fritz1

Well Colorado Luckydog pretty much answered it like I would have, but I will elaborate a little more. I grew up using 3-9 scopes, never really had a problem with them but as far as I can remember I have never used one on the 3x setting, I have however had a 3-9x scope and wish I had a little more power. The only gun I have ever used 3x on has been my XP100R handgun. When I started using 4-12 and 4.5-14x scopes and saw the difference I decided that I would never own another 3-9x scope. I have a fixed 6x Leupold on a 243, do you think it is too strong because it doesnt adjust down to 3x?

jerry d

Well here's my situation,i'm going to be retiring soon at the ripe old age of 54.I'll be moving to Tennessee so once i get settled in i what to do an elk hunt out west.It will an outfitted hunt.So because of the price of hunts i might only be able a few hunts in my lifetime or maybe only one.So i'm not going to go out and buy a dedicated elk rifle.

I own 2 centerfire rifles,a rem.700 in 243win. and a marlin336 in .35rem.But god willing i plan on doing plenty of whitetail hunting. So what would you guys suggest as a rifle to be used primarily as deer gun but also capable of taking an elk? My first thoughts were a 308 or a 270 either gun will most likely be a winchester model70.

DROX

Jerry d,
So I take it you did not get one of the five elk tags Tennessee issued for the 2011 hunt! If you had I'm certain that .35 Rem would have done a fine job! i would think that a model 70 in 7mm Mag would not break the bank on these small eastern whitetails yet be sufficient to reach across the wide open to down an elk in either Colorado or Tennessee! Be safe!

bronko22000

This scenerio is run out every year by my gunsmith/gun dealer friend. His rifle/caliber of choice is a Winchester 70 in 30-06 and 180 gr bullets. This rifle has accounted for elk, moose and grizzly. As he tells me, the '06 is all you need.

jerry d

Your friend isn't the only one that says that.And i believe it also.I had a Rem Sportsman 78 {same rifle as the 700 ADL except the barrel wasn't polished}in 30-06 very accurate gun.......more so than my 700 in 243.

emtrescue6

The 308 or 270 would serve you well on both ends without a doubt.

But as many point out, going on a trip away from home requires a backup. Nothing worse than spending all of that $ on a hunt and have a weapon or equipment failure end the trip...I have been there! For my Whitetail trips to Northern Michigan I carry the Tikka T3 Stainless Lite in 270 WSM topped with a 3-9x50 Nikon as my primary weapon, along for the trip is also my Rem 700 BDL in 270 WIN topped with a 3-9x40 Swift. When I go west to elk hunt (almost every year) the Tikka is still the primary weapon, the secondary changes to y 308 Win (Sav Mdl 99 topped with a 4-12x50 Bushnell Elite 3200) or my 7MM RM (Rem 700 DBL topped with a 3-9x40 Swift). I have only ever had an equipment failure once on an eastern Oregon muley hunt, I was glad I had a backup for that trip.

salukipv1

How about a 7mm Rem.Mag.?

2nd choice probably .30-06

Leupold VX6 2-12x42mm

SecondChance

300 short mag with a Leupold or Nikon 3x9x40 or 44mm or 4x12x40 or 44mm scope. I would say this set up for you can step up or down on your power loads and the scope will cover you from 50 to 500yds. I would say weigh your options per your budget allowances. I would go the 300 WSSM w/o question though.

Nomercy448

I know Fritz and CLD covered this already, but just to throw in my "moral support", 4.5-14x isn't bad, especially if you consider a 50mm scope. I'm a big fan of 4.5-14x or 4-16x scopes, but I actually tend to use higher magnification scopes, 5-22x, 6-18x, 6-24x, 6.5-20x... (One of my favorite scopes is a Bushnell Elite 6500 4.5-30x50mm. It's dang hard to beat a scope that will cover you from 20yrds clear out to 1000yrds!)

In Kansas, on any given day I might start the morning hunting in timber where visibility is limited (not just shots, but total line of sight) to under 50yrds, and then in the same afternoon be sitting over pasture or row crops with a 3 mile flat line of sight (obviously not shooting quite THAT far). Having a diverse scope and rifle rig is critical.

Having midrange magnification scopes like 4-16x or 4.5-14x scopes gives you a lot more at the top end, but still has a low enough bottom. Relatively speaking, a 3-9x40mm (the standard by which all hunting scopes are measured) usually has a FOV at 100yrds of about 30-35ft on 3x, whereas a 4.5-14x50 will usually have a FOV at 100 of 20-25ft. At 20yrds then, we're talking about a FOV of 6-7ft for the 3-9x40, and 4-5ft for the 4.5-14x50mm... Either way, both are pretty dang small FOV, and a 4ft long by 3ft tall (at the head) deer will basically fill the FOV for either. Finding the deer in the scope will be hard for either one.

But on the flip side, what's the difference at 300yrds? A 3-9x40mm will have a 10ft FOV at 9x at 100yrds, so then at 250yrds, it has a FOV of 30ft on 9x. A 4.5-14x will have an FOV at 100yrds of about 6.5ft at 14x, which turns into 19.5ft at 300yrds. If a deer is 3ft long, he'll make up 1/10th of the FOV in the 3-9x40, whereas he'll make up 1/6 of the FOV in the 4.5-14x50mm.

I know it seems like just a bunch of numbers, but when you consider your shot placement, for example how large a 6" vital zone will appear in the scope, things really change. 6" out of a 30ft FOV only allows a 0.8% margin for error (6" out of 30ft is 1.67%, so +/- 0.83%)! With the 4.5-14x50mm, you're looking at 1.3% margin for error (6" out of 19.5ft is 2.6%, or +/- 1.3%). So my allowable error is 57% greater for the 4.5-14x50.

Just for kicks, 300yrds on a 6" vitals is about 1.8% margin for error with a 5-22x56mm or 2.7% for 8-32x56mm. FOV at 30yrds is 4ft for an 8-32x56, and 5ft for a 5-22x56mm (vs 6ft 30yrd FOV and 0.83% margin for error for a 3-9x40mm). Ultimately, the close range challenge is about the same, but the long range margin for error gets improved 2-3 fold!

Guys get way too caught up on "anything above 3-9x is too much scope", but the numbers don't lie, 3x vs 4.5x doesn't really make much difference in the short range game, but the margin for error at long range makes a HUGE difference. For me, the moral of the story is that I'm hard pressed to find a negative aspect of a high mag scope, even for short range shooting, but the benefits at long range (or even mid range for precise shot placement) are HUGE.

fritz1

I have the same scope on a Remington 700 270 that I use when hunting big open clearcuts where you need the extra power, like you said it is a great scope. I like Leupolds but do have a few of the Elite series Bushnells.