Short range optic for heavy woods whitetail

[Choupique]

why wouldn’t you just use iron sights?

For me, you lose the low light advantage a scope gives you. I also find a slow power scope easier/faster to shoot vs traditional irons.

 

[Kurts86]

For a dedicated thick woods gun with shots under 100 yards as stated, why wouldn’t you just use iron sights?

Because your brain has to align an extra focal plane and their low light performance is either poor or you go to fiber optic sites that are super fragile.

Shooting in heavy covet with irons has never worked well for me. A scope cuts through the brush visually just like how binoculars do. I’d almost rather shoot iron sites in an open field at 200 yards than in brush at 100 yards.

 

[_S_R_]

go with alpha glass and big objective

Schmidt Bender 1.5-6x42 Zenith LM FD7 Black Riflescope 761-811-707

Schmidt Bender Zenith 1.5-6x42 FD7 Rifle Scope 761-811-707 | Only at EuroOptic.com!

www.eurooptic.com

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Y’all must be using poorly designed iron sights or have vision issues.

 

[SamsonMan22]

Y’all must be using poorly designed iron sights or have vision issues.

I have used a variety of irons on various rifles and handguns, a correct optic has always been faster for me. Unless shots are at point blank range I would much rather have a low power scope in every aspect and no I have excellent vision.

 

[Choupique]

Y’all must be using poorly designed iron sights

Nah. I hunt with a garand a good bit and those sights are excellent. They aren't good in low light. Bigger hole in the peep helps some, but none of that is as good as a good scope in low light.

Nowhere near as versatile as a scope. The only condition where I prefer irons is in the rain. Irons don't fog or frost over. I also like having them on a rifle for an emergency. If the scope shits, it can take it off and still manage to hunt.

 

[Kurts86]

Y’all must be using poorly designed iron sights or have vision issues.

No I’ve spent a ton of time messing with all sorts of apertures and front sight combo’s. I also regularly shoot out to 300-400 yards on well lit ranges with iron sights.

Once you start dealing with low light or even scattered light you have to start using larger apertures and more visible front sights at the cost of precision.

Even if your sights are optimized for the situation there is no getting around adding an extra focal plane with iron sights as more work your brain has to do. Nearly every competitive shooting separates iron sight from optical sights in their division structure because iron sights are a quantified handicap.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

For hunting whitetails in the woods at under 100 yards, never have iron sights been a handicap for me.

 

[rookieforever33]

I used to shoot rifles with iron sights pretty well in 3 gun matches. As ive gotten older my eyes cant seem to focus on the sights and the target at the same time quickly. If I had the cask I would buy the Schmidt Bender referenced above. I would like to have the bigger objective like 40 or 50mm for low light. But with lower magnification. Until then my LPVO does what I ask.

 

[nighthawkf-117]

Thanks for all the input everyone. I currently have a Trijicon Credo 2.5-15x42 on my 6.5 PRC. I shot a deer with it this year from a tree saddle in the open at about 175 yard around 10 minutes after sunset. While it worked fine I wouldn't want less light gathering than what I experienced during that shot. If I was in thick cover it would have been a challenging sight picture. This is not a typical shot for me by any means. I set up in the single tree left in a large area that had been logged this year and it worked out great. But it's the only time I've had a set-up where a shot like that was even possible.

I like the idea of a LVPO but it seems like 24mm objectives are the norm. I like the S&B 1.5-6x42. anyone have any experience with it?

 

[Macintosh]

Thanks for all the input everyone. I currently have a Trijicon Credo 2.5-15x42 on my 6.5 PRC. I shot a deer with it this year from a tree saddle in the open at about 175 yard around 10 minutes after sunset. While it worked fine I wouldn't want less light gathering than what I experienced during that shot. If I was in thick cover it would have been a challenging sight picture. This is not a typical shot for me by any means. I set up in the single tree left in a large area that had been logged this year and it worked out great. But it's the only time I've had a set-up where a shot like that was even possible.

I like the idea of a LVPO but it seems like 24mm objectives are the norm. I like the S&B 1.5-6x42. anyone have any experience with it?

I do not have experience with that S&B scope, but I own both a accupoint 1-6 x 24 and a S&B 3-12 x 42 klassik. I routinely hunt in very dark timber (hemlock and cedar swamps, very cloudy conditions, etc). The klassik is clearly the better scope in low light, BUT the accupoint is very useable until legal light (30 min past sunset) in my experience so far, and for close range woods use I find the reticle noticeably better. I doubt you would be sorry you got that S&B unless you are really adamant about a big-ass reticle like I was, but I also think if you are entertaining a higher-end LPVO the "lack of light gathering" is overblown, at least for most people.

 

[ni7ne]

You can save some weight with a fixed prism if the rail is workable with a single-point prism mount.
I have the Primary Arms GLX 2x on a couple things that I like. Just run the various BDC options through your ballistics app and pick which one makes sense. I prefer the 7.62x39 BDC because it has an extra marking.

I also have the 2-10x36 Trijicon, which does a decent job of sucking light in, but I have not personally compared it to the bigger credo. Mag 2x is 20% lower than 2.5x. Obj 36mm is 20% smaller than 42mm. Not obvious which would be brighter at the bottom.

 

[Marshfly]

Thanks for all the input everyone. I currently have a Trijicon Credo 2.5-15x42 on my 6.5 PRC. I shot a deer with it this year from a tree saddle in the open at about 175 yard around 10 minutes after sunset. While it worked fine I wouldn't want less light gathering than what I experienced during that shot. If I was in thick cover it would have been a challenging sight picture. This is not a typical shot for me by any means. I set up in the single tree left in a large area that had been logged this year and it worked out great. But it's the only time I've had a set-up where a shot like that was even possible.

I like the idea of a LVPO but it seems like 24mm objectives are the norm. I like the S&B 1.5-6x42. anyone have any experience with it?

Lower magnification will make up for a smaller objective. Also Trijicon has stated multiple times that all their scopes use the same glass so you are familiar with the clarity there.

All S&B scopes will be excellent. If that's in your budget, do it. I absolutely LOVE my Klassik 3-12x42. Much more forgiving eye relief than my Trijicon Tenmiles. Just know that is an FFP design so that will have an effect on the reticle clarity at low power. Will probably be fine though.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

These sites, from before legal shooting light, to well after legal shooting light, have allowed for perfect sight pictures on deer and elk in very thick woods and swamps.






Tikka T3X Battue Open Sights. I have 2 guns with them, good enough on squirrels out past 300 yards as well...

 

[_S_R_]

These sites, from before legal shooting light, to well after legal shooting light, have allowed for perfect sight pictures on deer and elk in very thick woods and swamps.

View attachment 802349

View attachment 802350


Tikka T3X Battue Open Sights. I have 2 guns with them, good enough on squirrels out past 300 yards as well...

View attachment 802354

Did you know thickness of front post?
I want to compare to Ruger Guide. Thanks

 

[TaperPin]

The 1.5x5 Leupold has been reliable for a number of people over many decades. At 1.5x it’s funny to see the front haft of the barrel.

 

[Macintosh]

Im sure irons work well for a lot if people, obviously theyve always worked. But given the choice I think a scope is helpful in the woods to pick a hole in the sea of beech whips—theres just so much that looks open to my naked eyes that instantly is full of little branches with some magnification. Maybe its my eyes. But I think the scope is a big advantage in those conditions.

 

[menhaden_man]

I'd be looking hard at a Trijicon Credo or Huron 1-4x24 for that use case.

I’ve got the Trijicon ascent 1-4 on my 45-70 for hunting southern Appalachia. It’s dynamite. 4 bucks and a coyote with 5 bullets in last 14 months.

 

[Moccasin]

I use an ATACR 1-8 on a 6.5 PRC and find it to be reliable, versatile, and effective on pigs at 10 yards to deer at medium ranges.

An Aimpoint micro is a bomb proof option for your scenario. Keeps the rifle light and it’s likely cheaper than many traditional scope options.

 

[SamsonMan22]

Im sure irons work well for a lot if people, obviously theyve always worked. But given the choice I think a scope is helpful in the woods to pick a hole in the sea of beech whips—theres just so much that looks open to my naked eyes that instantly is full of little branches with some magnification. Maybe its my eyes. But I think the scope is a big advantage in those conditions.

I agree 100% especially with a background or vegetation that really blends all of that plus the animal in. Moving targets I prefer the scope as well, open sights obscure too much of the target for me especially buckhorns or modified buckhorns. I have used several types of peep sights along with others and none have been as fast to accurately acquire as a low power scope for me.

Animals at 0-50yds sure open sights are fine in any most kind of vegetation, moving deer in brown vegetation and leaves over 50yds I will reach for the scope every time. We also have small animals here and I don’t have time to screw with binos to verify my target animal once they start moving. The scope helps a lot there even at ranges I can see horns with my naked eye, they just seem to disappear in brush and often I have to use the scope to confirm I’m on the right animal.