new scope help

That will do. On my 223 I've had a 4-16, a 6-18, and now a 4.5-14. Not much difference in the 3 magnification ranges, but I think the 4-16 was the best magnification range (till it broke).
 
You're trying to substitute magnification for quality, this is a cheap budget scope. For about the same money you can get a much higher quality 3-9X40 scope that will provide all the magnification you can use and be much sharper and clearer.

Vortex isn't my favorite brand, but move up to the Diamondback or Viper and move down in magnification and you'll be a lot better off

http://swfa.com/Vortex-3-9x40-Viper-Rifle-Scope-P51895.aspx

My go-to recommendations in a $200ish scope are.

http://swfa.com/Burris-3-9x40-Fullfield-II-Rifle-Scope-P7932.aspx
http://swfa.com/Leupold-3-9x40-VX-1-Riflescope-P51827.aspx
http://swfa.com/Redfield-3-9x40-Revolution-Rifle-Scope-P44468.aspx

There is a time and place for the scopes with lots of magnification. But the more X's you buy either the price goes up significantly or quality comes down significantly. You get the most scope for your money with a 3-9X40. And there are darn few places where you need more than 9X. You are more likely to find 3X is too much at close range than to find 9x isn't enough.
 
Looks good to me !!!

used for woodchucks, coyotes and targets.
Click to expand...
I really don't see a question in your post but I really don't see a problem with your choice. Personally, on my "Hunters" I like to stay at or under a 40MM but again, not a big deal. ..... ;)

Be Safe !!!
 
A 6x minimum is a very high minimum if you're not an experienced scope user. I don't know if "don't know sqat" means "haven't use them much".

It'll be fine for paper and woodchucks (at least at a reasonable distance) but you're likely to have target acquisition problems on something that moves a lot, like a coyote.

I would recommend going to a lower minimum. No more than 4x probably.
 
I use a 2.5-8 power scope on my 223 and use it successfully out to 600 yards. I agree you would be better served with higher quality and less maginification
 
What nobody ever seems to mention is that when punching paper at 100 yards, get enough magnification to see where the bullet hits. Specifically, that's why I like 4-16 power scopes and why I no longer have any 3-9 scopes. I shoot and look at the bullet hole. I don't have to move over to the spotting scope. I don't need 16 power for coyote blasting, but it is there if I want it or need it. I really just don't see any reason to limit myself to a 3-9 scope. Sure, it'll work for most purposes. I just don't want one now that better options are available.

I can see bullet holes at 12 power, but prefer more magnification. As for how much money to spend, get the best that you can afford from Leupold, Burris, Vortex, Bushnell, or Nikon. If an upgrade is needed later, so be it.

If the OP is anywhere near central Texas, I have a Leupold VX2 6-18 that just came back from Leupold. I don't have a gun for it and don't plan to buy another rifle.
 
Last edited:
Depending on the use...

Axis, based on your original post, I assume that you need:
- 300-400 yard range for predators
- 200-300 yard range for wood chucks
- ability to see bullet holes at the range

For all of these, I would suggest more rather than less magnification, particularly if you have middle-age eyes like me.

But a 223 rifle is not big or heavy, so I assume you also want a small form factor, which excludes a 50mm scope.

I agree with previous feedback on the quality of your suggestion. Because of your needs, I would suggest (a) no higher than 42mm scope (for size), and (b) 3x15 magnification range (so as to be able to find your target easily on the low magx). The most affordable I know for that is the 3-15x42 ZA Minox, which you can get for about $600.

If you need less magnification, you can get away with less $$. I know the price must come as a shock - but there are no cheap AND good optics.

Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further (I don't sell optics btw, I only buy them...).
 
WestOfPecos said:
I know the price must come as a shock - but there are no cheap AND good optics.
Click to expand...

Well, both "good" and "cheap" are words that require a reference point before they can effectively be used in this context.

It really doesn't matter to the guy who's buying someone else's "throw away" 1989 Toyota Camry for $750 that he can get a much nicer Camry for $25,000. If it took him 6 months or even a year to save the $750, or worse he can't even afford that but his other car died, it doesn't really matter what can be had for 2 or 3 or 20 times as much.

"Good" and "Cheap" can quite effectively go together in optics. The mid-range Mueller scopes are a good example. They're not NightForce, but they're not Tasco either. I have a Mueller Eradicator 8.5-25x. on my .204 that has served me very well for a number of years.

Is it a "good" scope? Well, the parallax markings are wrong, it doesn't track very well and it's a tad sensitive to shock. However, a few minutes eyeballing distant objects of known range and fiddling with the parallax learned me the real settings. It's on a .204, so tracking is essentially irrelevant. Set it and forget it. I can use holdover on woodchuck sized targets out to at least 450 yards. Shock? Yeah, that can be a little annoying.

However, I tried using a $600 scope and it was really hard, since I had to just imagine it being there. It was 3x my budget and so it's quality improvements over the Mueller were imaginary. I couldn't hit crap just imagining it sitting there. I decided the Mueller was much better than just imagining how good that $600 scope would be.
 
When I bought my Ruger Hawkeye 223 some years ago, I didn't have an extra scope so I bought a $150 Bushnell (Banner?) 4-12. It worked great. Cheapest price scope I owned. After a year or two I bought a Nikon Monarch 4-16, which broke after about a year. Put the Bushnell back on it. Worked fine. Later got a Leupold VX2 6-18 and put it on the rifle, and it eventually broke. Put the Bushnell back on it till I got an old VariX III 4.5-14 back from a refurb at Leupold.

The point being that scopes have come and gone, but the $150 Bushnell never has failed me.
 
Over the years of shooting long distance at predators and mountains at 200 yards or more even at 500 yards my upper most magnification has been at 10X or less. If you leave in a hot temperate climate, atmospheric conditions will render your higher magnifications useless.

The higher magnifications for me is when I feel lazy and don't want to pack my spotting scope and allows me to see bullet holes at 100 or 200 yds with shoot n see targets.

My recommendation is to buy a better scope with less magnification and parallax adjusted knobs beyond 100 yds.
 
FWIW, I had no trouble hitting prairie dogs to 300 yards with a 2-8x32 on my .243. Same with a 3-9x40 on my .223. Both scopes are old Leupold Vari-x IIs. I bought the 3-9 as good-used, via Internet for $150, shipped.
 
If I had a buck for every "which scope" thread here I could take a nice vacation expenses paid...try a search.

That said, there's a big difference between a scope that will help you shoot bugholes- vs one "good enough" to hit the vital zone on an animal when hunting.

The "less vs more" argument regarding magnification is always re-hashed here.
"Aim small, miss small" is my belief- and more magnification in a TARGET application is always better than less. Subject to restrictions on clarity of optics and mirage- more magnification simply means a more precise point of aim. Some are better at it than others- but getting an exact point of aim on a target when most of it is simply obscured by the reticle due to low magnification or other factor is difficult. Fact is, magnification can always be dialed down on a variable if conditions warrant- but you can't get more if you need it, and it's not available.

Inside of a few hundred yards I personally would not own anything with a tope end of less than 15X. JMO- YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top