Low powered scope.

[Bushleague]

I want to put a relatively low powered scope on a 30-30, something in the 1-4x to 2-7x range. Preferably I'd like to have just a regular crosshair, rather than some sort of range compensating thing. About all the options I seem to have are either a Vortex Crossfire 2-7x, a Bushnell Prime 1-4x, or I can step up to a Leupold Freedom 2-7x.

Wondering if anyone has any experience with these scopes, or other suggestions for me. Thanks.

[renegadeg2]

The 2-7x scopes are typically for long eye relief setup... where say for example, a lever action with the mounting point is 6in or more forward. I forget what they are called.

The 1-4 or 1-6x are regular eye relief scopes... with mounts just above the reciever and close to eyes.

So it, depends on what you're mounting it on.

I like 1-4 or 1-6x is for fast target acquisition, both eyes open, rapid fire... like for bear defence kinda thing. I have it on my 12g slug gun, 4570, 9mm carbine ... just cause it's fun and versatile

-Reza

[renegadeg2]

Pardon me, I was mistaken. 2-7x can be regular eye relief , rather than forward mount. I was thinking of scout models.

Still, I find 1-4x more versatile, assuming 4x is good enough for those longer shots. I managed to find a 1-6x used.

-Reza

[brewster29]

I am running a Leupold VX Freedom rim fire 2-7x33 on my 336 Marlin. Nice clear bright compact scope and the rimfire reticles make holding high really simple for longer range shots. Parallax is set for 50 yards which is great for this type of rifle.

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by renegadeg2

Pardon me, I was mistaken. 2-7x can be regular eye relief , rather than forward mount. I was thinking of scout models.

Still, I find 1-4x more versatile, assuming 4x is good enough for those longer shots. I managed to find a 1-6x used.

-Reza

I fully agree, I've had 1-4x scopes before and I liked them. Especially on a 30-30 where 200 yards would be about the max range, I see little reason for more magnification. Just all the one's I'm seeing in my price range either have an illuminated reticle, or weigh more than the 2-7x scopes I already own, or in many cases have both of these flaws.

[Positrac]

The problem with low powered scopes in my mind is unless you go with a really high quality unit they just don’t do the job in poor light. The bell is too small to allow much light in so your average 1-4x scope is not much help in the timber or a cloudy day. Field of view can also be an issue making target acquisition hard. So you end up having a short range rifle that doesn’t work that well in the exact scenario that it should excel in. Quality optics make up a bit for having a small objective lens but even then I’ve always been a bit disappointed in their performance.

I just sold a Leupold VX-II 3-9x33 Ultralight that makes for a great mountain rifle scope. In good light it was great so on a mountain in the open it was no problem and it was light at 9oz. But in the timber even on 3x it lacked a little.

[catnthehat]

I generally do not use a scope of less than 3X on my hunting rifles because then the front sight shows up in the picture and things get confusing for very fast shots. If I am going to be hunting in an area where shots are going to be less than 20 yards where shots are short range and fast acquisition is needed I simply take my scope off and use the irons.

My scope is generally set at 4X , the one I have used for the last 5 years or so is a 1.5-4X Leupold with Zeiss QR mounts.
My rifle was built for that exact situation. I can then put the scope back on and be confident of a 250 yard or longer kill if need be.

Cat

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by Positrac

The problem with low powered scopes in my mind is unless you go with a really high quality unit they just don’t do the job in poor light. The bell is too small to allow much light in so your average 1-4x scope is not much help in the timber or a cloudy day. Field of view can also be an issue making target acquisition hard. So you end up having a short range rifle that doesn’t work that well in the exact scenario that it should excel in. Quality optics make up a bit for having a small objective lens but even then I’ve always been a bit disappointed in their performance.

I just sold a Leupold VX-II 3-9x33 Ultralight that makes for a great mountain rifle scope. In good light it was great so on a mountain in the open it was no problem and it was light at 9oz. But in the timber even on 3x it lacked a little.

As far as I understand it, all other things equal, light gathering is a product of both magnification and objective lense. I've for sure seen some sort of formula to figure this out somewhere. Anyhow, my observations have been that a lower powered scope doesnt seem to need a terribly big lense, that is, all the 1-4x24 and 2-7x32 scopes that I've owned have been plenty bright in the bush under any legal shooting conditions. Going up in magnification without increasing the lense size would for sure make for darker glass.

Field of view is almost all about magnification and has relatively little to do with the lense size. A 1-4x scope will pretty much invariably have a much wider field of view than a 3-9x, regardless of lense size.

To clarify, I'm not asking for advice on the magnifications, I know what I want in that regard. What I'm looking for is advice on which models I should be looking at, since low powered scopes with basic reticles seem to be about as scarce as hen's teeth these days.

[marky_mark]

ZEISS v4 1-4

[brewster29]

Originally Posted by Bushleague

As far as I understand it, all other things equal, light gathering is a product of both magnification and objective lense. I've for sure seen some sort of formula to figure this out somewhere. Anyhow, my observations have been that a lower powered scope doesnt seem to need a terribly big lense, that is, all the 1-4x24 and 2-7x32 scopes that I've owned have been plenty bright in the bush under any legal shooting conditions. Going up in magnification without increasing the lense size would for sure make for darker glass.

Field of view is almost all about magnification and has relatively little to do with the lense size. A 1-4x scope will pretty much invariably have a much wider field of view than a 3-9x, regardless of lense size.

To clarify, I'm not asking for advice on the magnifications, I know what I want in that regard. What I'm looking for is advice on which models I should be looking at, since low powered scopes with basic reticles seem to be about as scarce as hen's teeth these days.

Simply put, you need about a 5mm exit pupil to get maximum light transmission, as the human eye pupil has trouble dilating much more than that once you are mature. The formula is objective lens diameter divided by magnification: for example 40mm divided by 8 power would yield 5mm. Thus a 20 mm scope at 4 power having an exit pupil of 5 mm is just as bright as the 40mm/8.

[Homesteader]

Originally Posted by brewster29

Simply put, you need about a 5mm exit pupil to get maximum light transmission, as the human eye pupil has trouble dilating much more than that once you are mature. The formula is objective lens diameter divided by magnification: for example 40mm divided by 8 power would yield 5mm. Thus a 20 mm scope at 4 power having an exit pupil of 5 mm is just as bright as the 40mm/8.

While I agree this is what we’ve been told for years, in the real world my eyes have always told me an equivalent log 20mm scope isn’t as bright as a 32 or 40mm scope. I really wanted to like a 1-4 leupold vxii, but found the 2-7 vxii brighter. I also remember something called twilight factor that had to do with Extra magnification. I believe apples to apples a bigger scope, with more magnification gives better target resolution.

[BigJon]

I’d look around on the used market for a steel tubed weaver k2.5/k3 or a leupold m8 2.5 or 3.

I’ve a k2.5 and an m8 3x one a lever gun and the latter on a Husqvarna full stock carbine. The weavers aren’t great optically but for what you’re describing I think it’d be fine.

If you find a weaver make sure it has a duplex or post reticle. Some have “regular crosshairs” which I think are kind of light for a big game reticle.

Edit to add: I think leupold still makes a 2.5x if you want new.

[Pioneer2]

Run a straight 4X

[Positrac]

Originally Posted by brewster29

Simply put, you need about a 5mm exit pupil to get maximum light transmission, as the human eye pupil has trouble dilating much more than that once you are mature. The formula is objective lens diameter divided by magnification: for example 40mm divided by 8 power would yield 5mm. Thus a 20 mm scope at 4 power having an exit pupil of 5 mm is just as bright as the 40mm/8.

On paper you’re right but reality is a whole other thing. Take a 1-4x20mm Leupold and a 3-9x50mm Leupold and put them both on 4 power in poor light conditions then tell me which one is brighter. The difference is night and day.

Regardless, the OP knows what he wants and as he’s stated he’s not looking for any real-world advice on how well they work just what brands to look at. Marky-Mark put up his pick with the ZEISS v4 1-4. I’d second that and wouldn’t look at any cheap options.

[Smokinyotes]

I had a 1.5-6 Bausch &Lomb on my old Sako 338wm. I really liked the scope until I missed a cow elk that I shouldn’t have missed. I took it to the range and the scope just wouldn’t track anymore and was shooting 16” groups at a 100. I sent it back to Bushnell and a few months later I got a letter saying parts weren’t available and scope was obsolete. Bushnell replaced it with a 2.5-10 4200 elite.

[fishnguy]

I really liked your Leupold 1.5-4x20 (was it?) when I looked through it. Can’t comment about how it is in low light, but you probably know since I looked through your scope on your rifle, lol. I also remember, however, you mentioned you had problems with that scope twice…

Zeiss is great, but it seemed kind of “bulky” compared to Leupold when I looked at it. Again, have no idea what it is like in low light (should be fine). I bought 1.5-4 vx5hd instead, which is pricy. And I never mounted it yet, but I will (now waiting for a gun to “free up” or another dedicated gun, lol).

I also liked a couple of fixed 4 scopes I looked through in the bush. Both on my buddies’ rifles. They handled really well and I was impressed (I just mounted both rifles a few times, never actually hunted with them or shot anything). I am sure if I set them up for myself on those same rifles, they would be even better. Could be too much magnification for your (and my) purpose at times though.

Why no love for an illuminated dot/reticle. Given they are illuminated properly they are pretty great, imo (very limited experience with that regard though). Plus, they work without too.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

Why no love for an illuminated dot/reticle. Given they are illuminated properly they are pretty great, imo (very limited experience with that regard though). Plus, they work without too.

My leupold has an illuminated dot that is fantastic, I keep it on a low setting .
it automatically shuts off when not inn use which is nice.
Cat

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by Pioneer2

Run a straight 4X

I ran a weaver K4 on my 35 Remington. Was a perfect little scope for that rifle.p

Originally Posted by catnthehat

My leupold has an illuminated dot that is fantastic, I keep it on a low setting .
it automatically shuts off when not inn use which is nice.
Cat

Red dots and holographic sites are nice, have you thought outside the box about getting one of them? By far from traditional but very practical and easy to use. Sight acquisition is extremely fast and many models have an etched reticle should the battery die which wouldn’t happen very often as most have battery life’s in excess of 20000 hours.

[graybeard]

Originally Posted by Pioneer2

Run a straight 4X

Exactly......I mounted an older Leupold M8... 4X on my 30-30......It worked perfectly.

[32-40win]

Just to put the thought out there, a reflex sight may be something you'd like a lot if you try one out. Put one on the SxS and used it a lot this year. 2.5moa dot in it, was very impressed on what I could do with it, fast acquisition, little or no extra weight, not bulky on the gun.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by fordtruckin

I ran a weaver K4 on my 35 Remington. Was a perfect little scope for that rifle.p



Red dots and holographic sites are nice, have you thought outside the box about getting one of them? By far from traditional but very practical and easy to use. Sight acquisition is extremely fast and many models have an etched reticle should the battery die which wouldn’t happen very often as most have battery life’s in excess of 20000 hours.

Yeah. For about a second. I tried one of those things once on a 629, hated the danged thing.
You would likely see a brake on one of my hunting rifles first, and that ain't happenin' today- tomorrow don't look any better!
Cat