Thread: What magnification are you running in the bush?

My 22 mag lever had a nice little 2-8x32. Liked that light little scope but found the recital a little grey and fine rather than crisp black which made it hard to use in low light.
It's big brother lever action started with a 1-4x20 but I found that a bit limiting so it was replaced with a 1.5-6x40 with 4a reticule which I really liked but had the opportunity to get it replaced under warrantee with a 2-10x42 ffp scope which is just so much crisper and better in the low light.
Definitely think you need a bottom end of 1-3x power. Top end comes down to how you hunt and range.
If its on say a 357 or 44mag or even 45-70 then a 1-4 is probably all you need. If you are looking to take some longer shots then a top of 12-15x is probably enough.
My bush rifle maxes out at around 300 mtr so I have found the 2-10 works well if a little heavier than I wanted. I did have the 1.5-6 but always found myself wanting a top of 8x for Target work.
So my pick would be 1-8x34 or 2-8x36 with say a 4a retical and lightish weight but remember a bush rifle dose get knocked around.
Z

My bush set up has a Z3 3-9 with 4a reticle on it. Wide FOV and seem to like it.
Had vx3 2.5-8 on my 223, I never had these both at the same time unfortunately as would now like a side by side comparison. The more and more I do the more a basic scope like these two appeals to me

A 2-8 is ideal I reckon. More the enough at the top end to make sighting in, and even load testing, easy enough, and get it down to to 2x for a huge field of view and quick target acquisition for Bush hunting.

Have recenty put a 2-10 on my 223, will be interesting to see how that goes.

Originally Posted by ZQLewis

My 22 mag lever had a nice little 2-8x32. Liked that light little scope but found the recital a little grey and fine rather than crisp black which made it hard to use in low light.

Z

after seeing something on here about readjusting scopes as we age....I did screw eye piece out on all my scopes a bit more...oh wow what a huge difference in clarity.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

after seeing something on here about readjusting scopes as we age....I did screw eye piece out on all my scopes a bit more...oh wow what a huge difference in clarity.

Yes, it is getting to the point where I'm starting to worry that the rear glass is going to fall off!

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

after seeing something on here about readjusting scopes as we age....I did screw eye piece out on all my scopes a bit more...oh wow what a huge difference in clarity.

Haha MD, you’re getting old like me!
Next thing the screwing out the eye piece will be an annual thing for you.

My current bush scope (haha I say that with the straight face of not currently being able to shoot anything bigger than a rimfire and also with the fact I do have options) is a 2-10x42.

The 2x is excellent for close range work, the light gathering and clarity of it is actually bloody good for the price point and it's not that heavy and bulky. 10x is good for the reasons others have mentioned, but one point of this debate that hasn't cropped up yet is the ammo selection is rather critical for a rifle application where you want to be able to shoot from muzzle distance all the way out. I'm comfortable with my skill point and current practice/proficiency level to take a shot on a static animal out to the 300m, and the rifle with the 2-10 on it is pretty close to the reticle hash marks which are 200, 300 and 400m.

The other points for a bush scope which are in my thought pattern more important than the actual magnification are the field of view, clarity, light gathering, eye box usability and the repeatability and accuracy of the adjustments and zoom ring. Another main one is the setup's fit for the shooter - height of the scope's center-line over the bore fitting the shooter's natural eyeline over the stock and also the clearance fwd-aft for focus and recoil clearance. Good light gathering in the bush can extend your shooting time to dawn and dusk limits which can be a substantial extra time for safe hunting and target ID over the mk1 eyeball.

yesterday I snotted a 80-90lb sow single round kill at 150ish yards,did the same to red stag today at 250ish..both using .270w and a tiny old m8 fixed 4x.....funny with stag today I had perfect rest,contemplated getting closer,looked through scope again and thought to self...WHF for??? crosshair was fine enough I could place centre on shoulder 2/3rds of way up confidently a gentle squeaze and the 130grn old school silvertip did the rest..for as long as my eyes can handle it,this scope will still be my main rifle optic.

2.5-10 and a red dot for my bush guns.

I've been doing heaps of research on scopes lately and in my travels read a couple of Chuck Hawks articles lamenting the fact that most hunting rifles are over scoped and the fact that scope manufacturers are moving away from light weight, lower magnification scopes.
I think they have a valid point.
While I would like to have an illuminated reticle, it means at the very minimum a 50% increase in weight, and often a busy reticle which to my mind defeats the purpose of an IR.
The Vx3HD in 2.5-8 would be my pick, however for the money (assuming I can find one) it doesn't offer much advantage to my Viper in 3-9. (3 oz's and a zero lock turret)

2.5x did the business with my 30-30 carbine 2 nights ago
I now just need to check it's real world drop at 200m from its 100m zero



Hopefully the top of the reticle heavy post will be about the correct hold point for 200 or 250m

Originally Posted by 7mm tragic

I've been doing heaps of research on scopes lately and in my travels read a couple of Chuck Hawks articles lamenting the fact that most hunting rifles are over scoped and the fact that scope manufacturers are moving away from light weight, lower magnification scopes.
I think they have a valid point.
While I would like to have an illuminated reticle, it means at the very minimum a 50% increase in weight, and often a busy reticle which to my mind defeats the purpose of an IR.
The Vx3HD in 2.5-8 would be my pick, however for the money (assuming I can find one) it doesn't offer much advantage to my Viper in 3-9. (3 oz's and a zero lock turret)

I'm not sure about the 50% increase in weight, I have one non-illuminated scope that's a truck chock (literally) and one with illumination that hardly weighs anything it feels like. Most of my illuminated scopes I don't actually use the illumination feature on at all, but then that's not why I got them.

Originally Posted by 7mm tragic

I've been doing heaps of research on scopes lately and in my travels read a couple of Chuck Hawks articles lamenting the fact that most hunting rifles are over scoped and the fact that scope manufacturers are moving away from light weight, lower magnification scopes.
I think they have a valid point.
While I would like to have an illuminated reticle, it means at the very minimum a 50% increase in weight, and often a busy reticle which to my mind defeats the purpose of an IR.
The Vx3HD in 2.5-8 would be my pick, however for the money (assuming I can find one) it doesn't offer much advantage to my Viper in 3-9. (3 oz's and a zero lock turret)

I’m not sure where you have got the 50% idea from. In my experience of owning plenty of illuminated and non illuminated scopes, any weight difference is negligible. Maybe 50grams?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by MSL

I’m not sure where you have got the 50% idea from. In my experience of owning plenty of illuminated and non illuminated scopes, any weight difference is negligible. Maybe 50grams?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. Have a couple of illuminated units. Maybe a small weight increase comparatively, but much less than 50%

The lightest IR scope I've found is around 17oz, Current scopes are 11, 12 and 13oz. 11oz to 17oz is 50% increase.