Fixed 4x

International Harvester

International Harvester

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
39   0   0
Location
Republic of Saskatchewan
I've never shot with a scope before and I'm thinking of the leupold FX-II 4 Power for my model 70 30-06. It's a pre 64 with iron sights, so my questions are:

1. Does it require consideration for sight clearance of the optics over the front iron sight?

2. Would a one piece base impeed loading the pre 64 model 70?

3. Are there any other fixed 4x scopes in the 400 buck range that anyone recommends?

Thanks IH
 
I think you should bring your gun in to your local store, then you can see how the scope you want will be mounted.

You can always buy higher rings to clear the open sights if they are an issue,

I recommend a Zeiss Conquest 4X scope, Seen one a while back and it was a nice piece of glass.

The old Weaver k4 Scopes are what I use for woods hunting. They are very rugged scopes that come in a variety of sights. Might buy a Zeiss soon though.
 
In terms short and to the point of your questions;

No, no, Zeiss. There is a lot to be said for a fixed 4x as a hunting scope. Hard to knock out of order, you're always at the correct magnification, good hunting tool. Has been for 60 years or so, and will continue to be. As my old eyes are weakening, I prefer the 6x, but truthfully a 4x will get the job done quite handily as far as most of us should be shooting. - dan
 
I just picked up a M8 4x Leupold off the EE to mount on my 375 H&H. Came highly recommended by most of the people who responded to my thread(should still be on first page of optics forum).

Cost about $200-250 on the EE. These are the precursors to the newer FX line. There were a couple other ones on there as well.
 
My daughter's Ruger Compact wears a Leupold FXII 4x33. I placed it beside my Pre 64 .30-06 and it does look like there may be an issue with sight clearance. Proper ring height will be important.

I personally don't like one piece bases. I find they cause difficulty when loading.
 
As to your question #1, my experience is that as long as the scope itself clears the receiver, you are good to go. The front and rear iron sights appear to be "in the way" of a low mounted scope, but are too close to obscure your vision through the scope.
As to #2 - can't comment.
And #3 - No recent personal experiences, but I'm interested what others have to say. Just because manufactures concentrate on making "zoom" scopes, does not mean they are better - just that there's more profit in them.
 
The M8 4x had a 33mm objective lens which is small enough not to foul on the sights. I'm not sure that the objective woudl even reach the sights. I have 3 Pre 64s right now. One wears a Burris 2-7x and the other wears a Leupold Vari X-III 1.5-5x. I wouldn't hesitate to mount a M8 4x on either (though it's would only be slightly more ridiculous than the 1.5-5x on the 257 Wby!). I don't imagine that you'd have a problem with the sights. It would be hard to fault a fixed 4x for ruggedness and durability. I certainly wouldn't feel handicapped with one in most any hunting situation.

On the subject of bases, I have to say that I have an intense hate for 1 piece bases where the option exists for 2 piece bases. I like as little impediment to accessing the action as possible so that means 2 piece base for me. The current Leupold bases for a Model 70 should fit your Pre-64 just fine (the only hiccup is when you have a magnum receiver like the 300 H&H or 375 H&H) as will Weavers. That gives you lots of options for quality rings and bases. I would recommend going with a Leupold Dual Dovetail base setup and low rings. I'm certain that they would fit. If you're unsure, take the rifle to the store (I'm loathe to let anyone else mount a scope and bases for me, but that's just me).
 
I'd recommend a Weaver K4 but it's out of your price range. I suppose I could buy a new one for about $200 and sell it to you for $400 if you are really stuck on paying that much.
 
International Harvester said:
I figured a 1 piece base would impeed loading. I just thought it would add strength and rigidity to the mount.
Click to expand...

That's the counterpoint that lots of guys use. I suppose for a bench gun, ultimate rigidity would trump all. But for a hunting rifle, having an action that you can access to clear mud, pine needles or misfeeds would strike me as being better than shaving a few thou off group size. The mount is only there to stick the scope to the action. Ultimate rigidity is the Ruger system with integral bases (and Sako and CZ as well). Some rifles require a one-piece base (the M7 was that way, but they may have changed it) but in the end we're not building a bridge, and even if we were, you don't see the pilings of the bridge tied together at the bottom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom