scope size recommendations

[Dave in DE]

Hi all,
been hanging out in background just breathing it all in for some time and now need some help.
looking to buy a rifle in 204 ( savage 12fcv ) and was wondering what size scope to put on it? probably wont shoot much beyond 400 yrds and am kind of partial to BSA. was thinking 4-16x40. what do you fine folks think?

Thanks,
Dave

[Captqc]

Hi Dave, a 4 x 16 will be just fine but I like the 6.5 x 20 (just my personal taste). Just make sure you get a fine enough reticule (fat lines obscure small targets). Gary

[Silverfox]

Dave in DE--I'm with Captqc and his preference for 6.5-20x. I'd also suggest 50mm for the objective lens size, although some folks are just fine with a 40mm or 44mm objective lens. I have used scopes with 40mm, 44mm and 50mm objective lenses and find I like the little big bigger field of view of the 50mm over the 40 or 44mm. I'm also in concurrence with Captqc on the reticule suggestion. Just about every one of my scopes have the fine duplex reticule in them. The ones with the bigger reticule make it especially difficult for shooting targets at 100 yards because it covers too much of the target when set up at 20x or 24x.

As for the BSA brand, I have never owned or looked through one so I can't comment.

[Jim White]

If it were me and I was using it in open terrain I would go with the higher magnification I could afford up to say 24/25x. The reason primarely that with the exception of the high end scopes some image quality comes into play as the magnification is increased. Be advised though that high magnification also intensivies mirage and this can be problamatic.

However, if you ever intend on using the setup in a wooded area then don't overlook the power on the low end. Sometimes its nice to have a large field of view. 6.5-20 is a good compromise.

HTH,

[gamekeeperdan]

I personally have a 6-24x56mm, but I use it mostly in low light or in the lamp so the extra light gathering of the 56mm helps. I hardly ever turn it above 10 power even at 350+. Over here in England, the BSA scopes are relatively common, and I have one mounted on my .308. It handles the recoil of that just fine, and is pretty clear and reliable. However the quality compared to higher end scopes is obviously short. I only use it for large deer at relatively short ranges in woodland, and have to admit it would never find itself on my .204. Good average price scope, but nothing more. I like to give myself every advantage (hence the .204), and don't think the BSA would give you the most from the .204's potential, but thats just my experience with my BSA.

Dan

[Rick in Oregon]

Dave: I think Dan above is correct, in that a BSA scope will disappoint when mounted aboard a 204R. If funds are the issue (usually is for everybody), I'd suggest saving a bit longer and treating your eyes to a better optic, and also be able to better take advantage of what the 204R offers. It's hard to hit small things at 400 yards if you can't see them clearly.

I'd also suggest more magnification, although you don't say what you'll use the rifle for, just the range you intend to shoot. I'd suggest something like a 6.5-20X also. I've found that the 40mm objectives allow plenty of light for 99% of most shooting, and also allows lower scope mounting over the bore, which most experienced riflemen prefer (it also minimizes rifle/scope canting).

Below is one of my Cooper M21's outfitted with a Leupold 6.5-20X 40mm LR M1 scope in Leupold Low Rings (30mm).



Look at Nikon or Vortex as Leupold alternatives. I'd rather have an unscoped rifle in the safe while I saved, than run out and buy cheap Chinese glass just to get to shoot the rifle. Remember, in optics, you REALLY get what you pay for.

[Dave in DE]

thanks all,
a hunting buddy has access to leupold scopes at low prices but still high. will catch up with him and check some prices just for kicks though. any how I now have the power down. was looking at bsa just due to having 2, a catseye 3.5/10x50IR on a 50 cal muzzy and a 3/9x40 on a 308 seem ok to me very clear, but dont shoot them beyond 150/200 yrds.
thanks again.

[paddy]

what is that extention in the front of the scope? i have never seen one on any rifle scopes in aus. i dont think many people use them.

they look pretty kewl tho:)

[abqautoxer]

That is called a sun shade. Its good to keep glare and water off and sometimes muzzle heat mirages off the front of the scope.

I agree with the 6.5-20x recommendation. I have 9x, 14x, and 16x and today ordered a 24x. Even at 250 yards and less I like the critters to be larger in my view (usually I search at 9x then zoom in on what I think might be a good target). Unlike most here, my hunts involve walking and setting up with a tall bipod from a dove seat or bucket - not nearly as accurate as these bench setups. Everyone you might read says 9 or 12x is enough is hunting larger game, not very small praire dogs, rabbits, and woodchucks.

FWIW here is the scope I ordered. I have always owned Nikon but recently ordered a Vortex 4-16x50 and found it to be on par with my Nikons so I ordered another, and this one is silly cheap:

http://swfa.com/Vortex-6-24x50-Crossfir ... 43585.aspx

No affiliation with SWFA or Vortex, just been happy so far so I'm trying this one that seems to get fair reviews considering the price point.

[OldTurtle]

For a reasonably priced scope that gives great versatility for a .204, I like my Sightron 4-16x Mil-Dot....The reticle allows me to adjust for hold over at longer ranges when shooting Prairie Dogs where there are multiple targets at various ranges....I'm very seldom bothered by mirage at the 16x, where my higher power scopes usually have to be dialed back as the day and barrel heats up.....



While the scope costs a little more than a 'quality' BSA or Tasco, they are much more trouble free and less likely to be a 'lemon'.....Plus,they have an excellent warranty...and exceptional clarity

My .204 CZ has an older 6.5-16.5x Nikon Monarch that is not near the quality of the Sightron...

[mshelton]

If you're on a budget, Clearidge make a really nice 6.5-20 for under $400, I've seen nothing but positive reviews and have one on my CZ.

Purchased mine, an Ultra XP, from www.theopticzone.com for $359.00 shipped.

Granted it's not a VX3 but the clarity is pretty close in my opinion and for the price it's hard to beat.

[otter]

Dave,

I know most will say little good about the BSA scopes, but I have no issues with them. I have a BSA 6-24 x 44mm Target model mounted on my Ruger M77MKIIVT in 204, and have been pleased with it. I also have a BSA 6-12 x 40mm mounted on a Rem 700 Classic in 6.5 x 55mm Swede, which is why I went ahead and got the one for the 204. Both have performed well for me, but I will mention I don't hunt prairie dogs and such (at least not yet) with either rifle, so have not shot the quantities of rounds through either rifle that is the true test of the combination . . . for the price, it's (they're) worth a try IMHO.

[Bayou City Boy]

With all due respect to previous posters, the ocular lens of a scope determines the size of the field of view. Coupled with a scope's eye box (not the same thing as eye relief), the "useable" field of view may vary from one scope to another by the particular way a shooter mounts a rifle and looks through a scope. Believe it or not, not everyone looks through a scope the same way..... Because of that fact, the scope eye box is important from one make to the next.

The objective lens size determines the amount of available light that can possibly be transmitted through the scope lens arrangement. When you get much above 6X power on most scopes, the amount of light that your eye can "use" is adequately provided by a 40 MM objective. A larger objective might aid in dim light conditions, but that even varies by the transmission capabilities of a scope's lens system. For example a scope with a 40 MM objective might actually transmit more light in poor light conditions due to the lenses in the scope as opposed to a scope with a 50 MM objective with lenses with lesser transmission capabilities.

For all practical purposes, its probably a wash as to which size of objective might work best because of other variables between different scopes... Scope lens quality still determines which scope gives the best view.... Not objective lens size.

-BCB

[Wrangler John]

If you're on a budget, Clearidge make a really nice 6.5-20 for under $400, I've seen nothing but positive reviews and have one on my CZ.

Purchased mine, an Ultra XP, from http://www.theopticzone.com for $359.00 shipped.

Granted it's not a VX3 but the clarity is pretty close in my opinion and for the price it's hard to beat.

I agree entirely with Bayou City Boy. I purchased the same Clearidge scope to find it just as clear as my Bushnell 4200 Elite's (not surprising as they share the same glass). When comparing it to my Nikon Monarch scopes the Clearidge is far sharper, brighter and has greater contrast. Another good choice I found is the Leupold 6-18x 40mm VX-II, it's lightweight and optically clear and bright. In hunting ground squirrels in Oregon and California I usually find myself turning magnification down to about 12 to 14x or less. Higher magnification is good for developing loads on the range, but not as necessary for shots that average 100 to 250 yards - the practical limit of my shooting ability in the field. Considering that I used 3-9x Leupolds for thirty years with few disadvantages, I have to remind myself that huge 30mm tubes and 50mm objective lenses, with power enough to resolve the NGC 752 star cluster in our neighboring Andromeda Galaxy is not necessary.

[abqautoxer]

I'm surprised to hear someone would be happy with just 12 or 14x? I have a 14x on my CZ and wish often it was as powerful on what I have on my VTR which is 24x. To each his or her own. I wish someone had told me when I bought my first prairie dog scope to get something at least 20x or more. I never had heard of Clearidge, I will make it a point to check one out. I just put money down on a Burris but can change my mind if I find something better for the CZ.