New scope for woods rifle

[Quandary]

I would definitely want to go down in magnification to no more tthan 2.5 which I saw as a compromise. I thought long and hard about an LPVO but in the end figured a 42 objective was a better option.

 

[RockAndSage]

Yes sir. That is correct. Here in Alaska, a lot of us own dedicated bear guns with LPVO’s. That type of optic is usually optimal for speed and efficiency for yardages in the 0-300 range. The OP stated that was his intended use range. Mature eastern hardwoods. 6x would plenty at the top end for those ranges imo. An optic that would have around 1x to 1.5x on the bottom end would be ideal, with somewhere around 6x at the top end. Like you stated, anything above a 42mm objective would not be necessarily useful at that power range. The discussion can then lean towards packability and speed/efficiency of use. For close range work in the 0-300 yd realm, a smaller overall optic is usually preferred, i.e. as small of an objective as possible while retaining the optimal light gathering capabilities of the human eye. In short, run the quick math on the exit pupil of any given optic when shopping to see if it makes sense for one’s intended use.

Ah, I think I see where things might have gotten a little cross-communicated here. I thought your point about objectives was in response to someone's suggestion of one of the 6x or 8x fixed-power Schmidt & Benders, not the more generalized point about usability limits with objective sizes. Definitely agree with the point that there's a usability threshold, depending on the hunt.

Regarding discussion of LPVOs, there is one place in the hunting woods I'd definitely want a good one, and that's if there's dangerous game around at all.

Short of that though, for hunting guns, I've found them to be suboptimal. Keep in mind, I'm in Nevada, and don't deal with coastal jungle at all. But even in denser timber, I've found zero use for 1x. On 1x they're basically a red-dot that doesn't allow me the precision I want, and on the high-end, it's barely getting into the mag range I want for seeing with the precision I prefer. When hunting, with the LPVOs I do have, they're kept right around 2.3x or 2.4x magnification, as it gives me personally a really good balance of FOV, speed, and sufficient precision at speed under 300yds. But if I have time for getting into position, I'm cranking it up to max power. And the LPVOs with a higher mag range (8x and 10x especially) also tend to have crap optical performance and usability on the high end mag settings. The only time I'd have them on 1x is if I were in a defensive situation of some kind, or with vegetation so thick that a 50yd shot on a fast target is about all you're getting.

Overall, if I were in dense vegetation grizzly country, an LPVO would probably be preferred. Anything else, a low end of 2x or 3x is a pretty optimal balance for a situation too fast for getting into some sort of shooting position.

 

[Macintosh]

The only time I'd have them on 1x is… with vegetation so thick that a 50yd shot on a fast target is about all you're getting.

This describes my rifle hunting to a T. And much of the eastern places people hunt. The only quibble being that many shots are closer than 50 yards. If I were mainly hunting out of a stand I dont think it makes such a difference, but for a foot hunter thats moving, combined with very close range, its very helpful to have an extremely wide fov. Doesnt have to be 1x, but I personally think most 3x scopes have too narrow fov.

AND a little magnification is also helpful. We deal with a lot of beech whips where I hunt. What appears to be”open” is actually a sea of pencil-sized twigs that are plenty to deflect about any bullet. Having 6-10x is more to pick a hole thru the twigs when you have time to adjust, than anything else. Too much magnification is a liability at close range as well, so you have to find the right balance. For me 6x on the high end is ok but I’d take more if it didnt come with an eyebox penalty.

 

[Alaska92]

Ah, I think I see where things might have gotten a little cross-communicated here. I thought your point about objectives was in response to someone's suggestion of one of the 6x or 8x fixed-power Schmidt & Benders, not the more generalized point about usability limits with objective sizes. Definitely agree with the point that there's a usability threshold, depending on the hunt.

Regarding discussion of LPVOs, there is one place in the hunting woods I'd definitely want a good one, and that's if there's dangerous game around at all.

Short of that though, for hunting guns, I've found them to be suboptimal. Keep in mind, I'm in Nevada, and don't deal with coastal jungle at all. But even in denser timber, I've found zero use for 1x. On 1x they're basically a red-dot that doesn't allow me the precision I want, and on the high-end, it's barely getting into the mag range I want for seeing with the precision I prefer. When hunting, with the LPVOs I do have, they're kept right around 2.3x or 2.4x magnification, as it gives me personally a really good balance of FOV, speed, and sufficient precision at speed under 300yds. But if I have time for getting into position, I'm cranking it up to max power. And the LPVOs with a higher mag range (8x and 10x especially) also tend to have crap optical performance and usability on the high end mag settings. The only time I'd have them on 1x is if I were in a defensive situation of some kind, or with vegetation so thick that a 50yd shot on a fast target is about all you're getting.

Overall, if I were in dense vegetation grizzly country, an LPVO would probably be preferred. Anything else, a low end of 2x or 3x is a pretty optimal balance for a situation too fast for getting into some sort of shooting position.

Great discussion. This thread points out the compromise that one potentially makes with their chosen gear. This can be carried over to other gear a hunter uses i.e. boots, packs etc. Like an optic, one piece of gear may have a lot of the attributes that you want/need but not all of them. LPVO’s certainly have attributes that are desirable for certain applications but maybe not optimal for others. It ends up being a potential compromise as one weighs out and prioritizes the attributes of the chosen gear/kit. If one has the resources, it’s certainly handy to have one of each in one’s tool chest.

 

[Rockpicker]

Hunting out here I use nothing specific but then again I don’t use a lot of magnification when shooting. My 5-25s only get turned to 12 or 15 when shooting out to 600.


In here I use them all but ideally I’ll take my lightweight 308 with a Zeiss V4 1-4 on top.

I’ve shot to 350 yards with another one of those scopes on a 10.5” AR making 10 for 10 head shots on a 6” steel. I don’t feel handicapped.