Best scopes for Winchester 270 from 100 to 300 yrds

[Why not]

That's a nice gift and one fitting to the rifle. We have a couple of Redfield products, both old and new, and are pleased with the performance. It'll cost a lot more to make any reasonable improvement.

Thank You

 

[Crazyeye24]

I have a Nikon Monarch UCC 5.5-16.5 on my 270.Unfortunately, It's the nikoplex reticle and I wish it had a BDC or something comparable. That being said, I can shoot it quite accurately out to 700yds with the nikoplex. Personally, I think a 3-15 or 4-16 power scope would be good. I wouldn't hesitate to put a Leupold or Vortex on it as both are awesome scopes.

 

[No_Regerts]

I mostly use Leupold (who owns Redfield now). Some of my hunting rifles wear fixed 4x or 6x. I have a couple of VX3 3.5-10x40 scopes on guns I use to hunt smaller stuff like coyotes. For big game out to 300 yards, a 4x or 6x works great. Lighter, fewer parts, no messing around with magnification knobs.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I have always been a Red Field guy, back before Leupold got ahold of them and brought them back and all that, and I have always been impressed with their quality! My eyes just don't like Leupold optics, while I wanted to like them, I simply couldn't get them to work for me, so it's Red Field, which is kind of a challenge these days! I usually shop around and find good used/referbed Red Fields in the 3X9 and 4X12 range, and the 4X16's when I can find them!

 

[tkdguy]

My self personally I'd go with no less than a 4x12 but better 4 x 16; but depending on what weight you can carry and the terrain. 270 has great potential for long distance, so I like the higher power. I have the 4 x 12 Leopold Freedom which is junk because of the parellax problem. Just awful.

 

[micdude]

I'm going to agree with a lot of guys here in saying get a leupold freedom line 3x9 or a Burris fullfield 2.5x10 IV and no greater of scope optic size than 44mm so you can get low into the rifle.

 

[Koda]

and no greater of scope optic size than 44mm so you can get low into the rifle.

What is the benefit of being 3mm lower to the rifle than a 50mm scope?

 

[orygun]

What is the benefit of being 3mm lower to the rifle than a 50mm scope?

It depends on the stock and your face!

I have a thin build, which means my jaw and cheeks are thin. Even with low mounts and a 40mm nearly touching the barrel the scope is high enough that I don't use a cheek weld, I am forced to use a jaw weld. A normal 50mm scope and the extra high rings would have me craning my neck to see a full field.

 

[Koda]

It depends on the stock and your face!

So more a personal setup and not an exact tradeoff of function.
I asked because Im working on replacing a scope and staying with a 50mm. I thought about the 44mm option but Ive never had any issues with a good cheek weld on the current setup. Each rifles buttstock is different and may be at play here as well.

 

[orygun]

Each rifles buttstock is different and may be at play here as well.

Oh, Heck yeah! And the rifle I'm referring to has a new stock on the way with a cheekrest that will help. On my Pre-64 70 I replaced the standard stock with a factory "Monte Carlo" style. Helped tremendously.
Other than that I did have a passing interest in the Leupold with the lower section dished that allowed a 56MM to sit low. Looks like Leupold dropped it, too.

 

[Koda]

Other than that I did have a passing interest in the Leupold with the lower section dished that allowed a 56MM to sit low. Looks like Leupold dropped it, too.

I do barely recall some scopes made like that but can see why that didnt become popular. My guess is one who puts a 56mm on it probably is using an appropriate stock with a high cheekweld but then isnt the larger lens more of a function for hunting in low light at some point a hunter isnt gonna wanna carry around the larger and heavier scope. (I dont know if target shooters favor larger objective lens's)
I simply went with the 50 to maximise dawn and dusk hunting when its best. Not certain my eye will notice the difference though but on this rifle I just didnt see a cheekweld advantage over 3mm difference than the 44mm option I could have picked.

 

[micdude]

What is the benefit of being 3mm lower to the rifle than a 50mm scope?

The difference is usually medium vs high scope rings, if you're concerned about low light get a lighted radical.

 

[Spitpatch]

"...went with the 50 to maximise dawn and dusk hunting when its best."

As a point of corporate history, Leupold was one of the (if not THE) last scope companies to offer 50mm objectives. Finally they caved as a result of market loss.

Not because of significant usable advantage to the concept.

This is because their engineers (and a multitude of other optics professionals) KNEW the limits of the human eye and how much light it is CAPABLE of processing.
If you have a scope box from that time period of the 50mm craze, Leupold took great effort in the contained literature there to educate its customers to the science of it.

Faced with a tradeoff of having either a proper cheek weld/instantly delivered sight picture versus what very little one's eye can absorb from a large objective in a very few minutes of a hunting day, I'll take the fast and easy to shoot gun every time. A guy with more meat on his (facial) cheeks than average might want ANY scope a bit higher than us malnourished types.

And I've NEVER been deprived of or missed a shot at big game in any legal light as a result of my Leupold scope not granting me a stellar sight picture. Even the little 1" objectives (no bell) do just fine.

Twilight "elk" (moose) hunts in Sweden are where the big bell scopes might have a chance to show some sort of advantage.

 

[orygun]

The difference is usually medium vs high scope rings, if you're concerned about low light get a lighted radical.

If ya can't see the target, the lighted reticle won't do any good.
That's where the quality of the lenses really matter.

I'm feeling like a suckup now, but @Spitpatch 's comments about the amount of light emitted thru the exit pupil and what the human eye can utilize are often overlooked, and usually not promoted by the scope manufacturer.

 

[Spitpatch]

If ya can't see the target, the lighted reticle won't do any good.
That's where the quality of the lenses really matter.

I'm feeling like a suckup now, but @Spitpatch 's comments about the amount of light emitted thru the exit pupil and what the human eye can utilize are often overlooked, and usually not promoted by the scope manufacturer.

You're cute when you do that.

 

[Koda]

Faced with a tradeoff of having either a proper cheek weld/instantly delivered sight picture versus what very little one's eye can absorb from a large objective in a very few minutes of a hunting day, I'll take the fast and easy to shoot gun every time.

This is probably the best argument Ive heard against the 50mm or larger objectives, it makes sense... my logic has been where I dont have practical experience with something get the bigger number... though, that doesn't always mean its a better choice. The only thing Ive read on this is the extra light gathering only becomes apparent at max zoom in the lowest light conditions, so that tends to support favoring the smaller objective given the majority of the shots, the larger objectives for the rare long distance low light shot.

I dont think I will ever be lucky enough to physically be able to compare light gathering differences side by side to definitevly know, but on my rifle with its monte carlo raised comb stock I dont get any practical difference in sight acuisition between 44 and 50mm objectives (3mm difference in ring height)... Ive had both on the rifle over the years upgrading as I go, so Im going with the 50mm for this hopefully last upgrade.... finally a Leupold.

 

[orygun]

Faced with a tradeoff of having either a proper cheek weld/instantly delivered sight picture versus what very little one's eye can absorb from a large objective in a very few minutes of a hunting day, I'll take the fast and easy to shoot gun every time.

And hunting deer around here, sometimes a fleeting chance is all you get. Trust me, I know.