Scope advice please

A

AdamSean

New member
Hey all. I am in need of a better scope. I am shooting a .270 Win and want a scope that will give me good use out to the longer distances...200 yards approximately.

I am also looking for a good scope, but not too expensive. I am new to rifles and scopes, so give me some good honest advise. Thanks.
 
There are several good choices starting around 150.00. Not many below that, and quite a few above that.

I have had good results with Nikon's offerings. Their Pro-staff line is hard to beat at the 150.00 price point. Bushnell's Elite 3200 series starts somewhere around 200.00 I think. Then there's the Leupold Rifleman and others.

Only one I've had experience with is Nikon. I've done Simmons/BSA thing though and the experiences left a bit to be desired.
 
What's on it now? A scope does nothing but allow you to see the target better. The higher the magnification, the smaller the field of view(the area you can see at 100 yards). Plus a larger front lens will require higher rings. 200 yards isn't that far, but think in terms of no more than a 3x to 9x variable with no more tham a 40mm front lens. That'll give you practical useage with a 12' field of view at 100 yards. You get about 9' with a 12X scope. A smaller field of view makes finding the kill zone on a deer slower.
 
I can recommend leupold 3-9x40 vx11. I have 2 of these scopes on my hunting rifles. Shooting at distances of 200 yards is fine when the scope is set on 9x.
 
Below is some Sunday reading material. The first link will show a few dozen perspectives on scopes. The second will provide almost 50 reviews of scopes.

You don't have to spend a mint, but a good scope is never cheap. The 270 is capable of reaching out to around 300 yards without adjusting for holdover (be sure to read about MPBR), although, your hunting terrain may limit you to 200 yards. If you don't plan on ever shooting past 200 yards you might like a lower power scope to take advantage of a wider field of view. The sweet spot for value vs. cost is the 3-9x40. That standard (3-9) in hunting scopes is about right for any shoot a 270 could make under ideal circumstances.

I eschew the "bells and whistles" on scopes. I have not found a situation where a hunter needs an Adjustable Objective or special reticle (although I like a heavy duplex). Target Turrets are just something to snag on. A fixed power scope is not a bad thing, but I'm not making that recommendation.

Stick to one of the better known makers and avoid the temptation to buy extra magnification.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/index2i.scopes_optics.htm

http://www.chuckhawks.com/scopes_index_reviews.htm
 
From a "need" standpoint, a fixed-power 4X will work as good as anything else, if you're talking 200 yards as an outer limit. FWIW, my 3x9 was set on 3X when I made one of my longer one-shot kills; 350 yards.

I did just fine for a half-dozen years with a Sears & Roebuck .270 with a Weaver K4, and never felt "under-equipped". Heck, more than one Bambi might have thought I was "over-equipped", but those opinions didn't count.
 
I would also go with Nikon, Leupold, Weaver, or Buris. I tried some of the more less expensive models - never again. Just go to a gun store and check out several models, one will likely seem better than all the rest.
 
"From a "need" standpoint, a fixed-power 4X will work as good as anything else, if you're talking 200 yards as an outer limit. FWIW, my 3x9 was set on 3X when I made one of my longer one-shot kills; 350 yards."

Most of my rifles have fixed power scopes. Know several guys who missed close in shots on hogs, deer and elk because the variable power scope was cranked up all the way.

Look at WWII snipers. With the exception of the 8X and 10X Unertl scopes used by the USMC, all the sniper rifle scopes of WWII were realtively low powered. Russian snipers killed more troops than anyone else and their PU scopes were were 3.5 power.
 
Leupold VX-II 2-7x33mm

Small, light and reliable. Will set you back $300. You don't really need even 7x to hit at 200 yards but it's the best compromise and gives great field of view.
 
I just went through this same exercise on for my .270. I decided on the Burris Fullfield II. All the research I did indicated this was the best scope for the money. I just sighted it in yesterday and I'm totally satisfied.
 
AdamSean,

I am in you exact same boat. I just acquired a Browning .270. I put a Leupold VX-I 3x-9x on it. I've taken pigs and coyotes thus far, using both powers, i.e., 3 or 9. I don't find anything in between: 4-8 to be useful. I have no complaints. It cost me $208 new.

DG
 
For what reason would you not want a large 50mm front lens on your scope? I guess I thought a larger front lens gave you a brighter view, but I see that most are recommending 40mm or less.

Tons of great info so far, by the way!
Thanks
 
Companies to look at:

1. Leupold
2. Nikon
3. Bushnell
4. Burris

Stay away from:

1. BSA
2. Tasco
3. Other excessively sheap names...

I would look for something sitting in the 3-9x40 on up to but no more then the 5-15x40 range. There is no need to get any higher magnification or any larger of an objective. It's not going to gain you anything at 200 yard ranges. I HIGHLY suggest Leupold and Bushnell but Nikon and Burris are just as good. You can get all of their lower end scopes very reasonable and they still maintain the good quality. However, if you must go cheap I would suggest Konus out of all of them. BSA and Tasco do not sit well with me as I have eaten up scopes from them with moderate recoiling rifles. I have a Konus atop a 45-70 and it does just fine.

F-C
 
For what reason would you not want a large 50mm front lens on your scope?
Click to expand...

I had a VX-III with a 50 mm on it. I would not go that way again because of the additional height you need to get that big front end on your rifle. I will say, it was a light-gathering machine, but other than the first few minutes of shooting light or the last few minutes, my VX-II with a 40mm is just as good.

The new Leupold with the fancy shaped 50mm front end was developed specifically to address the height problem, but it is a lot of money.
 
good all around scope is a Bushnell Elite 3200 with the Balisti -Plex reticle and in the 4-12X40 A/O with rainguard.

This is a great all around scope for eveything from longer ditance big game hunting to varmint hunting. Also, The burris Fullfiled II is a good scope for out to 300 yards. You really need to get out and look at the scopes personally. I prefer a Bushnell Elite, Burris Diamond, or Nikon Monarch, or a Zeiss, but others swear by their leupolds (I have a few, but the Bushnell and Nikon are more bang for your buck IMHO). Also, the Cabelas Guide (alaskan guide) are great scopes that can be had on the cheap. Lastly, the browning line of scopes (discontinued, but can still be bought new) are actually Bushnell elite 3200's with the browning logo's on them.
 
For what reason would you not want a large 50mm front lens on your scope? I guess I thought a larger front lens gave you a brighter view, but I see that most are recommending 40mm or less.
Click to expand...
Too big. Too heavy. Too expensive. Too high above the bore axis.

I suggest that you get Leupold VXII VX-II 2-7x33mm. That's more than enough for what you need.
 
.270 scope

I love the 270 Win and have used one for many years....the scope I have used the most is a Leupold 2.8x8x36mm....I have never wanted/needed more for big game (Deer) hunting and when necessary, I have shot Deer at distances close to 400 yards. I am now using a Tikka .270 with a Leupold 3.5x10x40 and it is more scope than I should ever need, but I do like it! At 200 yards any good 4X scope will work fine! Forget about any scope more powerful than 10 power or with a larger than 40mm objective for a big game hunting rifle, otherwise you will deal with excess weight, size, scope height, paralax, etc. It more important that you buy the very best quality glass that you can afford....better to have a high dollar scope and a cheap rifle than the other way around!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top