# Scope Question



## Lazy 8 (May 21, 2010)

Ok. Now that I have my .243, I need a scope. the purchase of the .243 nearly broke me so I don't have a lot of money to put into a scope. Leopold's are out. Please don't even go there. Also, I don't have the patience to wait for a used one. Would the warranty even transfer to me?

I'm looking at Nikon's. I have one friend saying, go with the 3-9X40, the other says, no, with the .243, you have to at least have the 4-12X40. They're like the devil and angel on my shoulder, battling it out!

My question to you all is this, won't the 4-12 do everything the 3-9 will do and more? Short and longer shots?


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

All scopes are not built alike..lol. I'd say for right now get the one you like and can afford. The 4X12 is a great power for a scope and is a better choice for more magnification if you want that. You can listen to your friends and take recommendations off the web and forums, but at the end of the day its your money and you have to like what you have. 
Just want you to know there's a HUGE difference in quality and clarity with the higher end scopes but get what you can afford.


----------



## scallop (Apr 1, 2007)

Take a look at the offerings from Vortex. Fantastic glass, I would put them in the same category as scopes that are 2-3x as pricey.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

I've used a 3x9x40 on all my muzzle loaders and have never turned it higher than 3x for my hunting. if you plan to take longer shots and hunt open fields or big open woods you might need the 12x. but I think under normal hunting conditions the 9x will do you just fine. 

and I like the 3x power over the 4x the lower the power the better for close range focusing. I would really like 2x10x40 just for the 2x for close shots. but my budget said get a 3x9x40. but 90% of my deer have been under 50 yrds. now its really up to you and the type of hunting you plan on doing.
sherman


----------



## handloader (Jan 13, 2014)

Your answer is yes and no.....
The 3x9 will be more forgiving on both the lower and higher power in terms of "scope wink." When you get your eye slightly out of line on recoil and when mounting the rifle fast, the scope will look black, and you will have to move your head around until you get a clean line of sight through the scope. For thicker woods hunting, I have found a 4 power too much, and I have to scan the scope to find what I am trying to shoot. Nikon scopes are known to have these issues.
(I own and shoot scopes from $2700.00 US Optics, down through Nikon prostaff/Buckmark/Monarch).


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

handloader said:


> Your answer is yes and no.....
> The 3x9 will be more forgiving on both the lower and higher power in terms of "scope wink." When you get your eye slightly out of line on recoil and when mounting the rifle fast, the scope will look black, and you will have to move your head around until you get a clean line of sight through the scope. For thicker woods hunting, I have found a 4 power too much, and I have to scan the scope to find what I am trying to shoot. Nikon scopes are known to have these issues.
> (I own and shoot scopes from $2700.00 US Optics, down through Nikon prostaff/Buckmark/Monarch).


Scopewink??? You mean Eye relief?


----------



## Misdirection (Jul 16, 2012)

I think the answer depends on what you plan on using your .243 for. If it's for longer shots, especially at smaller critters, say ground hogs, coyote, etc...then I would go for the 4x12. Deer and larger, 3x9 is probably fine. Personally, I hunt with a 3x9 and usually never go higher than 4x. But as mentioned above, the higher end scopes are higher end for a reason...


----------



## skipjack11 (Apr 12, 2004)

3X9 is plenty. A 243 is versatile and a 4X12 is too much for deer hunting. I purchased a 22-250 with a 3X9 on it and it will group 1/2" to 3/4" at 100 yards all day with hand loads. I doubt I could do any better in the field with a more powerful scope. The lower power gives you a larger field of view.


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

Lazy, I have a Nikon Buckmaster for sale, its a 6-18x40 though, details in the Marketplace.


----------



## Fishingisfun (Jul 19, 2012)

I agree with previous posters your choices for scope power would be based on what you want to do with your rifle. Your caliber choice is ready for big game and good for varmints. Ground hog hunting many years back I had a 4 to 12 Weaver AO which worked well for determining if that dark spot was a grounghog or just a dark patch of earth. At 12x it gave me a clearer look for identifying a possible target than using lower power Binoculars. Pass up close groundhogs that are not a challenge to take with a centerfire rifle and a high power scope. Stationary long range targets the higher power scopes worked well for me. But at 12 power a close moving target is about impossible to find and line up. If your hunting very mobile game then you will want to be able to find the target quickly while it is moving. Unless you have determined you will only shoot when it is stopped. On another rifle for a elk hunt I found a scope that was 3 to 12 power fixed Objective. I felt it would be great for a long range shooting and at the low 3X end good for a walking target in thicker cover. It worked great on ground hogs and was ok at the lower power in thicker cover where I found the elk. A closer encounters with big mobile game will slip away if your scope is set to powerful to locate the target of find the right spot to aim. I would have a 4 to 12 AO or more for varmint hunting on stationary shots. If you are thinking you would use this rifle for closer moving bigger game I agree with Sherman buy a lower power scope and you will be glad you did. A better scope is a good investment so you have the clarity in most conditions. I did well with lower end model scopes years ago that were a good value that enabled me to have additional rifles. You could alway buy two lesser priced scopes one for when you are varmint hunting long range targets and the low power wide view scope for closer moving game. For close range I have began to favor point sights over iron sights. Sighting in a scope is not that difficult and switching it out is not out of the question for big game season. Good luck.


----------



## fireline (Jun 14, 2007)

I have had a .243 for 30 years and used it for varmint hunting only, I have a 4x12 on it and it works great for me, I leave it o 4x while walking field edges looking for ground hogs and turn it up if I see something further out. On 12x you can see a ground hog well at 250 yds. Buy the best scope that you can afford and don't be afraid of buying a quality used scope.


----------



## ODNR3723 (Apr 12, 2007)

Most of the big optic manufacturers have a lifetime transferable warranty. I always go overboard with my optics. I would buy the 12 power. Good luck and look at as many as possible.


----------



## Lazy 8 (May 21, 2010)

Once again, as with my questions about the .243, thanks everybody. You've "opened my eyes" (haha) to scopes. I went to Dicks and checked out a 3-9 and a 4-12, I see what you mean now. I can't imagine having to take a shot longer than 2-3 football fields. So the 3-9 would be adequate? Right? Prolly more like one football field or 100 yards. 
Another question. If you're out there hunting, let's say, ground hogs, and you don't have a range finder, you'd better be pretty good at judging distances?

One more, and this is some humor. One ol boy talking to another, did I ever tell you about a gun I had one time that shot so far I had to put salt in the load to keep the meat from spoiling?


----------



## Misdirection (Jul 16, 2012)

If your in the 100 yard range for your average, in my opinion a quality 3x9x40 would be fine. Longer occasional shots will just give you more practice.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

A 3x-9x is way underpowered for a .243 unless you want to limit your range with it.

Check these out:
http://muelleroptics.com/mu852550igr
http://muelleroptics.com/mapv451440

You can find the Eradicator for $225 and the APV for $130. The Eradicator is obviously going to be more specialized for long range but the APV is flexible at any range. Don't just aim minute of groundhog, pick the body part you want to hit.

I wouldn't put anything weaker on a .243 rifle because it would be like putting a restriction plate on a race car. Anyway, those are good budget scopes with a lifetime warranty. Japanese glass with German coatings and mechanisms but Chinese assembly so they are inexpensive. Use some Google-fu and check them out. I use them and they are great for the price.


----------



## Pooch (Jun 16, 2014)

Check out redfields scopes. Leupold owned.


----------



## Lazy 8 (May 21, 2010)

buckeye dan said:


> A 3x-9x is way underpowered for a .243 unless you want to limit your range with it.
> 
> Check these out:
> http://muelleroptics.com/mu852550igr
> ...





What is the longest shot you could comfortably take with a 3-9? How far could you hit a softball, 10 out of 10 times?


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Lazy 8 said:


> What is the longest shot you could comfortably take with a 3-9? How far could you hit a softball, 10 out of 10 times?


There are a lot more factors to consider than just magnification. I would need cross hair thickness and parallax figures to answer that question.

Most of your bargain basement 3x9s are going to be optimized for 100 yards. Those are usually in the $40 range. When you get into the $70ish range you'll see claims of infinite parallax beyond 100 yards or parallax free etc. They lie.

But for the purpose of answering your question we'll skip to the chase. Just about any scope that costs less than what the Mueller's do in a 3x9 is going to cover the softball (4") somewhere between the 200 and 300 yard range. The moment your crosshairs start covering the point of aim your shots will be inconsistent.

As an example, your crosshairs cover 2" of sight picture at 200 yards. Your gun shoots 1" groups at 200 yards. Your cheap scope is parallax free but in reality has a very awesome 1" of variation at 200 yards. You are aiming to the middle of 4" with 4" of error. You could miss all day and never figure it out. If you can find a scope cheaper than the Mueller in a 3x9 that actually has a 1" parallax variation at 200 yards it would be a miracle. They don't exist. In fact most of them move the crosshairs several feet at 200 yards or are blurry crap.

Now compared to the 14x scope I suggested. I can adjust the parallax to the range I am shooting at so no error incurred there. At 200 yards my crosshairs cover about 1/2 inch of target. Margin of error is 1" for the gun +.5 inches aiming to the middle of 4". All my shots are within the ball. The crosshairs still don't completely cover the ball at 350 yards but the margin for error goes up slightly.

The more powerful of the 2 scopes I suggested would effectively let you pick out the label on the ball at 350 yards. The more powerful scopes will show you what your gun is capable of. 

The Mueller scopes could easily be compared to scopes that cost 2x or 3x as much based on features alone. I am sure there are other brands out there but I don't have any experience with them. When I discovered Mueller I stopped looking. In my opinion they are about the best entry level scopes in the market.

Are they a Leupold? No but they will definitely get you by until you can afford one of those. A lot better than the 3x9 crap from Walmart that costs the same or less.

FYI, some Leupold scopes are crap too. I've encountered 3 in less than a year that had to go back for repairs. But that doesn't mean much as I am sure Zeiss and Swarovski have occasional failures too. I just don't see as many of those.


----------



## Lazy 8 (May 21, 2010)

Dang Dan, it certainly sounds like you know your scopes. As you can tell, I don't. How would your 14X do on a 50 or a 75 yd shot?


----------



## Smallmouth Crazy (Apr 4, 2006)

Ohio Valley Outdoors in Lancaster has the Nikon 4X12 Pro Staff on sale right now for $159, I bought one today for a 17 Hornet I recently got.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Lazy 8 said:


> Dang Dan, it certainly sounds like you know your scopes. As you can tell, I don't. How would your 14X do on a 50 or a 75 yd shot?


I'm in the industry so I am exposed to just about everything and before that I competed when I could find the time. Before you ask, I do not sell scopes and that includes the Mueller line. This is personal experience. You do your own research. Remember my advice was found on the internet so that's what it's worth. 

That's the beauty of an adjustable objective (aka AO). You dial it to the range you are shooting at and it's in focus for whatever magnification you use. At 50 yards with it cranked up to 14x you can probably read a newspaper. But it's a variable so I'd probably shoot @ less magnification at that range unless I am really trying to be same hole precise.

I can tell you that you don't need a spotting scope to see .22 holes at those ranges. My Mueller APV was originally on a 10/22 setup for precision rimfire and silhouette matches until it was replaced by a Leupold with a much finer crosshair. It now resides on the .50cal muzzle loader I deer hunt with. It's a bit overkill on there but I keep it dialed to 6x with AO set to 100 yards and it's perfect for my hunting conditions. Deer hunting accurate from 30 to 150 yards all day with those settings.

I would never put a 3x9 on a .243 for small game no matter what it costs. I don't just want to see the groundhog and cover it's body. I want to hit it in the head at 400 yards using more of the capability of the cartridge. But that's me.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Smallmouth Crazy said:


> Ohio Valley Outdoors in Lancaster has the Nikon 4X12 Pro Staff on sale right now for $159, I bought one today for a 17 Hornet I recently got.


That is a decent scope for the performance of that rifle. I'd put the Mueller APV up against that scope in an instant however and save $30.

Before that happened I would have a few questions about the .17 Hornet you have. I am going to assume you are aware of the issue between the Ackley chamber and the Hornady chamber and have a more recent version of the .17 Hornet since you mentioned that you recently got it. If you hand load for your rifle using you're gun's chamber specs then it's a non issue.

The Nikon Pro Staff scopes are optimized for 100 yards. The reticles are thick and beefy and usually cluttered with BDC crap that most people won't learn to utilize. They are close to useless at say 300 yards on small game where the .243 lives.

Good for your rifle assuming you've overcome all the operational issues of the .17 Hornet.


----------



## Smallmouth Crazy (Apr 4, 2006)

I bought a CZ 527 American and wasn't aware there were any issues, have read nothing but positive reviews on them.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Smallmouth Crazy said:


> I bought a CZ 527 American and wasn't aware there were any issues, have read nothing but positive reviews on them.


The .17 Hornet originated as a wildcat cartridge. There are slight differences between the original Ackley and what was put in production. It's a non issue for the CZ 527 American as it was chambered for the production specs. Disregard what I said unless you come across old Ackley brass at a gun show or something.

I did a little quick reading and decided I was over thinking it. The odds of you encountering the issue today is pretty rare. I try to stay up to speed on things but miss the mark from time to time. Carry on!

Here is some interesting reading regarding the evolution of various .17 caliber rounds. http://www.6mmbr.com/17wildcats.html


----------



## Lazy 8 (May 21, 2010)

I wouldn't put anything weaker on a .243 rifle because it would be like putting a restriction plate on a race car. Anyway, those are good budget scopes with a lifetime warranty. Japanese glass with German coatings and mechanisms but Chinese assembly so they are inexpensive. Use some Google-fu and check them out. I use them and they are great for the price.[/QUOTE]

Dan -- if I put a 3-9 on my .243, I'd basically be saying that I wouldn't be taking any shots from....600 yds out?


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Lazy 8 said:


> Dan -- if I put a 3-9 on my .243, I'd basically be saying that I wouldn't be taking any shots from....600 yds out?


No. What I said was the level of detail at point of aim will suffer at much shorter ranges. You mentioned a softball. Somewhere between 200 and 300 yards you will no longer be able to see the softball at 9x because your crosshairs will conceal the target. Targets at that range will be slightly blurred by design of the 3x9 scopes.

This matters for small game like prairie dogs and ground hogs. If you are shooting larger game it doesn't matter as much because your kill zone is greater than 4". This also matters if you are shooting for precision.

Cheap 3x9 scopes are optimized for 100 yard use. Expensive 3x9 scopes are optimized for 150 yard use. That is where they are in focus and that is their parallax free distance. That does not mean they are useless for longer ranges but the margin of error increases exponentially for every yard you add beyond their optimized limit. The difference between 150 yards and 300 yards is about 1.7 inches on finer scopes that cost a lot more than the Mueller scopes. On cheap scopes it's going to be much worse.

Not all of us are blessed with perfect form. Certain hunting scenarios will not permit perfect form. Therefore I am a stickler for eliminating parallax from the equation and shooting within the limitation of the optics.

Your rifle may be capable of golf ball sized groups at 200 yards but you won't be able to see anything but your crosshairs at 9x. The golf ball will disappear under them. Wouldn't you want to be able to zoom to a magnification that allows you to actually see the golf ball with some level of detail? Wouldn't you want to eliminate the margin of error created by parallax distortion? I know I would.

If you don't plan to shoot anything smaller than groundhog sized groups between 200-300 yards depending on the scope and have near perfect form with every shot presented, then by all means put a cheap 3x9 scope on your rifle. Do that knowing full well that the cartridge is capable of shooting much smaller targets at double the range you are limiting yourself to. I couldn't bring myself to do that knowing what I know.


----------



## Lazy 8 (May 21, 2010)

Dan, I can tell you know exactly what you're talking about. There's no doubt about it. I highly regard your opinion. One reason why is because whenever I research something online, if I can't stop and ask a stupid or simple question, things might not fall into place for me. It's just the way I'm wired. Having you and the rest of the guys here is a blessing! 
At the risk of sounding wishy/washy, now I'm looking at 4-12's and above again. You've opened my eyes. Of which I prolly should of told you are almost 60 years old. You've also opened my eyes to the size of the reticle.
Thank you my friend.


----------



## Cajunsaugeye (Apr 9, 2013)

I've got a 4-16x40AO on my .270 coyote gun.Not an expensive one either.It does just fine out to 250-300yds.Not much call for longer shots than that around here.IMO,no need for "target scopes" or ultra fine crosshairs for real world shooting unless real world includes popping dimes at 300yds.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Lazy 8 said:


> Dan, I can tell you know exactly what you're talking about. There's no doubt about it. I highly regard your opinion. One reason why is because whenever I research something online, if I can't stop and ask a stupid or simple question, things might not fall into place for me. It's just the way I'm wired. Having you and the rest of the guys here is a blessing!
> At the risk of sounding wishy/washy, now I'm looking at 4-12's and above again. You've opened my eyes. Of which I prolly should of told you are almost 60 years old. You've also opened my eyes to the size of the reticle.
> Thank you my friend.


Let me give you and everyone else shopping for a scope the best advice I know. Avoid any scope that is in a blister pack. Those are cheap scopes for cheap guns that shoot 100 yards or less.

Next, go to a place that has the scopes out of the packages and on display. You don't have to buy from that source but at least you will get hands on before you make your decision. Also look at several scopes that are out of your price range that have features you may or may not understand. Ask about those features and play with them in the store.

Finally, look at the scopes you could afford and compare them to the ones you could not. If that doesn't encourage you to keep saving your money until you can afford the better scopes then ignorance truly is bliss.

Don't just pan the scopes around the store on the stuffed animals on the wall either. Look across the store as far as you can see and pick something very small to look at. Something the size of a golf ball. 

Most production high powered rifles today are capable of of sub 1" groups at 100 yards. Many of them are capable of that at 200 yards. Certain rifles and calibers with the right ammunition are almost capable of that at 300 yards. You'll never find out if that's true with a scope from a blister pack.

@Lazy 8,
Don't skimp on your rings and bases either. You get what you pay for. Also, Blue Loctite is your friend. Send me a PM with your ph# or I will give you mine and we'll talk. When it's time to mount and sight in, I can help with that. FYI the over the counter bore sighting at the gun store almost never works. Just sayin. 

Glad to help!


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Cajunsaugeye said:


> I've got a 4-16x40AO on my .270 coyote gun.Not an expensive one either.It does just fine out to 250-300yds.Not much call for longer shots than that around here.IMO,no need for "target scopes" or ultra fine crosshairs for real world shooting unless real world includes popping dimes at 300yds.


Good advice!
That is precisely the type of scope I have been suggesting in this thread for the .243. I just happen to be familiar with the Mueller optics so that's what I suggest but I did say there are other brands that do the same thing.

You've already overcome the obstacles I discussed by having an AO and 16x magnification.


----------



## handloader (Jan 13, 2014)

Popspastime said:


> Scopewink??? You mean Eye relief?


"Scopewink" is related to the position the eye with respect to the optical axis, not the distance of the eye to the optic. A greater exit pupil size in the scope will be more forgiving.

For much of what Buckeye Dan has posted I agree, But you Do NOT need that kind of magnification for an off the shelf rifle.
We shoot 1000yards all the time with 10x scopes and keep it within one MOA (however we adjust for parallax). 
I guess the real question is what is the intended purpose of the rifle.
I also have a few Mueller scopes, and they work well, but I prefer Sightron for low end optics.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

handloader said:


> "Scopewink" is related to the position the eye with respect to the optical axis, not the distance of the eye to the optic. A greater exit pupil size in the scope will be more forgiving.
> 
> For much of what Buckeye Dan has posted I agree, But you Do NOT need that kind of magnification for an off the shelf rifle.
> We shoot 1000yards all the time with 10x scopes and keep it within one MOA (however we adjust for parallax).
> ...


The distance from the optic to see clean without objective movement is called eye relief and also in the same position you can see thru the tube without seeing the sides, In 65 years I've never heard that term. 
I agree that a better scope will be much more accurate because you can actually see the target. I also know it's hard to spend more on glass then you did on the rifle. The low end scopes have come a long way over the years and the optics have gotten much better. Like said, just get what you can afford and are happy with for what your doing.


----------



## Lazy 8 (May 21, 2010)

Dan, at the risk of sounding like a broken record....thanks again.) My problem was the 3-9 was more comfortable to my old eyes. I'm still learning and I hope you realize that. I guess my goal is an all around scope that will do close-up shots (50 TO 100 yd) as well as an occasional distant one.


----------



## Lazy 8 (May 21, 2010)

Well, I'm not sure I got the scope I needed, but I got one. Lo and behold, a co-worker had a like-new Redfield 6-18X44AO. The price was so right I couldn't say no. 
I'm fortunate in that another friend will mount it and zero it in @ 100 yds. Stay tuned. Now the true journey begins.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Now you're talkin! I can't say much about Redfield good or bad and the numbers are where I would want to be for a .243. Good job.

Now you're ready for the prairie dog towns in Montana.


----------



## Lazy 8 (May 21, 2010)

Thanks Dan. It looks nice (looking thru it) the price was right and Leupold owns them.


----------



## RJohnson442 (May 14, 2013)

6x @ 100 yards a groundhog will look like a bear! I'd say zero it a little farther out.


----------



## Misdirection (Jul 16, 2012)

RJohnson442 said:


> 6x @ 100 yards a groundhog will look like a bear! I'd say zero it a little farther out.


Agreed. I'd zero it in @ 200 yards.


----------



## Lazy 8 (May 21, 2010)

Thank you gentlemen.


----------

