see any need for anything greater than 7 power on the top end and that is more than is necessary.

with that said, I wanted a new scope for my 300wsm that would get me longer range on my CDS dial and also have a fire dot.
Cabela's put the VX-6 3-18x50 on sale at about $500 less than normal. I cannot ever see the need for 18 power in a hunting situation.
But, it fit close enough to what I wanted..... though I would have preferred the VX6 in something like a 2-12x42, but it wasn't on sale.

I do have a 50mm as a VX-3L and love it because it sits so low (with the half-moon cut out on the bottom), wasn't sure I would like the regular 50 because of the mount height.
I just mounted that VX3L on my new 375 using low mounts. It had been on my savage 300wsm.
I then mounted the new VX6 on my Savage 300 and was pleasantly surprised. The way the barrel drops quickly on the Savage I am able to use Medium mounts and it is perfect for me.

Will I ever use 18 power on the VX6 in a hunting situation? very unlikely.
Heck, I struggled with accuracy at 250 yds on my last trip. I came home and learned me and my rifle and how to shoot steep angle shots and long distance shots.
For my elk hunt last fall, I was hitting well at 600yds and 10 power was plenty. My elk came out at 180 yds, so a 4 power would have been plenty. lol. Heck, open sights was do-able if I had younger eyes.
I'm not going to shoot at an animal at 1000 yds, although I would at 600 yds now that I've practiced that distance.
My scope is overkill on the top end, I know, but just because it's there doesn't mean I have to crank it to that.

 

[Jwg223]

I have the opportunity to put a Zeiss Conquest HD5 5-25 x 50 Scope on my Tikka T3 30-06. I am not confident shooting over 250 metres. The great thing is that it is brand new and I am getting it for half of what it normally costs. Overkill or not ?

It's not so much overkill as iti s going to be annoying as hell.

A) It's more weight to lug around.
B) with the lowest power being 5x, it's going to suck for things up close.
C)If you ever choose to set it at 25x, I hope you're shooting off of a bag, or sled, at least a bipod with a rear bag, because otherwise, it's going to be all OVER the place.

I used to have a rifle with a 6.5-20x leupold on it. Its purpose was 300+ yard tiny tiny targets, only off of a bench. It worked great for that, and not much else.

 

[Mark19707]

Check another vote for too heavy on magnification.