New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 4x input
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

4x input

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/20/2008 at 13:54
Folically Challenged View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: October/20/2008
Location: Hamiltucky, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 102
What a neat li'l place you've got here!  And I recognize so many usernames from other places, too.
 
It looks like I'm about to blow my New Year's Resolution for '08, whereby I wasn't going to buy any guns.  Setting aside the absurdity of even considering such a resolution, I was wondering what ideas you guys would have for my situation.
 
It looks very much like I'll be getting another Remington 700 long action rifle, this time in .35 Whelen.  Most of my big game hunting takes me to the black timber of the Kutenays in SE BC, so the shots aren't too long.  I figured that if I was going to go old-school on the cartridge, I might as well do so on the optics, as well.  A fixed scope will be just the ticket for this setup, and the close shots I'm accustomed-to would bode better for a 4x than a 6x.  Well, to me, anyway...
 
I know there are lots of choices in 4x32:  Conquest, IOR, Sightron, FXII (4x33).  I've also found some leftover Monarch UCC  4x40's, too.
 
It seems that the Sightron & FXII would require extension rings, and I really don't care to go that route.  I believe I could make the Conquest & Monarch work without them, and I'm unsure about the IOR.
 
My gut tells me that the Monarch or Conquest would serve me remarkably well, and a perusing of some online shops shows about a $90 difference between them, with the Conquest being the higher priced scope. 
 
Does your experience show a clear choice, one way or the other?  Are there any other tremendous value-for-the-dollar options that I should be considering?
 
Many Thanks!
 
FC
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/20/2008 at 14:07
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
Welcome to Optics Talk. Thanks for the kind words.
The scopes that you mentioned will all work if you do yourself a huge favor and put a one piece weaver style base on that rifle.
As far as the scope goes, a Monarch UCC is a good little buy. Hard to go wrong with the Conquest for that matter either. 


Edited by cyborg - October/20/2008 at 14:09
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/20/2008 at 15:46
Big Squeeze View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
GOOGLE NINJA

Joined: August/30/2007
Location: Anaheim, Calif.
Status: Offline
Points: 3143
Originally posted by Folically Challenged Folically Challenged wrote:

What a neat li'l place you've got here!  And I recognize so many usernames from other places, too.
 
It looks like I'm about to blow my New Year's Resolution for '08, whereby I wasn't going to buy any guns.  Setting aside the absurdity of even considering such a resolution, I was wondering what ideas you guys would have for my situation.
 
It looks very much like I'll be getting another Remington 700 long action rifle, this time in .35 Whelen.  Most of my big game hunting takes me to the black timber of the Kutenays in SE BC, so the shots aren't too long.  I figured that if I was going to go old-school on the cartridge, I might as well do so on the optics, as well.  A fixed scope will be just the ticket for this setup, and the close shots I'm accustomed-to would bode better for a 4x than a 6x.  Well, to me, anyway...
 
I know there are lots of choices in 4x32:  Conquest, IOR, Sightron, FXII (4x33).  I've also found some leftover Monarch UCC  4x40's, too.
 
It seems that the Sightron & FXII would require extension rings, and I really don't care to go that route.  I believe I could make the Conquest & Monarch work without them, and I'm unsure about the IOR.
 
My gut tells me that the Monarch or Conquest would serve me remarkably well, and a perusing of some online shops shows about a $90 difference between them, with the Conquest being the higher priced scope. 
 
Does your experience show a clear choice, one way or the other?  Are there any other tremendous value-for-the-dollar options that I should be considering?
 
Many Thanks!
 
FC
.......................Nothing wrong with the fixed 4x for the 35 Whelan.
 
In regards to magnification, I will take it a step further to state that imo, a 1.5-5x20, a 1.25-5x20, a 1-4x20; along those lines, is a better choice than a fixed 4x for short to moderate, to a medium range big game hunting rifle.
 
Here`s why.......First, the lower powered variables offer better fov`s set on the low end. Secondly, this in turn offers better versatility with wider fov`s for closer range hunting, which in turn offers speedier acquisition with speedier both eyes open (no squinting)aiming as opposed to a fixed 4x.
 
This is very relevant should you decide to take that rifle on a big bear hunt and more importantly should a charging emergency ever occur at very close range. Even if big bears are not on your hunting agenda, a variable set on the low side, still offers better versatility for the closer range timber hunting while still giving you a 4x or even a 5x should you need it.
 
Some however prefer the simplicity of a fixed power which is understandable. But on the flip side, the fixed 4x power cannot offer the versatility of a lower powered variable which is better in adapting to your terrain, closer shooting distances, while offering longer range capabilities on the higher end.
 
I own a 1.5-5x20 VX3 #4 which sits on my .375 Ruger Alaskan. Set on the low side, it has great fov`s, is incredibly fast to the target, which makes that Alaskan rifle handle even better than had I mounted a fixed 4x on it.
 
In some rare cases or situations, a lack of speed can cost a trophy and can also cost a life.
 
For those reasons, I prefer the newer schooled variables, even if they are mounted on older schooled rifles and cartridges.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/20/2008 at 16:01
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Online
Points: 8047

The Conquest 4X is an excellent four power choice. The IOR is another one that is a winner. Great glass in both of them.

They are brighter than the straight tubed 20mm scopes in low light/dark timber, too. That would leave out the Burris compact and a few others. I would pick IOR and Conquest first. The Nikon would be a pick but the 40mm objective is too much in a fixed 4X, IMO. The 28-33mm objectives are a good match for the four power.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/20/2008 at 16:10
Big Squeeze View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
GOOGLE NINJA

Joined: August/30/2007
Location: Anaheim, Calif.
Status: Offline
Points: 3143
Originally posted by tahqua tahqua wrote:

The Conquest 4X is an excellent four power choice. The IOR is another one that is a winner. Great glass in both of them.

They are brighter than the straight tubed 20mm scopes in low light/dark timber, too. That would leave out the Burris compact and a few others. I would pick IOR and Conquest first. The Nikon would be a pick but the 40mm objective is too much in a fixed 4X, IMO. The 28-33mm objectives are a good match for the four power.
...............Yep! The 20mm`s are are little less bright in lower light situations. Your final scope selection will come down to what your top priorities are. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/20/2008 at 18:31
Folically Challenged View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: October/20/2008
Location: Hamiltucky, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 102

Thanks for the replies so far!

Cyborg:  How much weight would that picatinny rail add?  And, how much would it obfuscate the ejection port?  I ask about the latter on account of I also own a Remmy 788 that gets me cussin' & fussin' every time I have to try weasel a bore patch into the tiny little slit they've left for getting shells into & out of the chamber.  That's why I don't like the extension rings.  If the rail leaves that area open, I'd certainly be open to going that route.

Tahqua:  When you say that a 40mm objective is too much for a 4x, how do you mean it?  Unsightly - looks out of place up there?  Opthamalogical overkill - gives an exit pupil too big to be utilized by humans, & just ends up taking-up space?  Gauche - everyone in hunting camp would laugh at my poor taste?   Something else - would it make my butt look big?  I hadn't really thought about the obj. being too big, other than I really like my scopes down as close to the bore as possible.

'Squeeze:  I appreciate your input about low power variables & shots taken close-in.  When you say the decision comes down to my priorities, I guess they're as follows:

1)  Sight Picture Quality:  I've got a Conquest 3-9x40 that's far & away the best sighting optic that I own.  A bit further back is a Viper 2-7x32.  These 2 scopes are far, far ahead of the picture seen through my Browning 3-9x40, a Prostaff in the same configuration, and the Grand Slam 4.75x 40 and VXII 3-9x40 that I used to own.  I really don't want to take a step down in resolution/brightness from the Conquest/Viper level.
 
2)  Size/weight:  I don't want something that's 2' long, nor do I want to have to cover my entire ejection port with rails or extension rings to accommodate a tiny scope.  I'd rather it be under 1#, for sure, but I don't really get too excited about having to have the absolute lightest scope out there.  I'd also like to stay at a 40mm obj. or smaller.
 
3)  Eye relief/"eyebox":  I don't imagine that this rifle will be the most ferocious kicker out there, being at 8 to  8½ lbs. with scope, rings, & a full magaine.  Still, it will be the hardest recoiling rifle that I own.  Also, as I'm thinking about this being a close-up & personal rifle, I want to be able to see right away when I throw it to my shoulder, without having the scope "wink" at me 'til I get my head in just the right spot.
 
4)  Repeatability/Reliability/Durability/Customer Service:  I want the thing to work.  I want it to track properly, without requiring each adjustment to be "shot-in" for 1 or 2 shots.  I want to be confident in it when I'm banging around the mountains on horseback & on foot.  I want the company to take care of any problems in a timely fashion.  I'm kind of assuming this attribute in all the scopes I'm looking at here, given the price level.  My Conquest was stepped on by a pack horse last Fall, & it held zero perfectly.  Leupold's reputation is hard-earned, & decades old.  I don't see many people calling Nikons or Sightrons "turd" scopes with any real frequency.  If there were any of the lot that were truly head & shoulders above the rest, I'd certainly give some weight to that.
 
Thanks for the input, guys!  Keep it coming!
 
FC
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/20/2008 at 18:35
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
The weight added would be very minimal. The ejection will not be at all negatively affected.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/20/2008 at 20:43
Big Squeeze View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
GOOGLE NINJA

Joined: August/30/2007
Location: Anaheim, Calif.
Status: Offline
Points: 3143
Originally posted by Folically Challenged Folically Challenged wrote:

Thanks for the replies so far!

Cyborg:  How much weight would that picatinny rail add?  And, how much would it obfuscate the ejection port?  I ask about the latter on account of I also own a Remmy 788 that gets me cussin' & fussin' every time I have to try weasel a bore patch into the tiny little slit they've left for getting shells into & out of the chamber.  That's why I don't like the extension rings.  If the rail leaves that area open, I'd certainly be open to going that route.

Tahqua:  When you say that a 40mm objective is too much for a 4x, how do you mean it?  Unsightly - looks out of place up there?  Opthamalogical overkill - gives an exit pupil too big to be utilized by humans, & just ends up taking-up space?  Gauche - everyone in hunting camp would laugh at my poor taste?   Something else - would it make my butt look big?  I hadn't really thought about the obj. being too big, other than I really like my scopes down as close to the bore as possible.

'Squeeze:  I appreciate your input about low power variables & shots taken close-in.  When you say the decision comes down to my priorities, I guess they're as follows:

1)  Sight Picture Quality:  I've got a Conquest 3-9x40 that's far & away the best sighting optic that I own.  A bit further back is a Viper 2-7x32.  These 2 scopes are far, far ahead of the picture seen through my Browning 3-9x40, a Prostaff in the same configuration, and the Grand Slam 4.75x 40 and VXII 3-9x40 that I used to own.  I really don't want to take a step down in resolution/brightness from the Conquest/Viper level.
 
2)  Size/weight:  I don't want something that's 2' long, nor do I want to have to cover my entire ejection port with rails or extension rings to accommodate a tiny scope.  I'd rather it be under 1#, for sure, but I don't really get too excited about having to have the absolute lightest scope out there.  I'd also like to stay at a 40mm obj. or smaller.
 
3)  Eye relief/"eyebox":  I don't imagine that this rifle will be the most ferocious kicker out there, being at 8 to  8½ lbs. with scope, rings, & a full magaine.  Still, it will be the hardest recoiling rifle that I own.  Also, as I'm thinking about this being a close-up & personal rifle, I want to be able to see right away when I throw it to my shoulder, without having the scope "wink" at me 'til I get my head in just the right spot.
 
4)  Repeatability/Reliability/Durability/Customer Service:  I want the thing to work.  I want it to track properly, without requiring each adjustment to be "shot-in" for 1 or 2 shots.  I want to be confident in it when I'm banging around the mountains on horseback & on foot.  I want the company to take care of any problems in a timely fashion.  I'm kind of assuming this attribute in all the scopes I'm looking at here, given the price level.  My Conquest was stepped on by a pack horse last Fall, & it held zero perfectly.  Leupold's reputation is hard-earned, & decades old.  I don't see many people calling Nikons or Sightrons "turd" scopes with any real frequency.  If there were any of the lot that were truly head & shoulders above the rest, I'd certainly give some weight to that.
 
Thanks for the input, guys!  Keep it coming!
 
FC
............Very good points on your priorities!
 
As with anything else, unless one is willing to pay a high price for a scope and get everything, compromises will usually need to be made. I wasn`t going to spend the better part of $2K for a scope, even though I can afford it, when in all reality for my needs, a $449 1.5-5x20 VX3 #4 will do the same job nicely.
 
Like my 375 Ruger Alaskan, your 35 Whelen, also a DGR for any N/A big game, will be used as your "up close and personal" rifle. Those FOUR words (I`m not Joe Biden) Loco in quotes imo, is where, after price and warranty, is where you should start your priorities. 
 
Starting with the most important, here were mine.
 
1) Priced right for the needs.
2) Warranty and reliability.
3) Speed, speed and more speed in acquisition and aiming with both eyes open. In a rare emergency, you`ll need the speed. A scope with the best possible glass but is slower to the target by squinting along with having a narrower fov, can be a life threatening (split second) hinderance. Also, a slower scope in timber may on rare occassions, cost you a trophy by game getting spooked before you can shoot. I won`t chance either of those two, regardless of how rare those occassions may be. 
4) Optical quality and the proper magnification for the caliber and terrain.
5) Enough eye relief for your recoil.
6) Scope weight. Every ounce lighter makes it easier on our older bods. Even mine.
7) A sleeker and lower profile not only reduces scope weight, but imo, it looks better on   DGR`s or on big game short to medium range rifles. That`s just me.
 
Considering all those reasons above, I chose the 1.5-5x20 VX3 #4 for my up close and personal (go right ahead and charge me Mr. Big Bear) rifle.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/20/2008 at 21:13
bricat View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: April/24/2007
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 1881
Mr. Folically Challenged, I cannot speak for the other scopes that you have mentioned, but I can speak very highly of the Zeiss Conquest 4X32. I have one mounted on my "go to " deer rifle..a Ruger 77 (350 Remington magnum). This is a great little scope with crystal clear glass and that "oh so sexy" coal black, ultra - crisp reticle that I am always touting! All my shots are 200 yards or less and this is plenty scope to get the job done. Hope this helps, Bricat
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/22/2008 at 08:11
Folically Challenged View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: October/20/2008
Location: Hamiltucky, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 102
Have any of you mounted a FXII or Sightron on a long-action rifle?  I've seen some pix of rifles with picatinny rails, & they don't seem so bad as I'd imagined.  I wonder how much higher the rail raises the scope above the bore, and whether or not such a raise in height could be offset by using low or extra-low rings.  Any experiences?
 
Thanks!
 
FC
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/22/2008 at 08:17
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
Usually the rail only raises the mount height by about 1/8 inch or so over the standard two piece. This is of course dependent upon the manufacturer.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/22/2008 at 18:09
Folically Challenged View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: October/20/2008
Location: Hamiltucky, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 102
I was fondling my CDL with its 3-9 Conquest today, & I began to think that a < 10" scope might look too tiny on this size of a rifle.  Then I thought about how odd it might look to put a rail on this size of a rifle to even mount such a scope.  Then I kept looking through the scope, & just marveling at what a beautiful picture the Conquest gives.  Given that I'm looking at another rifle with exactly the same dimensions, & that this Zeiss has served me so incredibly well, I'm kind of loath to try anything other than another Conquest.  Looks like I'll be doing the Conquest 4x32!
 
FC
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/22/2008 at 19:52
bricat View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: April/24/2007
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 1881
Wise choice! You will never regret that decision!!! Super
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/22/2008 at 20:38
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Online
Points: 8047
Originally posted by Folically Challenged Folically Challenged wrote:

  Looks like I'll be doing the Conquest 4x32!
 
FC


Fine choice. It isn't too big physically and the optics are very good. No zoom tube, no muss, no fuss......................I like it.
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "4x input"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Kahles Helia S 4x Vs Zeiss Victory 4x cr500 Rimfire / Airgun 1
IOR 4x v.s Conquest 4x Throbacksnapper Rifle Scopes 23
Long Range Scope inputs. ROUNDSHOES Rifle Scopes 10
Scope input for Ruger 10/22 Target Tactical DamnYank! Rimfire / Airgun 4
4x Fixed Power stilhuntin Rifle Scopes 23
parralax on 1-4x scopes Dawgdad Rifle Scopes 19
Info needed on old Wollensak 4x scope Squirrel Pizza Target 0
need a new scope, need input jjrgr21 Rifle Scopes 23
Shot my first reloads- input? jason miller The Range Report 8
Any input on Vortex Crossfire II? gorenut Rifle Scopes 4


This page was generated in 0.500 seconds.