I have to disagree, I think most are under scoped. I've hunted for years with a fixed 4x scope. When I made the switch to a 3-9X I was amazed at how often I cranked the scope to 9 to shoot. I always leave my scope on 4x and if I have time I always crank it up. My shot placement is just that more exact, especially with a rest and on long shots. Last year I was using a 2-7x and felt underscoped with the 7x as my max, even at 150 yard shots. It was fine, but I like power when I want it. Notice I said want and not need. I can honestly say I've never missed an opportunity becuase my scope was set too high.
Help Support Modern Muzzleloading Forum:
Magnification is a matter of personal prefference. True, at typical muzz shot ranges a higher powered scope may not be necessary but I will take more power over less power almost every time.
My choice is a 3-9 variable because I have the best of both worlds available to me. I seldom "need" the 9x power max my scope is capable of, but it is nice to have if I want to use it, and I do use it occasionally. I also like having the ability to turn the power down to 3x should I find myself in a situation where a wide field of view prefferable.
Over scoped???? Possibly, but that is OK. A good fixed 4x power scope would probably be adequate but that is not my prefference. Just my opinion.
Dave1
My choice is a 3-9 variable because I have the best of both worlds available to me. I seldom "need" the 9x power max my scope is capable of, but it is nice to have if I want to use it, and I do use it occasionally. I also like having the ability to turn the power down to 3x should I find myself in a situation where a wide field of view prefferable.
Over scoped???? Possibly, but that is OK. A good fixed 4x power scope would probably be adequate but that is not my prefference. Just my opinion.
Dave1
I hunted in the west recently, and found that a 3x9 Leupold scope works just fine for the longer shots that could be required in that area. The Knight was sighted-in at 150 yds. at home and the antelope taken was at 150 yds. but on the other side of a barbed-wire fence. At 9x the fence-wires were seeable and the bullet hit its target center. At home in Missouri, the scope is set on 3-4x while whitetail hunting and works just fine in our woods, as the shots are 50-100 yds. So in both cases, a 3x9 power scope suits my shooting requirments fine. One rifle, one load, one scope does it all.
Jim
Jim
I just joined and thought I would share my thoughts. :wink: I am really into the longer distances because here in Iowa we can't use high power rifles and therefore are limited to what distances we can shoot. Being from the military I feel I understand more about my weapons. I have a Millet Scope on my ML with 4-16x by 56mm objective. I can shoot past 250 yards with my ML consitantly. I just like to dial in more closely to check out what I am shooting first. Just my two cents worth.
River Rat
River Rat
Doohan said:
This last statement describes my situation.I shoot an Encore with a $39 simmons blazer.I'm not saying it didn't work but it's like putting retreads on a jaguar.
I like the high magnification scopes,I keep it on low for quick target aquisition but I like to zoom up for shot placement.
I am looking into the new Bushnell Ellite 2.5 x 16 x 50 as my next scope.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 1,557
IMO: A high magnification scope on a muzzleloader is a waste. Saw a lot of guys botch close in shots because their scope was set on 9 power. Two of my guns have four power scopes. My Encore has a FX III 6x42 Leupold on it - temporarily, until I can get a FX II four power for it.
A lot of my deer and hogs have been shot while running, it is easy to get on a running target with a four power scope. Some one once told Jack O'Connor that he should shoot running game. Jack's response: "They are the same size running as they are standing still."
A lot of my deer and hogs have been shot while running, it is easy to get on a running target with a four power scope. Some one once told Jack O'Connor that he should shoot running game. Jack's response: "They are the same size running as they are standing still."
IMESHO -- All B.S. aside , I believe that my scope on my Omega 50 is way overpowered ( 3>9 ) as pertains to shooting requirements for deer sized game at woods distances , where I do the majority of my M.L. hunting. However , if I want to crank that power up from 3 ( where it's normally set ) to 9 power to pick out some detail that I think is important then I can do that too. Is it possible I could forget to crank the power back down and miss a close shot because of it ? Yes , but at least I can say that hasn't happened yet. If that possible eventuality does occur someday, then I will kick my own a__ for it but I will stay with my 3 >9 power.
As long as you have 4X as a minimum you can't get too much magnification.
If my scope costs $200 and someone else's scope costs $999 is HE overscoped? I don't think so....
Is a $1000 gun to much?
Is a 460 gr. Bullshop too big?
?????????
If my scope costs $200 and someone else's scope costs $999 is HE overscoped? I don't think so....
Is a $1000 gun to much?
Is a 460 gr. Bullshop too big?
?????????
scopes
In my opinion most ML's are under scoped. I want to be able to see my target precisely. Depending on The MZ I will use either a 3 to 9 burris ballestic plex or a 4.5 to 14 burris ballestic plex. I live in western NE so shootin might be a tad further. I say shoot what makes you happy or comfortable.
Wayles
In my opinion most ML's are under scoped. I want to be able to see my target precisely. Depending on The MZ I will use either a 3 to 9 burris ballestic plex or a 4.5 to 14 burris ballestic plex. I live in western NE so shootin might be a tad further. I say shoot what makes you happy or comfortable.
Wayles
Wow--this is an old thread, but an interesting one.
I'll say that I do not think most ML's are overscoped at all. Mine have Leupold variables. One 2-7X and two 3-9X's. I like the high magnification for range work and testing loads and I usually hunt with the scopes on 4X. If I have time and am looking at a longer shot, I'll crank up the power. I could certainly do all my hunting with a 4X fixed power, but why should I? Today's quality variable scopes have proven their reliability, at least to me.
I do think most people are "under scoped" when it comes to quality. Cheap glass is not as accurate and does not hold its zero well, especially poorly made, inexpensive variables. There are lots of people with $300 to $500 rifles and $50 to $100 scopes that I would not trust. I believe that ultimately the scope is more important than the rifle. JMO
What did Randy Wakeman do to get banned anyway?
I'll say that I do not think most ML's are overscoped at all. Mine have Leupold variables. One 2-7X and two 3-9X's. I like the high magnification for range work and testing loads and I usually hunt with the scopes on 4X. If I have time and am looking at a longer shot, I'll crank up the power. I could certainly do all my hunting with a 4X fixed power, but why should I? Today's quality variable scopes have proven their reliability, at least to me.
I do think most people are "under scoped" when it comes to quality. Cheap glass is not as accurate and does not hold its zero well, especially poorly made, inexpensive variables. There are lots of people with $300 to $500 rifles and $50 to $100 scopes that I would not trust. I believe that ultimately the scope is more important than the rifle. JMO
What did Randy Wakeman do to get banned anyway?
no such thing as over scoped :lol: well ok, not over scoped if what you are shooting makes you comfy and possibly helps you shoot better.
I will keep my encore with the leupy 3.5x10x50 and probably keep it on 5x about 95# of the time and be happy
I will keep my encore with the leupy 3.5x10x50 and probably keep it on 5x about 95# of the time and be happy
I have a 2.5 Weaver classic on my 45cal which will be swapped out for a bushy elite 3200 in 3x9x40. The 2.5 works fine for hunting but is not enough for range work and developing loads. When out at 150 yards the cross-hairs in the 2.5 cover about 75% of a 8.5 x 11 target. Makes shooting accurately very difficult at long range.
I notice that this discussion is centered around magnification.
I believe the objective lens size is also important,. especially in low light conditions where light gathering ability is important.
However, a 50 mm objective has great light gathering ability BUT the larger lenses produce heavier scopes.
I stand hunt and the extra weight is not a factor.
I have a 3X9- 50 mm and it allows me to see better than normal eyesight in low light. It has come in handy in low light conditions especially when using the 3X. After I identify the target I crank it up to 9x for the shot
I believe the objective lens size is also important,. especially in low light conditions where light gathering ability is important.
However, a 50 mm objective has great light gathering ability BUT the larger lenses produce heavier scopes.
I stand hunt and the extra weight is not a factor.
I have a 3X9- 50 mm and it allows me to see better than normal eyesight in low light. It has come in handy in low light conditions especially when using the 3X. After I identify the target I crank it up to 9x for the shot
Aim small miss small. In a hunting situation it's all about making the shot.
Can I hit a deer at 200 yards with a 4x scope...sure...but I can do it more often and acquire the target quicker on 9x or higher. I even crank it down on short shots. This leaves no doubt in my mind when I pull the trigger.
Can I hit a deer at 200 yards with a 4x scope...sure...but I can do it more often and acquire the target quicker on 9x or higher. I even crank it down on short shots. This leaves no doubt in my mind when I pull the trigger.
Very interesting thread. My opinions reflect what's been posted above, namely that most ML's I've encountered in the field are underscoped in terms of quality, and underscoped in terms of objective lens size. I think a 36mm objective is the starting point, with 40mm being the best compromise between light-gathering and size/weight (plus it still allows mounting the scope reasonably close to the bore)
As for magnification, I personally prefer a 3-9x, keeping the scope on 4x in the stand, dialing up for shots if there's time, and using 9x at the range.
I'm currently using an Elite 4200 3-9x40mm on my White .451, which replaced the old Burris Fullfield 2-7x36. This change gave me a huge improvement in light-gathering ability and I love the 9x option while sighting in. Plus, with the growing popularity of the 3.5-10x scopes, the old 3-9's are going on sale quite often.
As to the quality issue, why would I spend my hard-earned dollars on a quality rifle (ML or centerfire) then put low-quality glass on it? Doesn't make sense. If money is tight (and it usually is), the rifle sits in the safe until I can afford to top it with the glass it deserves.
As for magnification, I personally prefer a 3-9x, keeping the scope on 4x in the stand, dialing up for shots if there's time, and using 9x at the range.
I'm currently using an Elite 4200 3-9x40mm on my White .451, which replaced the old Burris Fullfield 2-7x36. This change gave me a huge improvement in light-gathering ability and I love the 9x option while sighting in. Plus, with the growing popularity of the 3.5-10x scopes, the old 3-9's are going on sale quite often.
As to the quality issue, why would I spend my hard-earned dollars on a quality rifle (ML or centerfire) then put low-quality glass on it? Doesn't make sense. If money is tight (and it usually is), the rifle sits in the safe until I can afford to top it with the glass it deserves.
If you do not go any larger than a 3-9x40mm then I would say no, so I guess by my own standards I am over scoped on my 10ML-II which wears a Weaver GS in 4.5-14x40mm. Although the Weaver is a great scope it would not have been my first choice for my 10ML-II, but it was the only scope I had that was not already mounted on a rifle, and it is the most powerful scope i own and i liked the 14x for shooting at 200 and hopefuly soon, 300yrd targets.
My other ML a Encore wears a VariX-II 2-7x33mm shotgun scope. For my 10ML-II I will most likely take the scope off my 12ga A-Bolt and swap it out once my load development is done.
But after having hunted with both 2-7x33mm & 3-9x40mm on my slug guns for over 15yrs, I have never missed an animal due to the scope being set to high, so i guess a 3-9x40mm on a ML should be OK. Anything larger in magnification say 5x and above, I would think might cost you a deer.
My other ML a Encore wears a VariX-II 2-7x33mm shotgun scope. For my 10ML-II I will most likely take the scope off my 12ga A-Bolt and swap it out once my load development is done.
But after having hunted with both 2-7x33mm & 3-9x40mm on my slug guns for over 15yrs, I have never missed an animal due to the scope being set to high, so i guess a 3-9x40mm on a ML should be OK. Anything larger in magnification say 5x and above, I would think might cost you a deer.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,355
- Reaction score
- 6
I have to agree with most of everything that has been said already. I learned the hard way. My first gun scope combo was an Ithaca deerslayer with a Tasco 1.75X?x?. I bought the gun used that way. However I was sitting in the woods one day and saw a buck and a doe walk out of the swamp about 100 yds. away down hill. I cranked up my scope to max power, then decided not to take the shot. After about 15 min both deer walked up on me no more than 20 yds. away and when I pulled up all I saw was brown. I forgot to turn down my scope. lesson learned, I still have that Ithaca but i changed the barrel from smoothbore to rifled and changed the scope to a Nikon 2X7X32 and always leave in on 2X Even this year when I had time to turn it up I forgot to and took a Doe at 125 yds. One shot One kill.
A good 3-9 is about perfect for a modern muzzle loader. I have a 3-9X36 Zeiss MC on my Omega and it is perfect, I can see those 45 cal holes in paper at 200 yds and I can turn it down to 3 or 4 power in the woods. Close or far, it just works for me...
