super_hunt54

Not saying you need one of those huge 50mm obj. scopes but the little 20mm ones just don't cut the mustard in my opinion. 30mm is as small as I go with 40mm being in the sweet spot for my old eyes. At your range expectations the Nikon 2-7x32 Prostaff with the Niplex ret. would do a fine job for you. Just put one on my .458 SOCOM and it holds zero wonderfully. I let a buddy of mine take that rig to Texas hog hunting and he is reporting outstanding results (may have to put on the boxing gloves to get me damn rifle back) with the new scope and the new Lehigh XP bullets I loaded up for it. While that objective is on the smaller side being 32mm they were night hunting with an ND3 laser designator type light fixed to the rail and he was having no problems at all.

Game Stalker

Divide the magnification-the power setting-into the objective lens size-the lens at the farther end away from the shooter-to get the exit pupil-the amount of light that is being transmitted to the eye. Compare the scopes you are considering against each other: The exit pupil specs. Scopes with larger exit pupil #'s will be better in lower light.
That is, a scope w/an exit pupil of 5mm is better in low light than a scope w/an exit pupil of 4mm. However, scopes w/an exit pupil of 4mm are generally still good for lighting situations encountered toward the end of legal deer hunting times.

BrushyPines

Thanks guys!

Nomercy448

So, basically, yeah - one distinct advantage of lower magnification is larger FOV. One distinct disadvantage of a smaller objective is a smaller FOV. So it gives up some of the benefit it gained - to what end?

As has been mentioned, there are disadvantages to smaller objective scopes - light transmission being one, smaller relative FOV being another - and what's the advantage? I really don't care about saving a couple inches of body length or a half inch of height or a few ounces of weight - that's not an advantage for me.

If it came down to a 2-7x32mm vs a 3-9x40mm, I take the 3-9x40 every day and twice on sunday. Could care less that the 2-7x weighs less, is shorter, or is lower to the rifle - no advantage for my paradigm.

WV Hunter

Me too. I have that size on almost all my guns.

To the OP... For your situation, I would look at a Leupold VX2 3-9x40. If you want to spend less, the VX1 is about $100 less. They are excellent scopes with a lifetime warranty, and probably the best overall reputation in the industry. You won't be disappointed. Optics Planet or SWFA usually has great prices.

alleyyooper

Never ever seen a scope you had to "put your eye/face directly on the scope to see everything clear". Even the really early scopes from the 50's and 60's.
Sounds to me like a simple adjustment is all that is needed. Move the scope around (back and forth)in the rings till mostly clear then turn the eye piece to fine tune it.

A

BrushyPines

I've been looking at the VX-1 online. What's the differences between the VX-1 & VX-2?

Big Uncle

I believe that the VX 2 is a much better scope than the VX 1 and is worth more than the extra $100 or so in price. The VX 1 is the entry level scope. It may seem a bit steep but in the long run you will get a better scope that will last you many years. Go to the Leupold site and compare features.

BrushyPines

Ended up going with the VX-2. Thanks guys for the help!

katelynandy

I realize this is an old post, but your budget of 300 caught my attention. I recently purchased a Bushnell Elite 3-9x40 4200 series and its the greatest purchase regarding optics that Ive made in a long time. Much more clear that many lower end Leupolds by far...and not only Leupolds. There are many choices out there for 300 or less, but the 4200 series is very tough to top for the money. The VX 2 is also great glass.