If It Was Good Enough For Jack O'Connor....

[Blaine]

He opined that a fixed 4x was more than enough. Maybe, a fixed 6x if you were going to be shooting at extreme distance....I concur.....The Scout Scope at 2.5x is more than I need in the woods around here, and up to 250 yards or so for deer/elk, even coyote sized animals (using a rest, of course)...I do have a VXIII 3.5 x 10 that I'm going to put on a heavy barreled 25-06, though, I'm not sure I'd ever need that much....Us Auld Pharts shake too much to use those high powered contraptions....

[6pt-sika]

I was a follower of O'Conner and still am to a certain degree . However the time he was big on 4x and 6x was a good long while ago and he had no other choices really .

Seems to me in later life he opinioned that the then relatively new to the market Leupold Vari XII 2-7 might be a fair to middlin scope .

Personally I think the two best scopes Leupold has ever made are the old Vari XIII 3.5-10x40mmAO scope and the same in a 4.5-14x40mmAO .

Matter of fact I have a Leupold 3.5-10x40AO that I've had now almost 25 years !

My two 4.5-14's have been here atlest 15 years atleast .

[Blaine]

I was a follower of O'Conner and still am to a certain degree . However the time he was big on 4x and 6x was a good long while ago and he had no other choices really .

Seems to me in later life he opinioned that the then relatively new to the market Leupold Vari XII 2-7 might be a fair to middlin scope .

Personally I think the two best scopes Leupold has ever made are the old Vari XIII 3.5-10x40mmAO scope and the same in a 4.5-14x40mmAO .

Matter of fact I have a Leupold 3.5-10x40AO that I've had now almost 25 years !

My two 4.5-14's have been here atlest 15 years atleast .

Dang youngsters....

[6pt-sika]

I was 17 when O'Conner died in 1978 .

So he's been gone 35 years RIP

[Blaine]

I was 17 when O'Conner died in 1978 .

So he's been gone 35 years RIP

As a teenager in the 60's, I just about had his Book of the Rifle memorized.....Strangely enough, I fell into line with Elmer Keith on caliber, and other issues...I'll bet there was no other man alive at the time that could outshoot Mr. O'Connor and his M70 270

[ollogger]

300 H&H 4x 338 6x 243 2x7 all have Leupolds
223 PD gun has a 4x12 on it, for me I couldn't have made a better choice
but it cost me a lot of money to come up with that choice cuz of the junk I bought first




ollogger

[Old Savage]

Only Leupolds I don't like are 2x7 but, if anyone else does - just fine.

[AJMD429]

I can definitely see a 4x for deer hunting, etc., but I've never been able to figure out how guys with 4x scopes will shoot 5/8" groups at 100 yards, or 2" groups at 300 yards; how do they see well enough to see an aiming point that small at 100 yards...? I can barely see a 1" X-ring at 100 yards with a 4x scope...!

I think the reason I like higher-power scopes (other than I must be part-blind), is that I do more target-shooting and goof-off shooting (old chicken eggs at 100 yards or beyond, etc.) than I do 'hunting'. For that matter, the only hunting I do really doesn't require a scope, other than if it is dawn/dusk, to get a few more minutes of shooting-time due to the brighter sight picture (which definitely does NOT benefit from a higher-power scope).

[Blaine]

I can definitely see a 4x for deer hunting, etc., but I've never been able to figure out how guys with 4x scopes will shoot 5/8" groups at 100 yards, or 2" groups at 300 yards; how do they see well enough to see an aiming point that small at 100 yards...? I can barely see a 1" X-ring at 100 yards with a 4x scope...!

I think the reason I like higher-power scopes (other than I must be part-blind), is that I do more target-shooting and goof-off shooting (old chicken eggs at 100 yards or beyond, etc.) than I do 'hunting'. For that matter, the only hunting I do really doesn't require a scope, other than if it is dawn/dusk, to get a few more minutes of shooting-time due to the brighter sight picture (which definitely does NOT benefit from a higher-power scope).

I don't think I shoot all that good (no patience for bearing down), but I can get 1-2" with the ghost ring @ 100 yards.....It's a Zen thing....

[Rusty]

Rusty Jr. has exchanged a few e-mails with Brad O'Connor, Jack's son.They were talking about the Jack O'Connor commemorative rifle that Winchester came out with a few years back. Brad told Jr. that on his own commemorative rifle he scoped it with a fixed 6X scope. He said he has used a 4X all his life but as he got older the 6X seemed to work out better for him.

[1894c]

i have a good friend that i've been hunting with since we were 14 yrs old...he uses 4X and 6X exclusively on his bolt-guns...i'm not sure he's ever read or heard of Jack O'Connor, he tells me he likes the simplicity of a fixed powered scope, he may have a point, just like Jack... :)

[Sixgun]

I see no need to have a 55 gal drum mounted on a hunting rifle. I like to keep things slim and trim and my all time favorite is the 2x7 Leupold with the 32 mm OL.

My long range guns get the 6.5 x 14 Nikon.

ultra long range guns get the Nightforce.

[6pt-sika]

I was 17 when O'Conner died in 1978 .

So he's been gone 35 years RIP

As a teenager in the 60's, I just about had his Book of the Rifle memorized.....Strangely enough, I fell into line with Elmer Keith on caliber, and other issues...I'll bet there was no other man alive at the time that could outshoot Mr. O'Connor and his M70 270

I suspect you may very well be correct about O'Conner at live game . But I remmember some pictures of groups in a couple of his books and to be honest they weren't anything to get excited about . All the Biesen rifles I am quite sure were bedded the entire length of the barrel so I suspect they changed POI at will .

After reading O'Conner thru my early years I was eat up with the 270 WIN and it did a good enough job I might add . But in later years I went to the 280 REM and now am back on the 6.5-06 as well as the 25-06 . But for deer targets all four are virtually the same thing . The 270 with 130's hammers deer , the 25-06 with 100 or 115's , the 280 with 140's and the 6.5-06 with 120-130 grainers all do a fine job's if the shooter does their part !
Matter of fact just this year for DCP and regular seasons I've already taken deer with the 25-06 using 100 grain Nosler BT's , the 270 WIN using Nosler 130 BT's and Combined Tehcnology 130 ST's , I have a 280 REM waiting in the wings loaded with Nosler 140 BT's and am about to work up a load in the new 6.5-06 using more then likely the Hornady 129 SST .

[6pt-sika]

Nightforce.

I'd like to have one , but to rich for my blood

[M. M. Wright]

Like 6 I too like slim, trim scopes. Both my BLR 308 and B78 30-06 wear 2.5X. Weaver on the 06 and Redfield on the 308. I know, I like Leupold too but back in the steel and wood age when I set these up I couldn't afford better. Both were used acquisitions. The 77V in 220 Swift is topped with a Simmons 6.5X20 which starts to degrade resolution at about 17X but I've killed a bunch of prairie dogs with it.

[86er]

I have studied much of Mr. O'Connor's writing and with all due respect to him I find some inconsistencies and contradictions in his opinions, particularly in magazine articles. There is much evidence that he gloated products from sponsors to the extreme, and he kept a "line" that gave him authority, recognition and branding as well as intentionally creating disagreement, even opposition from fellow gun-writers. Combining this information with the era in which his most popularized equipment was made, the variety and durability of equipment and particularly optics was pale compared to today. If you look at his comments, as well as his personal gun collection and that of his wife, he certainly liked and had high respect for other calibers that 270 Win (and even hinted that some were or could potentially be better) and he did use variable power scopes as much as fixed, particularly later in life and frequently on "test rifles" or "calibers" for review. I think relying on his early opinions is flawed as it can give you a one-sided or illogical view and limit your information for making your own decision. I don't care for authorities in a certain field that "waffle", "tote a company line" or "double-talk". If a writer has found something equal, better or superior they should just say so. If they change philosophy on something after penning otherwise, tell us why they changed course.

[6pt-sika]

I can definitely see a 4x for deer hunting, etc., but I've never been able to figure out how guys with 4x scopes will shoot 5/8" groups at 100 yards...?

A couple years ago a fellow brought in a "Alpha Arms" 243 WIn with a 70's Lyman 4x scope . Said he couldn't get it sighted in etc . He also brought in a box of regular old WIN Super X 100 grain ammo .

I looked the rifle over to make sure all was tight etc , the gun had a decent 3 pound no creep trigger . Anyway I went to the range and got it an inch high at 100 yards , then cleaned the barrel and shot a fouler . Let the gun sit to make sure it was cool and then shot a 3 shot group from the bench with factory and no joke I got a 3/4" group .

At that point I tried to buy the gun but the fellow didn't want to sell . We now have it in the shop for sale . I was unaware this gun had belonged to outdoor writer Bob Brister hence the guy wants more then I wanna put in the rifle .

[Charles]

I started shooting in the 50's and variable scopes were still in the future with the exception of a couple (Weaver KV and Bausch and Lomb) that I never saw on a rifle.

The common wisdom was a 2.5 scope was fine for general hunting except for fine and are shooting at antelope and western mule deer. For that work, a 6X was the ticket. A 4X was a compromise between the two.

I hunted for decades with a 4X scope and it did the job under a very wide set of circumstances. To this day I don't have a variable scope with 2.5 and 4 power scopes still in use. I do have a couple of old Weaver K3s that are in use.

I have nothing against variable scopes, just never found them needed or necessary. I always had better use for my money than buying high dollar optics I don't need. I did split for a good pair of Zeiss binoculars when I need to get a good look at something far away. I did learn the value of good binoculars from Jack O'Connor.

[Old Savage]

86er, I would like you to cite the inconsistencies you see. I have read quite a bit of Jack and haven't seen it that way. I do think his critics have misrepresented what he said and that includes Elmer. I read Jack's defense of himself on that in which he states what he actually used on various species. For instance, he says he shot, IIRC, five lions and never used less than a .375 H&H. Used 458s on elephant.

If you can find The Last Book, you might find that interesting. No criticism of you here, just citing what I have seen in the debates/discussion of Jack.

Joe, let me also note that I have no practical experience beyond deer and antelope and halved enjoyed and trusted what you have to say from your obvious wealth of experience. I am going strictly on what I see written. Les Bowman confirmed what he saw of Jack's use on elk but preferred the 7 Rem Mag for himself, again IIRC.

[piller]

In my limited experience, I find that the variable power scopes can be useful at the range to see the hits on the target. I have used 1 Weaver 3-9 that is great, 2 Bushnells that I really like, and 2 off brand from Wal Mart that have the light up reticle which can be changed from red to green. The Wal Mart off brand ones are as clear as the Bushnell scopes, but I am just not too sure about the reliability. I put a Redfield on PillHer's .243 barrel of her Rossi Trifecta. The Redfield had to go back to the manufacturer once already. I have never tried a Nikon scope, but I might get one for my Remington Model 700 in .270. I have tried 3 types of bases so far, and the Weaver bases and rings are the easiest to mount and get on target to me. As far as fixed or variable power goes, doesn't it seem that most hunters use the lowest power until they are in a stand or at a point where they are going to stay a while and then go up in power if necessary.

[86er]

I'll be short as to not hijack the thread with just two examples. In letters Mr. O wrote in part and substance "I concede that the 30-06 is more versatile than the 270", and "the fast expanding bullets like the Bronze Point do not always cause a blood trail and make tracking more difficult". I find references, insinuations and off-cuff comments confusing and contradictory to the actual practice and preaching of the writer. Fantastic writer and all respect from me but I like hard core consistency with backed up fact, or admitted enlightenment with new information.

[Blaine]

I'll be short as to not hijack the thread with just two examples. In letters Mr. O wrote in part and substance "I concede that the 30-06 is more versatile than the 270", and "the fast expanding bullets like the Bronze Point do not always cause a blood trail and make tracking more difficult". I find references, insinuations and off-cuff comments confusing and contradictory to the actual practice and preaching of the writer. Fantastic writer and all respect from me but I like hard core consistency with backed up fact, or admitted enlightenment with new information.

With different calibers all overlapping each other, performance-wise, how can you fault having more than one "best" or "favorite"? As you well know (a thousand times better than I) a bullet hit follows the chaos theory, and no two results are alike. Even a tyro like myself realize that the 220 grain factory bullet in '06 puts it into a class over and above the 270, but, then the 100-130 grain bullets in 270 give a long range shooter a BC vastly superior to those of the light-for-caliber '06......I just can't find it in myself to "pee" on someone who is flexible enough to admit there are more than just one option available.

[86er]

It's your thread Blaine. I am not "peeing" on or blaming Mr. O. I cited my unabashed respect. In another example, he mentions the Remington Bronze Point 130 grain (270) many, many times in his 16 books and countless magazine articles. Then I found one off-the-cuff quote where in response to his favorite bullet he replies "The Nosler 130 grain". After reading about the Bronze Point and mentions of quick expanding bullets so many times, that caught me off guard. There is mention of the Winchester 70 Lightweight as "just right", "shooter-friendly" and even "perfect". But his was re-stocked and worked by Al Biesen. So is the Win 70 Lightweight as described or is it only that way after a new stock and other work? These are the little things that make my mind wander and interfere with the pure pleasure of reading the material and enjoying it for what it is.

[Blaine]

It's your thread Blaine. I am not "peeing" on or blaming Mr. O. I cited my unabashed respect. In another example, he mentions the Remington Bronze Point 130 grain (270) many, many times in his 16 books and countless magazine articles. Then I found one off-the-cuff quote where in response to his favorite bullet he replies "The Nosler 130 grain". After reading about the Bronze Point and mentions of quick expanding bullets so many times, that caught me off guard. There is mention of the Winchester 70 Lightweight as "just right", "shooter-friendly" and even "perfect". But his was re-stocked and worked by Al Biesen. So is the Win 70 Lightweight as described or is it only that way after a new stock and other work? These are the little things that make my mind wander and interfere with the pure pleasure of reading the material and enjoying it for what it is.

Being "my" thread does not give it accuracy above and beyond known facts..... Do you not believe that most factory rifles are a starting place, and that for a true fit they have to be cut on a bit? The only rifles that fit me perfectly are the 1894 Marlins, and the 94 Winchesters...perhaps my new Ruger scout rifle, too.....I'm short and stubby. Full sized rifles and shotguns are too long for me....

[MrMurphy]

Fixed vs variable is also about optical quality of the glass.

I've made 2-of-4 hits vs fired on target at 500m with a 3.5X Trijicon ACOG. It would have been four, but it was dusk and not quite bright enough for the tritium to be seen and too dark for the fiberoptic to work....with a green target and a black reticle. For hits on a chest-sized target that was fine by me. Also the first time i'd shot that rifle.

I've seen 3-9X variables of crappy quality that would have to be on 7X to even try that shot. Bad glass.

Something like a Zeiss 4X would likely suit for almost all shooting under 500-600 for a lot of people, because it's excellent glass quality with all the various low-light coatings, etc.

[7.62 Precision]

Match the optic to the rifle, caliber, purpose, and your preference. Then learn to use it correctly. Optics have changed drastically through their history.

If we look at sniping:
Remember that 1.5 to 4 power scopes were once considered ideal for sniping, with 4x considered to high by many.
External adjustments were once preferred, since the first internal adjustments were considered too fragile.
I can remember when variable-powered scopes were considered too fragile and too complicated for sniping. Fixed 10x was the standard.
Mildots were the way to go. Stadia lines were not cool.
When I bought an IOR (Valdada) scope and took it to combat, ALL the other snipers I knew or spoke to derided me for having a first focal plane scope.

Now, FFP variable-power optics with stadia line reticles have become the ideal standard for sniping.

So we must consider that the ideal optic for our purpose may change with technology, and the common wisdom of the past may not always apply to modern technology.

Some things to think about in choosing optics:

If I am hunting with a variable power scope, just as when I carried one in combat, it is dialed down to the lowest setting. The time available to engage a target is usually directly proportionate to the distance to the target. Close targets need to be engaged quickly, distant targets allow more time for engaging.

Most people buy too much magnification for their purpose. (Levergun guys tend not to fall into this category.) I would rather have a 2.5-10x optic than a 6-18x optic for most purposes.

Most people spend too little on their optics. They see them as an accessory instead of part of the weapon system.

Others spend more on their optics than necessary. I may like certain high-end optics, but when I can buy a Leupold or an IOR for a bit over half the price, and I cannot, with my eye, tell the difference in clarity and lens quality between the two, it is hard for me to justify the extra expense. We have to weigh whether the small increase in the quality is enough of an advantage to be worth the huge increase in cost.

Marketing sells optics. Optics are now designed toward marketing features, not use. A hunting scope should have certain features. A tactical scope should have certain features. A competition scope should have certain features. IN any of these cases, the "better" features are often detrimental to the purpose. For hunting or sniping, I don't want 1/16 MOA clicks. I don't want 1/8 or 1/4 MOA clicks. I don't need spectacularly cluttered reticles. I don't need a 56mm objective on a 1" tube.

Did you know that a certain size tube can only transmit a certain amount of light? A 30mm tube really does not gain much advantage from an objective lens over around 45 mm. A 40 mm objective lens on a 1" tube is almost overkill. So why can I get a 1" tubes with massively huge objectives? Marketing.

Look at IOR's optics. They have lead the way in all scope innovation in the last decade or more. Every major recent improvement in scope design has been pushed by IOR. Look at the objective lens to tube ratio - as they build larger objective lenses, they build larger tubes.

[Old Savage]

Only a few moments here but I have read a lot of Jack and the 30-06 and the 270 were both big favorites of his with one 30-06 in particular being a big favorite.

[Rusty]

A lot has to do with the quality of the optics. A few weeks ago I was listening to the guntalk radio show when the host, Tom Gresham had a guest from opticsplanet.com. The combined opinion was that by the time you get to the $500 level in scope purchases you have obtained about 85% of the available quality and features available. Above that level there are small advantages, but they are very small.