Printable View
What, (in meters) would be the shortest distance you could hunt with a scope of (approximately) 7x35 magnification?
How close is 7 magnifications in "meterage"? Does X7 ever be too far away, for "close" things to be visable?
Also, what would be a good reticle configuration for both long range target shooting... and hunting?
7x would be ok for hunting ants at about 4-5 metres. On 35x you’d struggle to hit one in the vitals past like 15 I guess
7 x means-the object appears 7 times bigger than with naked eye at same distance
yes scopes have a point were its too close to focus, spend $$ and this point gets closer and clearer, however its a bit of a how long is a piece of string question m8, it will depend on which scope
Look up focal distance and parallax this will all determine ranges its usable
7 x is a fairly good allrounder (certainly not for very close bush work or toothy critters) if u had to pick a fixed magnification "normally" fixed magnification is fixed parallax at 100yds typically with a focal range of about 20/30m to infinity there are exceptions - i have an air rifle scope that will focus at 5m
3-9x used to be the most bought scope when variable came out - got no idea what it is now
but what caliber sirQuote:
Originally Posted by crnkin
For a beginner I’d recommend a 338 lapua. $15 is cheap meat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharki
"reticle configuration"?
What type do folks use for both hunting and target shooting? Are there hybrids or are there just ones for target and ones for hunting?
It's something I know nothing about... so want to learn as much as possible before pulling the "trigger" (pun intended) on buying a scope.
Depends on what ‘hunting’ is for you. Most of mine is open tops, so there is a lot of crossover. For someone whose hunting is mostly close-quarters bush work, it might be harder to find a do-it-all fixed power scope.
I run a 6-18x50. At 6x I don’t have too much trouble finding closer targets in the scope, but many would find this too much. I wouldn’t take a shot at an animal more than 180m away on 6x though. Your maximum ethical range at 7x will be a personal call based on the quality of your gear and repeatability of your skills.
Re. reticle, again it depends on how you like to hunt. I use a combo of MPBR inside around 250m and dialling further out. For that, a simple crosshair is fine. If you are one to hold over, you’d be better with a BDC reticle. It might be hard to make out the markings and calculate hold-points on a MOA reticle in the field - someone with more experience is welcome to correct me here.
Which actual scope are you looking at buying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonn
Reticle is a personal preference, some people don’t like ‘busy’ reticles and prefer to dial. At the other end of the spectrum is the likes of Burris Eliminator or the Leupold CCH which others swear by.
Middle ground could be a Burris ballistic plex or Leupold B&C.
A big part of your choice will be dictated by what reticles are available in the scope you want. Which again comes down to preference and $. Your own preference depends partly on what sort of hunting you want to do, that preference and reticle preference is something that you will properly discover out on the hill.
Thats an unusually worded question. Im guessing you’re looking at a specific scope with 7x magnification and 35mm objective lens ? Thats what the notation would usually mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonn
Scopes have a nominal focus distance, where parallax is zeroed out. This is typically 100m to 300m.
Then you have adjustability on some scopes, mainly for parallax but it makes the target image sharp too. This is usually only available on scopes with a too end magnification over 12x. Typical parallax adjudtments are 50m to infinity for centrefire scopes and 10 m to infinity for specialist airgun and rimfire scopes. This gives you 100% sharpness st the range you adjust it to.
Then you have depth of field which is the useable “good enough” focus in front and beyond the nominal focus distance. Lower magnification like 3x can give a lot of depth, say down to 20m for a scope focussed at 100m. High magnification like 20x makes the inage blurry only 10% or 20% from the focus distance. A small objective like 32mm also increases the depth of field while big lenses like 50mm and 56 are fussy.
Then, you have the focussing ability of your eyes (“accomodation”) which is good if you are 20 years old but pretty limited if you are 60. Unfortunately, this does make the reticle go out of focus but the scope can becuseable if thecreticle is a good thick one.
7x would usually be considered good at 50m but getting a bit annoying under 20m for most people.
Nah he’s probably looking at a 7-35 atacr for a future peow peow
Mate give up with the taking of the micky. the guy is asking a serious question and obviously has very little experience. Give him a break and shut up.Quote:
Originally Posted by crnkin
Im being serious. I can't think of any other 7-35 scope.
Yeah crnkn, dont take the micky outa my long and technical anal sis.
��
To be fair it was the best anal sis I’ve seen all day
7-35 Mark 5hd is another option.Quote:
Originally Posted by crnkin
Apologies for the funny wording...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagheera
https://www.leupold.com/mark-5hd-7-3...cch-riflescope
I am looking at this scope (or something like it), as I want to first learn long-range target shooting/sniping and then later begin to hunt. If I can get a scope that I can use for both, that would be great. That's why I am asking about reticles that can be used for both.
I know that little, I don't even know where you're taking the piss.Quote:
Originally Posted by crnkin
https://www.leupold.com/mark-5hd-7-3...cch-riflescope.Quote:
Originally Posted by longshot
Thank you, I will Google the reticles you have suggested.
Do you know, if you got a scope with a certain reticle, and found you didn't like it... it could be sent back and the company change it?
Most companies don't offer reticle swaps, Leupold do but in a Mark 5 you'd probably be looking at $500ish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonn
If you want to do any hunting with this scope then 5-25 is a much better magnification range, the FOV will still be tight on the low end so it wouldn't be my first choice for hutning. The 3.6-18 would be even better and for the most part 18x is more than enough magnification.
FFP scopes can make ok hunting scopes but choosing the right reticle is the key, especially as Leupold charges a stupid amount of money to add illumination. The TMR or PR1 would be the preferred options for this scope.
Personally I wouldn't get a Mark 5, the main reason being they are stupidly expensive in NZ and they use a funny sized tube (35mm) which limits you on ring/mount options.
This isn't a huge deal but 34/35/36mm rings/mounts are expensive here so you'll end up buying new and if you change scopes later chance are you'll not be getting another 35mm one as it is an uncommon size.
I think the Delta Stryker is a better option:
They are cheaper new, a few come up for sale used here and on TM.
You don't pay a stuoid amount extra for illumination.
They have a 34mm tube which is more or less the standard size.
The 4.5-30 has a much wider FOV at 4.5x than the 5-25 Leupold at 5x, and the Stryker has a wider FOV in general.
The Leupold will be lighter but if you are putting this on a heavy target rifle (like the Tac A1) then the scope weight isn't a big deal as the whole setup will weigh a tonne anyway.
I think you need to decide what you want to do with this rifle. Is it primarily going to be: targets, hunting, or 50/50?
It is entirely possbily to build a rifle that will do both targets and hunting but you'll be making some compromises at both ends.
The intended use will dicate everything: Rifle, scope (and reticle), cartridge, stock/chassis, bipod etc.