Scope? Any advice?

[Clint1]

Any advice on type, magnification, make, what gimmicks are actually useful on a scope for target and general use. I've never actually bought a scope on it's own. Just used whatever has been fitted when I've bought a gun.

I have been looking at a Leapers 3-12x44 mildot sidewheel blah blah. I find the 3-9 Nikko i've got on one rifle a bit inadequate. The 6-24 Rhino on the other is ok but would like something a bit more up-to-date with side focus.

What do the panel think?

[kent]

Any advice on type, magnification, make, what gimmicks are actually useful on a scope for target and general use. I've never actually bought a scope on it's own. Just used whatever has been fitted when I've bought a gun.

I have been looking at a Leapers 3-12x44 mildot sidewheel blah blah. I find the 3-9 Nikko i've got on one rifle a bit inadequate. The 6-24 Rhino on the other is ok but would like something a bit more up-to-date with side focus.

What do the panel think?

 

depends what you wish to use it for. For hunting there has never realy been a need for anything over 3-9 X 40 on an airgun. For FT shooting on the other hand 32x + is but the starting point. Gimicks cost money that is sacrificed in quality so basic and better quality rules IMO. smaller objectives mean less paralax error and lower mounting (leading to less hold)

 

For information my three air rifles carry a 1.5X 20 mm Simmonds WTC, 3-10 X 50 Simmonds WTC and 4-16 x 44 Tasco world class plus. Both the WTC 's are the Philopean manufacture. The higher mag ranges are never used in the field even at 30 ft lb ranges they aint required

[chrisjpainter]

depends what you wish to use it for. For hunting there has never realy been a need for anything over 3-9 X 40 on an airgun. For FT shooting on the other hand 32x + is but the starting point. Gimicks cost money that is sacrificed in quality so basic and better quality rules IMO. smaller objectives mean less paralax error and lower mounting (leading to less hold)

 

For information my three air rifles carry a 1.5X 20 mm Simmonds WTC, 3-10 X 50 Simmonds WTC and 4-16 x 44 Tasco world class plus. Both the WTC 's are the Philopean manufacture. The higher mag ranges are never used in the field even at 30 ft lb ranges they aint required

 

Agreed. I've got the MTC Mamba 4-16x50 which is a brilliant scope for longer ranges, it's made close range shooting slightly more complicated as it's just a wee bit too powerful; I'm almost tempted to get a slightly less powerful one for rat splatting but cannot be bothered with the faff of taking it off and on the same rifle! When it comes it gimmicks I'm not sold on illuminated reticles yet. I've had a scope with one for over a year now and I've used it perhaps three or four times and even then it may have been unnecessary! If you're using your gun in the field, the other advantage of 3-9 scopes is they are nice and compact and don't weigh a great deal; mine's a bit of a beast and I can tell the weight difference from my old one! Having said that I love the SCB reticle on the Mamba and as most of my shooting is done around the 30-50yd mark, I'm not too bothered about the difficulties with short ranges!

 

The other thing I like is the side adjusting parralax. to fix the parralax on the side is a really subtly movement, much more so than fiddling about with the AO lenses! The Hawke scopes with side PA would be worth looking at The Varmint SF or the SideWinder range, as well as the baby MTC Mamba lite 3-12 if you want to have a bit more mag than 3-9. It is only a 1" tube compared to the 30mm of the Mamba(30mm gives more light, so a little clearer picture, but mainly it's about increased adjustment abilities) and hasn't got the slightly unnecessary IR! Or, as Kent said, have a look at the Simmons WT range; I've not used them myself, but neither have I EVER heard anyone say anything negative about them. The things you want to spend money on isn't the magnification or the excess gadgets, it's the quality of the glass and the tube. If a scope has got free flip up covers, comes with mounts, has got two choices of colours of illuminated reticles, and sings the national anthem when you make a good shot, but the glass is so poor that you can't get a good picture regardless of the light conditions, it's useless! And you want a tube that is well put together and not going to lose zero with the odd knock or bump - particularly important if you're using a springer. Cheaply put together scopes suffer badly at the hands of springers because of the continued shock from recoil.

 

As you may have guessed, I'm no FT shooter, all my experience is coming from hunting so I can't help on target shooting scopes!

[Taz72]

Like the others say- depends what you want to do with it; Any more than 12x isn't necessary for airgun hunting, and sometimes 4x is plenty.

Fancy sidewheel focus systems and mega magnification are only really necessary if you're intending to have a proper bash at FT, and even then you need to calibrate carefully, with a large sidewheel for them to be any real use.

 

 

Multi aim-points, be it mildots, FT reticles etc; Personally I find these more useful, though more for the advantage of the different aimpoints for quick aiming rather than bracketing to assess distance- While you're busy doing the maths of how many milliradians equals such and such, the rabbit/pigeon etc will have b***ered-off anyway.

 

Illuminates reticles - handy if shooting in low light. Otherwise far from essential.

 

I have a mix of sidewheel, front focus, even fixed parallax, including amongst others a Nikko 10-50x60, a couple of chinese-imported BSA 8-32x44, and an old Bushmaster 4-12x40. I used to shoot FT many moons ago with a fixed 6x40 Venom-badged scope with a fine crosshair and an outer circle - I don't even know what the reticle was called on that...

 

Provided the quality is adequate, all do the job fine depending whether its FT or bunny-bashing and at the end of the day it all boils down to knowing where your pellet's going.

 

I'd say buy something you know will be consistent (ie the better quality the better - No 4x20's off the local market ;-)...), take your pick of whatever floats your boat and learn your setup. If that's a thousand quid Leupold 4-100 x60 Hoobiedoobie with all the bells and whistles, and your finances stretch to that, then go for it. If its a 100quid BSA/Nikko/Hawke, likewise.

[Clint1]

Mmm, thank you everyone. Finally, are there makes/manufacturers that, in any ones opinion, need to be avoided eg any horror stories or warranty disasters?

(incicentally, on an entirely different tack...be careful buying a bosch washing machine, they never break down and when they do getting it sorted is a monumental goat****)

[pabs]

X10 mag is all you'll ever need. Illuminated ret' is a good idea when shooting at low light. Side parallax wheel is much easier to use in the field. You won't go far wrong with an MTC Viper 3-12x44 IR. Hawke are good budget scopes too, though I've always found them to have stupidly stiff side wheels, the MTC's are far smoother.

[pabs]

Plus they have nice pull up sniper turrets. If you are in to your 'clicks' then it's an essential feature, and I have found the MTC Viper range to be very repeatable.

[demonwolf444]

the majority of my air gun shooting is very low light shooting. I cope fine with 3-9x50. But then again it is really a personal preferance. there is a nikko sterling that is 3-12x50 but again its just preferance. I wish my scope had side parralax, however when something bolts to 15 yarss in front of you, you dont have time to change your parralax if it were on the side or front, you just do ther best you can and take the shot.

[chrisjpainter]

not used the viper myself, but with the Mamba, you get low profile turrets, meaning they don't get caught on camo netting so readily. I think most makes will have their supporters and detractors, but if you're spending over £90 on a scope, you're unlikely to go wrong!