What do you think about a 6-20x50 scope on a 7 mag?
Scope for 7mm mag
- Thread starter Jon54
- Start date
What comes to mind is this a hunting rifle? or a bench rifle?
What rifle and what do you hunt with it, if it's a hunting rig.
You can get some better recommendations that way!
What rifle and what do you hunt with it, if it's a hunting rig.
You can get some better recommendations that way!
infoman jr.
Well-Known Member
Sure, I mean that could work. I have a 4.5-30x50 on a .308, but I have another .308 with a fixed 3.5x optic. It all depends on what you want to do with it.
Hunting rifle. Browning A Bolt Stalker with Boss system.
AllOutdoors
Well-Known Member
My brother has this same gun. He is pleased with his Burris full field 2. 3-9x40.Jon54":nwrk9yk0 said:
6 power on the low end would be awfully high. I am not sure my scope ever got turned above 4 or 5 power the last couple of years. 20 on the high end is overkill and I can't see where you would need that much magnification. For hunting, especially around here, a good 2-10, 3-9 or 3-12 is ideal. The 6-20 is likely going to cost you more than the same scope in lower magnifications and likely will never be used in a hunting scenario past 7 or 8 power.
infoman jr.
Well-Known Member
Hunting what, and at what distances???Jon54":2lz9cf7h said:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This advice above....^^^^^TNRifleman":2t0go2w1 said:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
infoman jr.
Well-Known Member
I guess I'll give a generic answer. In general, I like the most range between max and min power possible in a hunting scope, but that's costs money. I currently use a 4.5-14x40, but I think Bushnell's 6500 2.5-16x42 (http://smile.amazon.com/Bushnell-El...ie=UTF8&qid=1453902987&sr=8-4&keywords=2.5-16 ) seems like a fantastic option. As mentioned above, I wouldn't want my min power to be above 4x because it can slow down target acquisition in close-up situations. I have my scope cranked up to 14 quite often, although if you spend much time there, you'll probably want a 50mm. It's better to have and not need at the expense of a little weight.
Vortex's new option this year seems like a great option as well, and when my 700Ti comes in, I'll probably get one of these for my win mag.
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-razor-hd-lh-3-15x42-hsr4-riflescope/reticle
Vortex's new option this year seems like a great option as well, and when my 700Ti comes in, I'll probably get one of these for my win mag.
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-razor-hd-lh-3-15x42-hsr4-riflescope/reticle
dedicated field rifle yes
otherwise
3-9x40 or 3.5-10x44 zeiss conquest
otherwise
3-9x40 or 3.5-10x44 zeiss conquest
DaveB
Well-Known Member
6 power as your lowest magnification will, sooner or later, cause you to regret the purchase.
A Massive Buck deer will pop out 30 yards from you and you will shoulder your rifle, look through the scope, and No Deer. Where did he go? He is still there, 10 feet to the left of the white oak. Weapon up, look through scope, WHERE IS HE WHAT D&%*(^* tree?
The Buck will have seen all your movement and will by now be sprinting off at 75 MPH.
Of course if you are exclusively hunting a 200 acre bean field then you will probably be fine.
Field of view is important.
A Massive Buck deer will pop out 30 yards from you and you will shoulder your rifle, look through the scope, and No Deer. Where did he go? He is still there, 10 feet to the left of the white oak. Weapon up, look through scope, WHERE IS HE WHAT D&%*(^* tree?
The Buck will have seen all your movement and will by now be sprinting off at 75 MPH.
Of course if you are exclusively hunting a 200 acre bean field then you will probably be fine.
Field of view is important.
Hunter 257W
Well-Known Member
I agree with the others saying that 6X is too high for a general deer rifle min power. For my field guns I prefer a 4-12 or 4-14 or something in that general range. 4X is as high as I'd ever go for the min magnification. An additional 2X might not sound like much but I have a 6-18 on a heavy barrel 220 Swift and I'd not want to ever try hunting in thick cover with it.
LanceS4803
Well-Known Member
infoman jr.":3g210cvq said:
I've been talking to Vortex about this one, the Vortex Razor HD LH. It is in production as we speak and will start shipping in the Spring.
I am deciding between this one or a Swarovski Z3 3-10x42. About the same price and both are lightweight.
FWIW, on my 300WM I am using a Vortex Viper HS 4-16x44.
infoman jr.
Well-Known Member
I looked through one last week. It seemed nice.LanceS4803":prg707ls said:
tc 308
Well-Known Member
I put a vortex viper on my 308 it's 6-20-42 it's just to mouch for a hunting gun. It is nice on the bench though
I'm going to take off a Ziess Conquest 3x9 and put this on my rifle. Awesome optics IMO.
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vor ... ad-reticle
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vor ... ad-reticle
Just curious, what attributes made you switch?7mm08":2reanlw9 said:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
infoman jr.
Well-Known Member
I have the same scope. I've been very impressed.7mm08":14s0jxcz said:
280longshot":30i8uz8e said:
2.5x which is better IMO for a woods shot than 4x and the illuminated reticle for those LAST ten minutes of legal shooting shots you might get. Then of course it takes the guess works out of that 400 yard bean field shot "just in case" as well. Only 3 OZ heavier.
All those scenarios I have had while hunting.
Nolo Contendere
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2015
- Messages
- 28
LanceS4803":j2bu704v said:
I have the Swarovski Z3 3-10x42 on my 25-06 - not much out there I'd consider replacing it with for under $1200
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
LanceS4803
Well-Known Member
I have another one to add to the mix:
LeupoldVX-6, 2-12x42.
This one has a ton of features and doesn't add much to the weight.
LeupoldVX-6, 2-12x42.
This one has a ton of features and doesn't add much to the weight.
