If someone told me to go out and buy a riflescope I'd go shopping at Leupold first thing. They are fine scopes and some are even priced such that you won't swallow your gum when you see it.
But they mostly seem to be variable magnification. I'm kinda thinking something simpler in 6X or less and fixed is more my style.
Like these.
Why am I stupid for wanting that and need to be talked down off that ledge? Or am I sorta heading in the right direction? 4x or 6x?
Match Cuts
-
Tamara and I have been enjoying the current season of *The Lincoln
Lawyer*. (The TV series; I have yet to see the film, with a different
cast.) Take...
37 minutes ago
4 comments:
I'm with you. I love a good fixed 4x.
A good fixed power is a great scope. It depends on what you will be using the scope for, if 6x is the right choice. If a target appears very close, it is easy to get "lost in magnification" on a higher power scope. If you are hunting, I'd go for a variable, or a 4x scope. If this will be a range gun- the 6x will be great.
Also look at the offerings from Redfield- Made by Leupold in the US. I have a couple of them, and they compare great against my Leupolds: http://www.redfield.com
Nothing wrong with those scopes for an M14 variant. Whether they are best for your needs is a different question. I suspect almost any of them would serve you well.
I also tend to prefer fixed power scopes in general -- you get more (better optics, more rugged, or both) for less money when it's fixed. Not to say that variable scopes are bad - they've come a LONG way in just my shooting lifetime - but a variable is inherently more complex and has more to go wrong, so to get the same optical performance and ruggedness, you're gonna pay a significant bit more.
Now, if I was scoping a "0-400m" carbine, I'd likely look at a variable 1-4x or so, and if I was scoping an honest-to-God sniper rifle, I'd consider a variable -- but in both cases, I'd be at least as likely to end up with a fixed power scope. Of course, I tend to favor mildot* scopes for ranging and adjustment purposes, and I loathe the idea of forgetting to dial the scope to the magnification the reticle is calibrated for. . . which means in a variable, I am almost always looking at a First Focal Plane scope or nothing.
* (I don;t care for ballistic compensating reticles or range drums, because they assume you are shooting a particular load at a particular velocity -- if your favored load is different or you have a different barrel length, it will be off by some amount, great or small. I'd rather have a range card taped to my buttstock to tell me how many dots to hold. But I know how to range with mils, and since my brain processes shooting in "meters" rather than "feet", mils are more natural for me than MOA, even if MOA is a finer grain.)
Agree with both That Guy and Geodk.. Depends on the use...
Post a Comment