Final points on scope selection

[Andrew Leigh]

Hi

Having decided on the CZ 550 Lux .30-06, I have been looking through old posts and internet articles, have conversed with Dick and have come up with what I think I will be buying. It is the same scope effectively in different variants;

a.) Leupold VX-3 3 - 9X 42 or 50mm
b.) Leupold VX-3 4.5 - 14X 42 or 50mm.

I have also been told that one must check the 550 as the Mauser action is long and some scopes may not fit.

1. I have been advised to go for a fixed scope as they are more reliable of 6X. I felt that a variable power scope would allow me, as an unseasoned shooter, to find the magnification that I am most comfortable with. Have looked through the Leupold 4.5 - 14 and really like that, looked through a Lynx 3 - 9 and felt that I really liked the additional headroom of 14X.

I suppose both would work equally well?

2. I have been advised to go for a 30mm tube but everything I read says the same thing. You do not get extra light through the bigger tube (the objective is the defining factor here) but what you do get is extra MOA adjustment for long range shooting. I doubt that I will ever shoot over 300m so this would appear to be of no value to me. This means that I will discount the LR version of the scope.

I am also told that the mounts are much more expensive and higher.

So I plan on the 25mm tube and mounts, anyone disagree?

3. I have been advised to go for the 50mm objective for low light conditions which I fully understand, however from what I have read the closer to the barrel one can get the scope the better.

Also the CZ550 Lux cheek piece was designed to be intermediate for both scope shooting and iron shooting. This to my mind would mean that unlike the CZ 550 American, one would want the scope to be lower rather than higher for comfortable shooting. So I am leaning strongly towards a 40mm.

Can anyone fault my logic?

4. Would like to have the original CZ mounts, any reason why I should go for any other?

5. I "smaak" the Boone and Crockett reticle but have been told by the agent that the Varmint Hunter reticle is more popular. Looked through a VX-3 4.5 to 14X 50 with the Varmint reticule and battled to see some of the lines and markers. Apparently this is the most sold reticle by Leupold? Might just go for a straight Duplex.

What is preferred for bush hunting up to say 300m.

I would love the 4.5 - 14X 50mm with the Boone and Crockett but have a feeling that I will end up with either the 4.5 - 14X 40mm or the 3 - 9X40mm fitted with a Duplex.

Appreciate any advice and comments.

[THOMAST]

Andrew,
Most of your shooting will be done during the day, so for me low light abilities of a scope is not really an issue.I avoid taking shots close to sunset - if you wound an animal you won't have time to do a follow up and next thing the follow up is postponed for the next day, leaving a wounded animal in the veld.
A 42mm objective lens is more than enough for bushveld and plains hunting. It will also allow you to mount the scope as close as possible to the action, giving you a better cheek weld on the stock of the rifle. Just make sure that you don't have the bolt handle binding up with a too low scope.
The varmint reticle is nice with its aiming off points for both distance and windage. But the reticle is very fine and some people find it a bit busy and difficult to pick up for a quick shot. I have a VX3 4,5-14x42 on my 7mm Rem Mag and its well suited for plains hunting.
If the majority of your hunting is going to be in the bushveld, have a look at the Long Range reticle- its a bit thicker than the Varmint reticle and has 2 aiming off points (dots) on the vertical below the horizontal and will do you good out to 250-300m, depending on bullet weight and velocity. I have 4-12x40(42?) Leupold with LR reticle on my 8mm rifle and its the ideal bushveld combination.
A 25mm tube is just fine.
Hope I haven't confused you more..

[Andrew Leigh]

No confusion at all, getting more clarity.

If you had to choose between the 4.5 - 12 and the 4 - 12 which would you take?

Cheers

[Andrew Leigh]

No confusion at all, getting more clarity.

If you had to choose between the 4.5 - 12 and the 4 - 12 which would you take?

Cheers

I meant the 4.5 - 14 and the 4 -12.

[THOMAST]

I don't know if they make a 4,5-14 with a LR reticle, If they do I suspect the reticle might be a bit thick on 14x magnification. Best decide for yourself by comparing them.
I had the 4-12 on my 7mm RM for a while and dropped a Gemsbok with it at 250m no problem (using the aiming off points), so that scope would be my first choice for bushveld. That's why it now resides on my 8mm rifle, because the 7mm is better suited for longer distances.Thicker reticle should enable you to place the shot quickly and accurately in denser wooded areas.
If you look at most of the german scopes you will notice the reticles are thicker to contrast better against darker backgrounds. Most of their hunting is done in forests.

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:11 ----------


Added:
I see the LR reticle is discontinued, look at the Boone & Crocket reticle

[Andrew Leigh]

Your 4 - 12, is that the "Rifleman Scope" ?

[THOMAST]

No, it's a Vari X1, about4 years old. Didn't say anything about a "Rifleman Scope"
But it looks just like it
Only drawback for me are the friction adjustments on the turrets, I prefer the click settings on my other scopes. But once you have zeroed the scope, you don't mess with it (and it stays put), unless you change your bullet weight or propellant charge(if you reload)

[308FN]

Hi Andrew, I have a 4 x 42 scope on my 308 and i'm comfortable shooting it at 300m I've even shot up to 500m with the 4x magnification but that wasn't so easy. i would say go for the scope you like the most. if you prefer a 4-12 x 40 it will be a good scope. most people have a 3-9 x 40 scope on their 30-06's and even fixed 6x scopes. the scopes these days are good and you wont have a problem with a Leupold VX the technology is there and you wont get better performence out of a fixed scope than a variable. as for the CZ550 mounts, i would use them if i can get them why not use the mounts made by the same company as the rifle? there are other mounts that are great as well for the CZ but make sure that if you get different mounts to see if they fit properly in the rear. some mounts do not fit properly in the rear and that allows it to move when you fire so the impact point changes with every shot (this is mostly wit cheap and sub standard mounts) and rather go for the smaller tube diameter, the lower you can get the scope the better, if the scope is lower you get into a better position behind the rifle and you will be able to shoot better. If you hunt in the bush you rarely shoot 200m. Ive never had a shot past 150m in the bush but you will be able to shoot springbok in the Karroo if you are able to shoot 300m. remember that some salesmen will try to sell you what you don't want for instance a more expensive scope that you don't like or a type of scope they cant get sold but have to because they don't want to drop the price. i have just baught a 3-9 x 42 scope to use for my .243 that will be used exclusively on target shooting and springbok hunts and i believe it is more than enough for 300-400m shots, but that's just me....i still have good eyes.

[Buck]

Hi Andrew

The scopes you have in mind are good. I have done most of my hunting with a VX3 3.5-10x40 (25mm tube). As I said on your other thread, just be careful of thin cross-hairs for bushveld. I tried my VX3 4.5-14x40 with fine duplex in the bushveld once and found it less than ideal. Lets forget about low light conditions for now, but what about the early morning hunts when the sun is in your eyes. Also for quick target acquisition, which is the norm in the bushveld, the thicker cross-hairs just work better. If the Boone and Crockett is not too thin, go for it.

[Andrew Leigh]

Thanks guys, your comments are of great help as they represent practical field experience.