Scope for Deer Hunting in E. Washington

[kickstart my heart]

3-9x is a great all around choice. I like 4x scopes myself. You don't need a ton of magnification to hunt deer unless you're hunting way up in the hills where you're shooting across canyons, or in very open field country. If you're out spot and stock hunting, you actually see a deer, and you have a scope cranked way up on magnification, between the adrenaline and the magnification increasing how much those cross hairs are waivering around, you'll have a heck of a time. That's why if I'm hunting and moving around, I leave my scope on the lowest magnification. Some guys like high magnification scopes in case "they have to take a long shot" at a deer. Most of those types I've met feel accuracy is being able to put all their rounds out of a hunting rifle on a 12" paper plate at 100 yards, or that having their gunsmith bore sight their brand new rifle a week before the season is "good enough". I don't feel it wise to shoot at big game beyond one's comfort zone of distance. Yeah, there's guys with super ninja long range rifles and youtube videos of them shooting a deer with their .338 lapua at 1100 yards. They probably know how to shoot that accurately though. I don't think your average hunter is going to be able to take his rifle and successfully shoot a deer 400+ yards away without wounding or missing it. Maybe I'm wrong though. I've hunted with guys who took a shot a deer 120 yards away and missed it's vitals completely, hitting in right in the back leg. You're talking them missing where they aimed by feet.

 

[Sun195]

Thanks for the replies. At this moment, I'm probably leaning toward a Leupold VX-2 3-9x40. Took a look at it set on 3x in the store and I'm now less concerned about taking a close-shot at this power. I'm also considering a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40, but it was doing something screwy with my eyes when I looked at it in the store. However, optics on the Zeiss seemed clearer & brighter than the Leuopold. I need to take another look.

I looked at a VX-3 in 2.5-8x but for some reason, it just didn't seem all that much better than the VX-2 to me.

 

[Beta1759]

If at all possible, you should try and view the optics outside and not in the store with all the artificial lights. The vx-3 will give you about 30 more minutes of light at dusk than the vx-2 (at least in my experience). Personally, if the decisions is a toss up between a leupold and ziess, I would pick the scope that is US made, here is Beaverton. As others have said you can't go wrong with any of the options you have mentioned though .

 

[DeanMk]

I went deer hunting for the first time last season - really liked it. My hunting was done around Republic, WA in mostly woods, but some open clear-cut areas. My gun was a Marlin 336 30-30 with a 1-3x20 Weaver scope on it. This worked great for the wooded areas, but I kind of wanted something with a little more reach for when we were in the clear-cuts. So, I recently ordered a 30.06 bolt gun. (this was also partly a nostalgia purchase as my grandfather always hunted with a bolt-action 30.06)

What kind of scope should I put on this thing? The classic suggestion seems to be a 3-9x40, but I'm wondering if this is too much power for tromping around in heavily wooded areas? I really liked the low-power setting on my 1-3 for when I was in those areas. I was thinking about a 2-7x32-ish to give me a little lower power than the standard 3-9. However, one of the reasons I got this gun is to "reach out farther" in the clear-cut areas, so I don't want to get a lower-power scope and defeat that purpose.

In terms of scope brand, I've been leaning toward a Leupold VX-2 or VX-3. The VX-3 is about $100 more, and when I looked through them at Cabelas, I couldn't really tell all that much difference. I suspect the difference might be more noticeable at the start/finish of hunting hours, not in a well-lit store.

Thoughts? What do you all use?

Leupold is a good choice. Some say they're best scopes in the world.....and they're local (oregon).
I've lived in Wa. since the mid 60's. My dad spent 30+ years hunting deer with his Remington 725 in .270 aided by a 3-9X Bushnell scope with the flip-over mount.
We hunted in the woods of Dewatto (I took one of the biggest deer out of that area when I was 14) and open plains of Yakima with that gun and never worried about having "too much" scope.
In later years he parked it, using a Winchester 94 in .30-30 with a 2.5X pistol scope (as you get older, the lighter and more compact rigs make more and more sense).
Personslly, I'd do a model 7 in 7mm-08 with a <broken link removed>



Dean

 

[davidwilsen]

I have very little experience in hunting prefer to digiscoping. I have purchased my optic products from online store Eurooptic.com at very discounted rate. Have a visit for your favorite models.

 

[2ndtimer]

Thanks for the replies. At this moment, I'm probably leaning toward a Leupold VX-2 3-9x40. Took a look at it set on 3x in the store and I'm now less concerned about taking a close-shot at this power. I'm also considering a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40, but it was doing something screwy with my eyes when I looked at it in the store. However, optics on the Zeiss seemed clearer & brighter than the Leuopold. I need to take another look.

So what did you decide? I just bought one of each, a Leupold VX-2 3-9X wide duplex, and a Zeiss Conquest 3-9X Z-Plex. I would agree that the Zeiss is a little better optically, but not sure if it is $200 better. (I got a super deal on mine on closeout at Cabela's for $279.95, couldn't pass it up even though I already had the VX-2 ordered) Mounted the Zeiss on my new Winchester Model 70 Ultimate Shadow in .270WSM, put the new Leupold VX-2 on my old Model 70 Super Shadow in .270WSM, replacing a Burris Fullfield II that had given good service for 8 years. The Leupold is a little sleeker and lighter than the Zeiss, but as I said, the Zeiss looks a mite better optically. I think they are both outstanding scopes and am happy with both of them. Don't think you could go wrong with either one, but I would go for the Leupold given the lower price. If you could get the Zeiss for only $50 more, then maybe the Zeiss.

 

[Sun195]

So what did you decide? I just bought one of each, a Leupold VX-2 3-9X wide duplex, and a Zeiss Conquest 3-9X Z-Plex. I would agree that the Zeiss is a little better optically, but not sure if it is $200 better. (I got a super deal on mine on closeout at Cabela's for $279.95, couldn't pass it up even though I already had the VX-2 ordered) Mounted the Zeiss on my new Winchester Model 70 Ultimate Shadow in .270WSM, put the new Leupold VX-2 on my old Model 70 Super Shadow in .270WSM, replacing a Burris Fullfield II that had given good service for 8 years. The Leupold is a little sleeker and lighter than the Zeiss, but as I said, the Zeiss looks a mite better optically. I think they are both outstanding scopes and am happy with both of them. Don't think you could go wrong with either one, but I would go for the Leupold given the lower price. If you could get the Zeiss for only $50 more, then maybe the Zeiss.

I ended-up ordering the Leupold VX-2 3-9x40 with Talley Light Low rings. I was leaning heavily toward the Zeiss, but saw one mounted on another Tikka T3 at the gun show and it looked like a rocket booster strapped to a bicycle - just looked huge on that rifle. Then, the decision was between the VX-2 and VX-3 and I felt like the eye relief on the VX-2 was slightly better (less variability) and the price was also better. The VX-3 had slightly better optics (after staring through both at Cabelas for a while), but just not enough (for me) to justify the price. VX-2, strangely enough, is also just slightly lighter than the VX-3.

Now, I'm waiting for a torque driver to come in the mail and then I'll mount it.