ndnMOJOman

I do remember one instructor talking about possibly needing a tapered base depending on the scope and tube size for shooting long yardage. I would like to eventually be able to shoot 1k yrds however, this is also my hunting rifle. I hunt here in Oklahoma where the long shot is around 300 and we also hunt Kansas where some of the shots can be much futher. That is why I would like a the capability of shooting the longer range andI know part of that is having the right optics.

stubblejumper

The optics is only one part,as is the rifle,and the reloading components,and equipment.The biggest part is learning how to read the wind,and practicing.Be well aware that if you intend to be really proficient at 500 yards,you need regular access to a 500 yard range,and hundreds of rounds per year of practice.If you intend to become proficient at 1000 yards.you need regular access to a 1000 yards range and the time and money to practice even more.You will be buying bullets 500 rounds or more at a time and powder in containers a lot bigger than one pound.Gas money to and from the range can add up.Then you have to factor in the cost of rebarreling every year or two if you use the 300 win mag.It can be done,but it requires a big commitment in time and a fair commitment in money as well.

HEAD0001

It appears as if you are taking your time, and you seem to be educating yourself very well. Most of what you say is correct. However if you go with a 30mm tube then the larger objective will help. Basically what I am saying is that it takes a larger tube to transmit the extra light from a larger objective. So going to a 50 mm OL is alright if you go to the 30 mm tube.

With scopes you basically get what you pay for. There is no doubt that with the better names you may be paying a bit of a premium for the name. But you are also getting some great glass.

It is hard to beat a Leupold. Even if the Nikon was as good(which I personally do not believe it is), the Leupold would still be a better buy. IF for no other reason than the name, the warranty, and the resale value(if ever needed).

Please do not fall prey to the "Brightness" and "Clarity" posts. These terms are subjective, and not really pertinent to the scope purchasing procedure. It is not difficult for a scope to be bright or clear in a showroom.

The Leupold 4.5X14X40 with the one inch tube is a hard(reasonably priced) scope to beat. I have one on my Knight LRH, and for the money I would prefer it over the Nikon.

If I was going to pay the extra money for the more expensive Leupold then I would also consider Zeiss Conquest, and the Swaro. A-Line one inch scopes. The Nikon is not in this league. Tom.

stubblejumper

With identical lenses and coatings,a 30mm tube will not transmit more light.That ability is limited by the lens sizes and lens coatings.And several companies,including Leupold actually use 1" lenses in 30mm tubes.
A post from an optics forum.

Brightness and clarity are indeed subjective,but they are real qualities that can be seen in the right conditions which as I previously posted,do not include the inside of a store.

HEAD0001

[quote] Basically what I am saying is that it takes a larger tube to transmit the extra light from a larger objective. So going to a 50 mm OL is alright if you go to the 30 mm tube./quote]

Stubble I think you and I are agreeing mostly, with just a slight difference. Please notice I did not say that the tube transmits more light. I am saying the tube allows more light to flow through. The couple of extra mm's in a circle can substantially increase the square area. The lense and lens coating still has to produce and transmit the light. That is why I always chuckle when I see thebig 56 mmOL's on a $100 scope. But then people buy them, so some marketer did his or her job.

I personallybelieve the 30mm tube allows me to see longer into the evening, and in bad conditions. So we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I do know one thing for sure. A lot of the new IOR'sand top grade Zeiss scopes are coming out with tubes that are larger than 30mm. Is that a pure marketing ploy, or is itneeded for better performance?? I am sure they will not tell us.Tom.

stubblejumper

We are not saying the same thing at all.

There are some 34mm scopes on the market.They are made with the large tube to allow even more adjustment for long range target shooting.

What they are telling us:

I have seen actual e-mail replies from both Zeiss and Swarovski that stated what I quoted above,although I can't find them since it has been a while since I saw them..

ndnMOJOman

I stopped by BPS today at lunch and like I expected it is almost impossible to tell the difference looking through the scopes from the counter. I looked at the Nikon, Leupold, Zeiss and they all looked crystal clear however, when I was looking through the Zeiss I noticedwhat seemed like a beavled edge around the lens until I got thecorrect focus point then it was a full sight picture crystal clear.
I was planning on buying one from BPS since they are running their 6 payment special but, I don't want to rush myself into buying one until I know exactly what I need. So since the special ends today I guess I will be learning alot more before I purchase one.
I do my own reloading and have a good round that is accurate in my rifle and with my current scope 300 yrds is my comfort zone and with more practice that will increase.
Thank you all for the info. and any shooting tips and advise is appreciated.

MichaelT.

Well, the first thing I wish to address is the idea that folks are saying longer magnification scopes are completly unnecessary......

What they mean actually is that they are unnecessary for themselves.... Since they are the only ones they can speak for.

I have some higher magnification scopes..... several in the 4-16 range and some in the 5 - 20 range, and I absolutely love them. Sure, I can shoot 600 yards with a 9 power,...... but I don't have to. I can be much more accurate with a higher magnification scope, and I can have a much better defined sight picture at a higher magnification.

Is everyone the same, NO. Does everyone need higher powers, NO. Is there anything wrong with higher powers , NO. Do some people love using them, Yes. Do people have to use them , NO. It is the choice of the individual.

And Yes, I own the New Nikon Moarchs in the 4-16 X 42 and 5-20 X 44. I also own the Nikon in a 4-12 X 50. They are great scopes. They are really good values for the money. I could buy more expensive scopes, but why should I. I will pay half as much for a Nikon than a Leupold and have every bit as good of a scope.... in my opinion..... But a lot of people agree with me too. And yes, some will disagree. WHich is better ... Ford or Chevy ? ..... I own a lot of different scopes , and 9 are Nikons. Some of those Nikons are 16 years old, and work like new.... never a problem...

Check Out www.theopticzone.com website. I buy a lot from there. Good prices and good folks.

I have seen some decent prices on e-bay too.

MET

stubblejumper

What a person needs,and what a person chooses to use are not dependent on one another at all.
I personally want at least 15x for 1000 yard target shooting.Some 1000 yard target shooters do use 40x scopes,but 20x to 25x is also quite common.Then again these are dedicated competition guns that aren't normally used for hunting.
The military snipers are normally issued either 10x or 3x12 scopes on their standard sniper rifles,which are considered effective to at least 800 yards.Even the 50 cal barret sniper rifle is issued with a 4.5x14 scope,and it has been successfully used out to over 2000 yards.Either these magnifications are sufficient,or the military snipers are very poorly equipped.Then again based on their very successful record,that doesn't appear to be the case.
Carlos Hathcock for one,was very successful with a 10x scope.

You may choose to use a 6.5x20 scope for big game hunting,but it isn't necessary.If you decide to use one it is because you want to,not because you need to.

nksmfamjp

Sure on a high end optic, a 40mm is the same as far as a human can tell in terms of brightness, but on a medium quality scope, especially at low light, this can make a difference. It also depends on your acceptance of additional weight. 50mm is heavier than 40mm. Also, it depends on your stock shape. On an AR for example, bell diameter is not a limiting factor as much as sight height.

1" vs. 30mm - Simply put, this is about adjustment range. 1" scope will generally zero 0 - 600 yards. 30mm scopes will generally zero to 1000 yards. 34mm, 35mm will go beyond. These numbers are misleading, because the depend on caliber, bullet, load, etc. Also, if you want to dial windage, you need to be closer to the optical center. They do make canted bases, but even though a 20MOA base will get you on target at 1000, it may not also be able t

Magnification - Depends on target size and distance. Snipers can use 10x at 1000 yards because people have a large target area. 10x is probably closer to ideal at 600 yards. For Benchrest guys shooting for .090" groups at 100 yds, 36x is required. 1000yd BR guys may use 40x. IMO, for field position use at 1000 yds, I would like 20x, but the 12x of my Burris XTR is fine, but probably the low end of fine. Also, consider your rest. A stable rest lends itself to higher than needed magnification. Offhand, or other unstable rests lend themselves to 3x or even 1x magnification. A good hunting variable IMO, has a low end of 3x - 5x and a high end of 20x - 30x. That high end is nice for judging the animal at long range. Shooting an Antelope at 600 yards is one thing, but knowing it is a trophy first, would be nice!