Trying to finalize optics for a sheep hunting rifle.
As I see it, important criteria of the scope could be:
Budget - relatively a non-issue, the scope is the cheap part of the hunt
Ruggedness/durability - better not break that high up the mountain
Magnification - what is a good range to be in, considering that while some shorter shots will present themselves, 300yd + shots are possible and should be even be expected
Back up irons/quick detach scope - most seem to lean away from needing back up irons
Weight - too heavy sucks
Compactness - a variation of weight. 56mm bells on 18 inch scopes might not be the best idea, even if light
Brightness/light gathering - 30mm vs 1in tubes, 24mm to 56mm bells, pick your poison
Illuminated reticle - not sure if necessary. Nice to have, sure. Anyone ever wish they had one on a hunt ?
Reticle type - heavy duplex or fine ? would a ranging reticle negate the need for a rangefinder, saving weight ?
Glass Clarity - duh. Given that budget is not an issue, this should not be a huge issue, as I am not debating between a Tasco and a Bushnell.
Eye Relief - Shooting up and down hill with a scope to close to the old noggin is a recipe for a scope kiss
Right now, I am leaning towards a Nightforce 2.5-10x25, NP-R2 reticle
The only criteria that this scope seems to violate is weight (bonus points for durability though). This one weighs about 17oz, compared to 13oz for a Leupold 3.5-10x40. Beyond that, it has a ranging and illuminated reticle (both are a bonus, I think), it is rugged as hell, good glass, compact. My big concern is that the magnification is not enough on the high end. Will 10x leave me wanting ?
And why the hell can't NF make a 3.5-15x32 ? Bastards.
As I see it, important criteria of the scope could be:
Budget - relatively a non-issue, the scope is the cheap part of the hunt
Ruggedness/durability - better not break that high up the mountain
Magnification - what is a good range to be in, considering that while some shorter shots will present themselves, 300yd + shots are possible and should be even be expected
Back up irons/quick detach scope - most seem to lean away from needing back up irons
Weight - too heavy sucks
Compactness - a variation of weight. 56mm bells on 18 inch scopes might not be the best idea, even if light
Brightness/light gathering - 30mm vs 1in tubes, 24mm to 56mm bells, pick your poison
Illuminated reticle - not sure if necessary. Nice to have, sure. Anyone ever wish they had one on a hunt ?
Reticle type - heavy duplex or fine ? would a ranging reticle negate the need for a rangefinder, saving weight ?
Glass Clarity - duh. Given that budget is not an issue, this should not be a huge issue, as I am not debating between a Tasco and a Bushnell.
Eye Relief - Shooting up and down hill with a scope to close to the old noggin is a recipe for a scope kiss
Right now, I am leaning towards a Nightforce 2.5-10x25, NP-R2 reticle
The only criteria that this scope seems to violate is weight (bonus points for durability though). This one weighs about 17oz, compared to 13oz for a Leupold 3.5-10x40. Beyond that, it has a ranging and illuminated reticle (both are a bonus, I think), it is rugged as hell, good glass, compact. My big concern is that the magnification is not enough on the high end. Will 10x leave me wanting ?
And why the hell can't NF make a 3.5-15x32 ? Bastards.


















































