Right fellas, I've been flying in the face of fashion and messing around with reasonable quality lower mag, smaller objective scopes for a while now. I really believe that many hunters and HFTers are missing a trick by plumping for fashionable scopes with high mag, 30mm tubes and larger objectives.
I've tried and failed with some, the Leupold MK4 3-9x36 just didn't work out for me as I couldn't surmount the horrendous PX errors that I got with it (it's working well for others though ). However, both the Leupold 3-9x33 EFR and the Weaver Tactical 3-9x40 have been an utter revelation.
The former is currently my HFT scope, the optics are damned good and DOF is unbelievable. I'm currently experimenting with the optimum PX setting after noticing some slight PX error at around 45 yards. However, I did manage a 58 ex 60 at the last NEFTA Hunter http://www.samtec.hostinguk.com/neftahunter/pub/ui/results/pontefract.aspx with it mounted on a rifle that I'm less than convinced is performing at its best.
The latter I'm using on my hunting rig. It was only meant to be a try out with a view to it being an HFT scope but it's been on the rifle for months now and I can't see that changing soon. Once upon a time I'd have steered well clear of such a small fixed P/A scope for hunting especially after a relatively poor experience with a Bushnell Elite 3200 10x40 (which, contrary to popular opinion, I found to be poor). However, the Weaver is a different beast, I just wish I could find another. Stunning optics, excellent light gathering and first focal plane reticle. It's PX'd that bit further than I'd set a HFT scope as I rarely shoot anything at eight yards when hunting. Again DOF is stunning, allowing me to shoot and see perfectly clearly from around 20 to 70 yards (not that I take shots at quarry at this range but I do like to spot occasionally).
I'm going so far down this route that I suspect I'll be trying a Burris in 3-9x32, 4-12x32 or 4.5-14x32 flavour sometime in the near future.
Another excellent point in scopes in this sort of format is affordability. Excepting the Leup MK4, they've been bought second hand and for less or barely more than good Chinese stuff. The quality is light years ahead but fashion keeps prices relatively low.

I've mentioned this before, IMO there's damned good reason why so many scopes are 3-9 or 4-12 format, not all old fashioned ideas are useless. Don't rule out 1" tubes and 40mm or smaller objectives, neither are as useless as current scope fashion would suggest.

P.S. Feel free to ignore me completely, it makes buying such scopes second hand so much easier and cheaper.

Sam

I agree with you on the HFT style of scope

I have a 4-12 mag on the S200 and would not swap it for anything else. I could fit the 8x32x60 on the S200, but it just does not fit or balance well - not worth it

just my view, I am sure others will also disagree

ATB

Phil

Funny you shoud post this Chris, I was just discussing the Burris scopes with Zed who is a convert to these scopes.
I have only just found out about the small objective range but they look very interesting.
Keep us posted on your findings..

Paul

Now about Pro Targets .................................................

non-scientific/technical thought. When I first bought my 400CRB/.22 I lacked a proper scope so I used a semi discarded Bushnell 4x32 Sportview. It was compact, reasonably light, and nixed 150+ "Sage Rats" using it. My preference would be to have a fixed power 6 power scope of great quality.

I still consider mounting it because I detest changing magnification when lining up for a shot.

Good point Chris, I'm loving your old MK4 - It's making it's way onto my Dommie soon as a HFT scope. I've had a look through some of the little Burris scopes and can seriously see me bunging one on the Elan I've picked up for Dad.

Unless I was buying a dedicated FT scope I don't think I'd want anything bigger than 10x and a 40mm objective. But I think we have similar tastes and criteria for scopes.

Ryan

I too thought the 10x40 Bushnell poor for the job with horrendous parallax error yet I know such as Paul Wilson got virtually unbeatable scores out of one. I believe much of what is "best" is down to the way it is used by the individual and the individuals individual eyesight.

I must be blind aswell then, my best scores where with the 3200!

You may simply be better at getting your head in the correct position than me. I found the crosshairs wandered all over the shop with head movement.

My head has never been in the correct position according to the wife!

Absolutely, but px error wasn't the issue I had with the Bushnell. I just didn't find the DOF or optics to be as good as many find them. They weren't a patch on my Nikko Snipers which in turn aren't a patch on the smaller front end Leup or Weaver.

Very interesting Chris, and a good read as well.

Look forward to seeing if you have any further developments!

James

James,
I'm hoping there won't be any! I hope to leave the HFT rig alone and try for a bit of stability and consistant scores. It'll help if I actually get out and shoot a bit more, for one reason or another this summer has almost been a total write off . I may try to get hold of a Burris R/A in the future but only if it's at the right price. Otherwise I'm looking at the newer Burris Timberline 4.5-14x32 with ballistic ret as a possible hunting scope.

Like this??

(ok the sunshade is a bit of a joke, but then again if I didnt buy it I would have never known )

I like it, you might not, personal preferences

that said, it is a lot better than others costing lots more, also lighter, smaller, p/a down to 7 yards and has annoying 1/8" turrets

as I have 5 Burris I think I am a convert

That's the one Zed. I don't think I could manage without mil-dots for HFT but as I use a rangefinder when hunting the ballistic ret will be ideal.

Ha ha, just noticed this, guess what rifle the Timberline is going on (when I finish fiddling )

Sam and Zed ,

I have to agree with you both .

I have found that the fashionistas are often wrong......

A quick bump because I'm not any less convinced that small objective relatively low mag is the way forward.

but do you have a good stance, and does she like it?? lol

Very impressed with the Burris signature select, It has excellent depth of field and offers excellent light gathering with its 40mm objective. I've set the px to about 23 yards. Can just detect a blur at 10y and 55Y on x10 mag. (Im gona do some SFT with it so this will be ideal). If I turn it down to 8 or 9 mag it is clear from 8 to 80 yards and I can use it to scan for rabbits in the far hedge lines. I'm sure its the quality of the glass that wins over in this case. So far I have detected hardly any px error, a little on the closer ranges is possible. Im sure having a smaller objective helps, as the timberline has less quality glass and nearly matches my signature for depth of field. But the quality of the glass must be the most important factor. If you get a chance to have a peak through the 3-10 x 50 fullfield 2, it will surprise you. It is a higher priced and build quality than the 3-9 x 40's. I had a peak though Zed's and was amazed to see it had stunning depth of field. As good in fact or very close to my 3-10 x 40 signature and of course with a big bright view. Would sit very happily on medium mounts and make a great HFT scope. ATB
Will

hey RBB.
i have a stupid question
always learning.
how can one detect px error??

is this where the cross hairs move as your head moves??? or what is it?

cheers.
glad you like your new scope.

Pretty much. Take a bead on a target, parallax the scope correctly for the distance, move your head about and see how far the reticle moves in relation to the target (it should only be fractionally before the scope shows elipses or blacks out altogether). Now move the PX adjustment as far as you can without the scope blurring and repeat. You should find that the appears to move off the target by a much greater distance

Thats the one, you won't have a problem with your big Nikko Ronnie as you will adjust the parallax error out at different ranges. I seem to notice it most at around 8- 10 yards when I have a fixed parallax at say 25 yards. If I move my head from side to side the reticle shifts a little in relation to the target. I haven't noticed it at 45 yards at all with the burris, so that is good as a little error could throw the poi right off at this range. My old MTC was poor in this respect and I could easily get 2 groups 2 inches apart at 45 yards by shifting my head a little.

very cool info guys. thank you. now i am going to go out and play with it a bit more. i have to tell you guys one thing though; i have been spot on lately after i ironed out my alignment problem. i am hitting a .20 inch bull with regularity at 25 meters sitting
unsupported with my EV. so i must be doing something right --finally. i really like my scope.

i will get back to you mates regarding your help. much appreciated
cheers

i get no detectable amount of px when properly focused at 25 meters at 50 power or 30 power.
should i keep checking at various distances and power settings??
thanks.

That's rather the point of an adjustable PX scope!
I've never knowingly encountered PX error with my FT rig. When you are PXing the scope for every shot you aren't very likely to! Problems arise, particularly in HFT, when the scope is PXd at somewhere between 20 and 30 yards. Depending on the scope, you are most likely to encounter any error at either extreme of the ranges targets are set 8 or 45 yards.