Remington 700 30-06 Leopold LifeSaver?

rangebob

rangebob

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Location
ontario
Hi:

I'm considering buying:
a) new 30-06 Remington 700 CDL Stainless Fluted Limited edition, hinged floorplate, walnut stock, 24" barrel, x-mark pro trigger
b) Limbsaver recoil pad
c) Leupold VX-III 8.5-25x50mm Long Range Target Rifle Scope (variable). Adjustable down to 50feet paralax.

For
1) first rifle
2) Burlington Range - indoor 50yard.
3) Shannon outdoor 200yard range -- I enjoy benchrest shooting
4) groundhog hunting (lie and wait with leather bags) in farmers fields in the northerly part of southern Ontario

I had a similar rifle about 20 years ago, and I could hit things with it. It was my favourate amongst several from .22 to .50. I used a much less powerful scope back then, but my eyesight was similarly better then. I wear eyeglasses all the time I'm awake.

I'm pretty much sold on the 30-06 Remington 700.
I hear nothing but good things about the limbsaver.

But I'm a little worried about it being too much scope -- nevertheless that's the way I'm currently leaning, partially because of the: light, the magnification, the adjustableness, and I hear it's mounted further away from the eye reducing being hit in the head with it.

Any thoughts/opinions/suggestions/fun-experiences?
 
in much of southern Ontario there is a caliber limit of under .275 for small game, so the .30-06 will be unsuitable for groundhogs.
for what you listed: a first rifle, groundhogs, and under 200 yard shooting i highly recommend a .223. cheaper ammo, less recoil, varmint ammo widely available.

here are the hunting regs including the counties affected by the caliber limitation:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/pubs/hunting/huntRegs/2007/hr_2007_Small_Game.pdf

also, as far as i know almost all new Remington 700s including the CDL come with an R3 recoil pad - which is made by LimbSaver - so replacing it with another LimbSaver is a bit redundant.

as for the scope, at the distances youll be shooting you might want to lower the power as well, 8.5-25x is rediculously overpowered for most hunting. try a 4-16 or a 6-18 or something like that, and maybe step down to a 40mm objective unless you are hunting in lower light and actually need the 50.

honestly the best thing for you to do might be to go to the range with someone you know in your area that has similar rifles to what you are looking for and shoot them a bit and see what fits you best, rather than spending over $2000 on a first rifle and then realising that its not really what you need/like.
 
Last edited:
Definately way too much scope for that gun. That's a varmit scope. For a 30-06, stick to a 3-9, 4x12, etc.

One of the funniest things I've seen to date was a guy at the Sibald range in Calgary with a 24x Tasco scope on a Marlin 30-30 lever gun. My buddy and I couldnt stop laughing. The guy said he bought it as bear protection for when he's out hiking. Damn scope was almost as long as the gun.
:)
 
in much of southern ontario there is a caliber limit of under .270 for small game, as far as i know, so the .30-06 will be unsuitable.
Click to expand...
I know. I believe the 30-06 is ok north of highway 89, which works out fine for me.

for a first rifle, varmints, and under 200 yard shooting i highly recommend a .223. cheaper ammo, less recoil, varmint ammo widely available
Click to expand...
Probably all quite true, but for my first I'm sticking with 30-06 since that's the one I know/knew. Sort of re-living my youth.
 
Mad_Mikee:

I read the below at another website:
re: Leopold VXIII:
At 300 yards it is nice to see the whiskers. Some of those woodchucks really need to brush their teeth.
If your shots are mostly going to be under a 100 yards then I would not go so high in power.
Click to expand...

I don't want to go as far down as a Bushnell 3-9x32.

A Bushnell Elite 4200 6-24x40 had been recommended.
 
Is it just the magnification that's too much?
If so, then how about:
Leopold VX-III 3.5-10x50mm Riflescope
or
VX-III 4.5-14x50mm Long Range Riflescope
 
Last edited:
manbearpig

as far as i know almost all new Remington 700s including the CDL come with an R3 recoil pad - which is made by LimbSaver - so replacing it with another LimbSaver is a bit redundant.
Click to expand...
I'd read that on the Remington website too -- but I'll be checking on that during purchase. 'New' might be a last year's unused, rather than this year's 700.
 
manbearpig:

honestly the best thing for you to do might be to go to the range with someone you know in your area that has similar rifles to what you are looking for and shoot them a bit and see what fits you best, rather than spending over $2000 on a first rifle and then realising that its not really what you need/like.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I'll like this one.
What you describe is my plan for my second rifle. :)
 
rangebob said:
Mad_Mikee:

I read the below at another website:


I don't want to go as far down as a Bushnell 3-9x32.

A Bushnell Elite 4200 6-24x40 had been recommended.
Click to expand...

if you want a truly versatile scope get something capable of a low power.
for example, your original idea - the 8.5-25x50, would be completely unsuitable for any sortof hunting short of varminting. the lowest power is still much too high.
the 50mm objective lets more light in but you wont really notice this in the conditions you intend to use it in, but you will notice the added bulk. where the 50 and 56mms really shine is around dusk or dawn in lower light.

something like the Leupold 4.5-14x40mm would give you the power you need at the distances you specified, but still let you drop down to 4.5x which is usable for most hunting. a 30mm scope tube also contributes to a brighter scope. a ballistic reticle like the Burris Ballistic Plex, Leupold B&C or Varmint Hunters, etc might not be a bad idea either if you are getting into target and varmint hunting.
 
Slugo said:
I agree.

This would be the best scope for what you're trying to do.
Click to expand...

+2. The 3.5-10 x 40 is seldom a bad choice. The 8.5-25 is just about the last thing I'd put on that particular rifle. Good rifle, good scope, bad mismatch. If you really want more magnification look into a 4.5-14 LR. Still a bit much, but not nearly as bad.
 
The .30/06 is first and foremost a big game hunting cartridge, but as you illustrate, it performs a broad range of duties admirably. My personal preference is to choose a scope with a lower bottom end, but given your intended use your choice of a 8.5-25X will be fine, as long as you don't find yourself attempting to make a close range broadside shot on a running fox or coyote. I also think you should buy a second low power scope for deer or other big game.

I have had good accuracy with Sierra 125's and with Speer 130's, but I was never happy with the accuracy of the 110 gr bullets I tried, and thought they were probably best for loading to 1200 fps and used as 25 yard plinking loads. Such loads are cheaper with a good cast bullet and probably more accurate.

If your heart is set on it, nothing anyone else thinks has much relevance in any case. As you shoot the rifle, develop loads, and hunt with it, you will think of ways you can tweak it, and you can always get a 1.75-6X or a 2.5-8X for big game later on in the year.
 
Last edited:
rangebob said:
Mad_Mikee:

I read the below at another website:


I don't want to go as far down as a Bushnell 3-9x32.

A Bushnell Elite 4200 6-24x40 had been recommended.
Click to expand...

Not sure what kind of idiot recomended at 6-24x scope on a 30-06.
If you were putting that scope on a 22-250, 204, 223, 222, etc, then I'd understand.

If you need to see a gophers nose hairs in your scope, a 30-06 probably isnt the right rifle.

The Vx-III 4.5x14 LR is a sweet scope, but even if you wanted to go a bit lower on the price scale, some of the Bushnell 4200's and 3200 in a similar power configuration are also nice.
 
Mad_Mikee:

The past:

Not sure what kind of idiot recomended at 6-24x scope on a 30-06.
Click to expand...
The guy behind the counter at Outdoor World (in Vaughan Ontario) and they had a Bushnell 4200 6-24x in stock and recommended it for a 30-06.

Later, thinking the 4200 only came in one variety (the 6-24) I mentioned the Bushnell 4200 to someone else and they replied the 4200 was a nice scope and they had one themselves -- but in the case of this 'confirmation recommendation' I don't think the magnification was mentioned by either of us.

It was the first scope recommendation I saw.

Then I started reading a book about benchrest shooting with 6PPC, which recommended:
a) Nightforce 12-42x56 Benchrest (Variable)

And I read somewhere else that for benchrest that these two:
b) Leopold VX-III 6.5-20x40mm Adj Obj Rifle Scope (variable)
c) Leopold VX-III 8.5-25x50mm Long Range Target Rifle Scope (variable)
were the way to go.

Other scopes I'd looked at where
d) Leopold Competition Series 40x45mm Scope (fixed)
e) Leopold BX36
f) Bushnell 3-9x32 Scope with turret mounts (cheap $80)


20 years ago I thought I was pretty good benchrest with a 30-06, but I have no idea how tight my groups were so who knows. 30-06 is not suggested by anyone as a benchrest caliber, but it's the only caliber I personally have ever been happy with so I'm sticking with it for now, with the intent on a second rifle depending upon which way my interests bend (benchrest, standing 50yard competion, etc).

In otherwords, no one will be able to talk me out of 30-06 no matter how hard you try. :)
Scopes on the other hand ...
Manufacturer's and models of a 30-06 on the other hand ... (with the restriction that it has to look like what I used before, which was a walnut stock blue barrel something that might have been a Remington 700 with a low power fixed magnification scope)

If I were not interested in advice, then what's the point of asking. :)
 
Votes thus far:
a) 3 votes for Leopold VXIII 3.5-10x40
b) 2.5 votes for Leopold VXIII 4.5-14x40
c) 1.75-6
d) 2.5-8
e) 3-9
f) 4-12
g) 4-16
h) 6-18

And there seems to be a leaning towards 40mm (not 50mm) because it's 13oz (not 14.9oz). The 50mm looked cooler to me in the pictures.
The Boone and Crocket Big Game Reticle (I'm 50%-50% on this vs the Duplex)
Both Leopolds above have the same eye relief of 3.6".
I couldn't find anything that says the minimum paralax is less than the required minimum 25 yards (75 feet).

I'll probably never go deer hunting with it, although I have eaten deer meat in homes with people who have gone hunting, and have a good friend who convinced me to get a PAL/RPAL because he wanted to go deer hunting whom I'm not entirely sure now if he'll ever buy a rifle.
 
rangebob said:
And there seems to be a leaning towards 40mm (not 50mm) because it's 13oz (not 14.9oz). The 50mm looked cooler to me in the pictures.
Click to expand...

no, its the fact that an 8.5x25x50mm scope is twice the size of a more reasonable 40mm scope, not to mention youll be mounting that in high rings which makes it even worse. the 40mm will easily fit in low rings.

i recommend you read around a bit more in both the hunting/sporting arms forum and the optics forum, and actually handle and look through the scopes you are interested in before you spend >$2000. just avoid LeBarons, the guys at the counter get all pissy if you ask them to handle more than one scope before you make a $1000 purchase, and thats if they even have it in stock :(
 
manbearpig

i recommend you read around a bit more in both the hunting/sporting arms forum and the optics forum
Click to expand...
That sounds reasonable. I'll do that now. I did a little surfing out there before, but there was a lot and I stumbled into other sub-forums for a long while.

and actually handle and look through the scopes you are interested in before you spend >$2000.
Click to expand...
The only place I've seen that has a bunch of scopes in stock is Outdoor World (Vaughan Ontario). They had a couple of Leopolds but I don't know which ones -- I could phone. I was at Al Simmons (Hamilton Ontario) last week, but I don't remember much of an in-stock scope selection.

just avoid LeBarons, the guys at the counter get all pissy if you ask them to handle more than one scope before you make a $1000 purchase, and thats if they even have it in stock
Click to expand...
I've heard that.

its the fact that an 8.5x25x50mm scope is twice the size of a more reasonable 40mm scope, not to mention youll be mounting that in high rings which makes it even worse. the 40mm will easily fit in low rings.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the issue with high rings? (that's a newbie question, not an accusation) My eye would be a little higher up with high rings than low rings.
 
Last edited:
rangebob; I don't understand the issue with high rings? (that's a newbie question said:
The issue with high rings is your cheek-weld on the stock. In order to shoot well with a telescopic sight, your eye should look through the center of the scope from the same place shot to shot without deviation. If your cheek-weld on the stock differs from shot to shot, chances are you will get a larger group on target because the cross hair will appear to be in a different place for each shot. If you aim a scoped rifle at a target, move your head around while looking through the scope and you will see the cross hair move on the target. Unless your head comes back to the same place for each shot, each shot will strike the target in a different place. The greater the magnification of the scope and the more extreme the problem becomes. The cheek piece of most modern rifles is designed to accomadate the average face with the scope's cross hair 2" above the bore. The higher the scope is mounted above this height, the more difficult it is to return your eye to the same position, because there is less reference for your face on the stock, unless you have a very high comb or and adjustable cheek piece.

Leupold is attempting to resolve the high ring problem by contouring some of their large objective scopes to the rifle barrel. I don't see much success in this, as sealing the lenses in such a tube will be a nightmare. The TV shaped oculars that became popular in the '70's had a similar problem, and their shape was no where near as extreme as the new Leupolds.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom