Big Al Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 My friend has recently bought a .223 and although an experienced shooter is new to the longer range varminting, he has shot lots of foxes with a .243 and 3-9x40 Leupold scope, mainly sub 100yds with the odd longer ones. He is struggling to decide which scope to buy, he has narrowed it down to a Vortex Viper but is finding it hard to decide between the 6-24x50 or the 4-16x50. His reservations are that the 4-16 may not have enough mag for the longer shots but he is also worried that the 6-24 will be too much mag for low light use and the narrower field of view may hinder his fast target acquisition for close range shots. So, what matters to you guys most in a varminting scope? is the need for 2x less mag at the short end worth the loss of 8x at the long end or could you live with a 4-16 or would you go 6-24? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banus02 Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 HI.i use a vortex viper ffp mill/mill scope in 6x24x50 ,excellent scope,dont use the ir function though ,no need. used for daytime and lamping.my son is a game keeper and uses a Swarovski 8x56 all the time ,not in my price bracket though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kernel gadaffi Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 I have the Vortex Viper 6-24 on my Remington/Walther 6.5X284, going to put another on my T3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finman Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 4-16x50 all the way. I've one on my .308 and was able to hit clays at 500yds. And the low magnification really helps in low light conditions. Realistically, he's not going to be taking longer than 300yd shots at a fox anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 a 6-24 is easily dialled down to 16x,but not vice versa. Really,if he can't decide on the light transmission specs,if given-probably very similar,then the abslute guide comes in-try them in low light.Field of view will be given. I'd imagine either at some lower setting would be similar and well good enough. Mostly-not always- the option of more mag is appreciated once you get used to it (2 shots) "I saw it blink!"...though most clays don't.Depends on purpose,and just how much precision you think you want (ultimately,it's the rifle that delivers,but low mag,thick reticule might add a couple of inches. Can't see more than 16x as highly desireable for 200y fox,but then I've mostly used high variables,which dial down...if need be...as light fades. gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 a 6-24 is easily dialled down to 16x,but not vice versa. Really,if he can't decide on the light transmission specs,if given-probably very similar,then the abslute guide comes in-try them in low light.Field of view will be given. I'd imagine either at some lower setting would be similar and well good enough. Mostly-not always- the option of more mag is appreciated once you get used to it (2 shots) "I saw it blink!"...though most clays don't.Depends on purpose,and just how much precision you think you want (ultimately,it's the rifle that delivers,but low mag,thick reticule might add a couple of inches. Can't see more than 16x as highly desireable for 200y fox,but then I've mostly used high variables,which dial down...if need be...as light fades. gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 The trade off question is will the 24x be more useful on the longer smaller stuff like crows at 300yds than the loss of 4x for the low light or close range fox shots. He will be using the one scope for everything and will probably shoot at more crows than foxes although the need to get the fox first time will be of more importance. Personally my advice was to go 6-24 as the difference between 4x and 6x is quite small even at 50yds whereas having 24x when you need it is more use than 16x, then again he never listens to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Any more thoughts guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1562 Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Hi Al.....of all the three scopes I have the minimum magnification on all off them is 8x (Zeiss 6-24x56,NF 8-32 & S&B 12-50). All have been used for lamping with varying degrees of success, mainly down to the reticle choice rather than too much magnification. I think the obvious question is which will the scope be used most for...lamping or long range varminting ? For my tired old eyes you can never have too much magnification, so the choice is obvious 6-24 !! Cheers Rob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soother223 Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 I generally don't crank my 6-24 zeiss above 16 I've found.. even whilst shooting at things like crows at around the 500 mark.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 I would go for the 24mag myself. As other have said ye can't turn a 16 into a 24 mag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Are you reading this John? now get it bought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.0972b4e2bdf0b5a4109eb96f2b1b62ad.jpg)
(200x135).jpg.0fd0a94f065c6cb243fdff1b40e0819a.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.