Recommend a handy woods rifle.

Dare to Suggest

What about the Ruger Mini-30 tactical with a 2-7 scope? I have one and other than not liking the Berdan primers [I know why just haven't gotten around to fixing mine] otherwise its reliable and rugged. Polymer stock to take the tree bark and metal beating and small enough to be somewhat compact imho. I've had good success with its accuracy out to 150 yards, enough to tag a deer at least. You can get small 10 round mags to keep the vertical profile small as well.

Just my $0.02
 
Wrong or right, I always tend to lean towards more magnification than less. I've never hunted with an optic less than 3-9×, so I felt safe having a minimum of 4x, but the option to crank up if needed. I'd rather have the magnification and not need it rather than the reverse.
Click to expand...

Many people feel this way, right up until they lose a shot on a bounding deer at 30yds because their scope was set on too high a power and all they could see was a blur until well after the deer was long gone.

There are many different styles of "woods hunting", and different kinds of woods. Stand hunting, and fairly open woods allows the use of higher magnifications with little drawbacks.

Stalking, "still hunting" and drive hunting in thick woods, where visibility is USUALLY LESS than 100yards, and may only be half that, a 4x scope is right on the edge of TOO MUCH magnification.

To find, track and shoot a rapidly moving animal, FIELD OF VIEW is more important than magnification.

For deep woods I prefer low power scopes, 1, 1.5, 2.5 or 3x, or low power variable 1.5-4x for instance. Personally I find the Post /crosswire reticle to be faster and easier in the deep woods than the usual crosshairs, as well.

Use whatever you think best, but remember, Murphy being he kind of fellow he is, at some point the odds are good that you will need your scope on LOW power, and in a hurry, but it will be set on high power.

Hard core old timers will tell you that if you can't make your shot, or (worse) tell what/where your target is, you don't need higher magnification, you just need to get CLOSER!
:D
 
My Leupold Vari-X III 2.5-8 scopes are always set at 2.5 even if I am watching targets such as elk, deer or bear with binoculars a few hundred yards away. There is usually enough time to increase the magnification if necessary, but if I really need the 2.5 magnification it is extremely unlikely there will be time to reduce the magnification.

Edited for a minor correction.
 
Last edited:
44 Amp is right. On my Model 7, I use a 2-7 Leupold and I've never needed to crank it up past about 5. I keep it dialed way down in the woods. You can always crank it up if you see an animal at a longer distance but you'll seldom have time to crank it down if you surprise one at a short distance.
 
Olympus-thanks for staying with the thread, keeping your cool and telling us what you decided to get. Lots of lurkers read these threads too.

Looking forward to a range report.
 
DaleA said:
Olympus-thanks for staying with the thread, keeping your cool and telling us what you decided to get. Lots of lurkers read these threads too.

Looking forward to a range report.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I was hoping it would arrive by Friday, but I still have not received any tracking, so it might not make it before the weekend. I'll be sure to post photos and a range report asap.
 
Again guys, a lot of caliber recommendations for the 260 and 7mm-08, but if you look at my first post you'll see maximum range of 150 yards. Since I already own a 270, I see no benefit of a 7mm-08 or 260 within 150 yards. I download my 270 using H4895 reduced loads and I can match the recoil and ballistics of both of those rounds. Yet I don't care for the actual rifle and I'm not a long action fan. The gun isn't short and handy to carry in the woods. So unless someone can give me some advatages of the 260 or 7mm-08 within 150 yards that I can't replicate with a gun I already have, I see no reason to add another gun in another caliber.
Click to expand...


I think you listed the reason in that quote.

I don't care for the actual rifle and I'm not a long action fan. The gun isn't short and handy to carry in the woods.
Click to expand...

Unless there is sentimental value to the gun why not sell it for one that you like and in a short action like you prefer?
 
I think you made a fine choice with the model 7 I would have recommended a Savage model 840 in 30-30 I put a lot of deer in the freezer with on when I was younger fast handling and almost know recoil
 
GUNS magazine recently produced a good article about the Mossberg Patriot in .308 which raised my interest in this rifle. It's well built, accurate, and priced competitively.

Jack
 
On my Model 7, I use a 2-7 Leupold and I've never needed to crank it up past about 5. I keep it dialed way down in the woods. You can always crank it up if you see an animal at a longer distance but you'll seldom have time to crank it down if you surprise one at a short distance.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The lower the magnification, the better.

Too many rookies and wide-eyed once-in-while hunters bring 4-12xs and 3-9xs into the late-fall woods and bramble-brush for what will be short-range shots - even from a tree stand. That's just way, way too much magnification.

Maybe for proned-out sniping at prairie dogs off a bipod, using a scope that approaches 10x or more makes sense, but it's overkill for brush-busting shots at larger game like deer or hogs in the boonies. Frankly, he's virtually guaranteed to "lose" the critter in all that magnification and plain miss, even before factoring in the adrenalin rush that causes newbie hunters to flinch on the trigger-squeeze. :eek:

Hell, I can reliably hit minute-of-critter all day long out to 300-yds with an old fixed 3x. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
agtman said:
Absolutely. The lower the magnification, the better.

Too many rookies and wide-eyed once-in-while hunters bring 4-12xs and 3-9xs into the late-fall woods and bramble-brush for what will be short-range shots - even from a tree stand. That's just way, way too much magnification.

Maybe for proned-out sniping at prairie dogs off a bipod, using a scope that approaches 10x or more makes sense, but it's overkill for brush-busting shots at larger game like deer or hogs in the boonies. Frankly, he's virtually guaranteed to "lose" the critter in all that magnification and plain miss, even before factoring in the adrenalin rush that causes newbie hunters to flinch on the trigger-squeeze. :eek:

Hell, I can reliable hit minute-of-critter all day long out to 300-yds with an old fixed 3x. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Hasn't happened to me in 20 years of hunting. Never used anything less than a 3-9. My old man has used an older fixed 6x Redfield for the better part of 30 years.
 
Scope magnification is purely a matter of personal preference. If you like a little more magnification, fine; not everyone wants minimum magnification, even in the brush. The OP's set up sounds pretty good to me.
 
The Nikon scope is heavy and defeats the whole purpose of a light rifle. I have an old model 7 w/18" bbl and no way I would weight it down with a Nikon. All the Nikon tend to be on the heavy side. I have a couple of good ones for my purpose. That would not be here. And the DBC reticle just gets in the way.

The leupold 3-9x32 is hands down better choice for more money. Weaver has a japanese made 32mm objective scope that would be lighter weight choice. That might be a 2-7x32 and less cost.

Maybe not for the OP, but for anyone else just reading this thread. That is my 2c.
 
There is another point to consider, beyond JUST the magnification, and that is the overall size of the scope itself.

There are some "small" variables which are quite good. Most, (if not all) the higher powered scopes are larger. Many are big enough to turn a "handy woods rifle" into just a "woods rifle".

Do note that the higher power scopes (above 9-12x top end) are large, and intended for varmint or target work, not woods stalking. Larger size means larger optics, and larger optics are more efficient light transmitters, etc.

The 6x-18x I have on my .22-250 would be a poor choice to put on an 18" .308 woods gun. And a worse choice for a Ruger No.3 in .45-70, anyplace other than the range shooting paper.

A 3-9x, on the other hand is usable, quite good for a wide range of situation (variable) and generally smaller and lighter than a varmint scope, more in balance the size and weight of a woods rifle. Short, small low powered scopes, (variable or fixed power) are even handier. And that's what a woods rifle is really all about, something that handles well, and quickly, giving up getting maximum performance is some areas to improve handling in others.
 
I just mounted a fixed, Tasco 4x on one of those politically incorrect guns. Just until something better could be purchased. I will be darned if that cheep Chinese scope does not get it done.
 
fourbore said:
The Nikon scope is heavy and defeats the whole purpose of a light rifle. I have an old model 7 w/18" bbl and no way I would weight it down with a Nikon. All the Nikon tend to be on the heavy side. I have a couple of good ones for my purpose. That would not be here. And the DBC reticle just gets in the way.

The leupold 3-9x32 is hands down better choice for more money. Weaver has a japanese made 32mm objective scope that would be lighter weight choice. That might be a 2-7x32 and less cost.

Maybe not for the OP, but for anyone else just reading this thread. That is my 2c.
Click to expand...

If I wanted a light rifle, I would have went with synthetic over walnut. But short and handy were my requirements, not necessarily light. I'm stand hunting remember, not stalking and hiking.

I never knew my scope choice would generate this much nay-saying. Someone already said it, but scope choice is a matter of personal preference. You have yours and I have mine. I'm happy with my choice and sure others are happy with theirs. Who am I to tell someone they chose the wrong scope for their rifle? I'm certainly not that presumptuous, but it seems others have no problem being.

Another factor that I never mentioned was price. I was able to pick my scope up new for $100. Nothing else came close in price and in my mind, the 4-12 gives me some versatility with the rifle instead of being JUST a woods rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top