Scope sizes.

[TonyL]

Some sage advice on this thread! Have moved away from 30mm tubes on springers. Been impressed with the Hawke Airmax 32 and 40mm adjustable objectives, but I like an illuminated reticle so finding joy in the current Hawke Vantage range, really like the 2-7 x 32 AO IR and the 3-9 x 40 AO IR.

I think the Vantage 2-7x32 AO (IR or otherwise) will be my next scope.

[TonyL]

Bushnell Elite 6500 are great scopes, well designed and made, but not exactly light weight. Mid weight would be a better description, though at least classically proportioned.
Sidewinders pretty great too, but they are bulky/massive lump things.
I'm a fan of both on the right rifle.
30mm tubes are in fashion at present, but don't add much of anything to performance. 1" are slimmer and the old Leupolds had superb performance. They look right too on sporting lighter weight rifles too. I just say some big scopes look ridiculous and throw the balance off of lighter sportier rifles, ruin a good rifle.

Sure there is a need for a scope to be technical enough to do the job wanted, but then the same can be said of the rifle and its design. Is it me or are many modern rifles just bulked up, chunky, and for what? Its not as if big rifles give more power, just weight which might give advantages for their target orientated job.
Much of this bulk and weight is because of the "target" influence, and that precision is what matters. Few shoot standing unsupported now, when not so long ago no one would think of sitting in the cow manure to take a perfect shot. How sanitised its all become.
A lot of modern rifles are fugly and many a scope fugly to match.

For air rifle and .22 rimfire then parallax, for any magnification over about x6, is pretty important to get that crisp image at such short ranges. This does add more bulk to a scope be it the side turret or objective ring. Some designs are just more neatly done, though if you need a whopping big wheel then slim and trim isn't important as rangefinding by parallax focus is more so with x30 mag.

What is the the point of some massive all featured scope on a BSA Mucury or FWB Sport?
Again if the scope looks in proportion to the rifle, the combo looks right, then it is probably right. Having said that, that doesn't mean the scope is any good. Quality design and glass is what makes a great scope, just find one in the right proportion to the rifle, or put together a combo for the actual purpose/features wanted. Why I have more than one rifle. They all look good too

Agreed. And the scope must be able to be mounted so that it's comfortable to use without the user having to contort him, or her, self into an uncomfortable position to view properly through it.

[foby75]

I think the Vantage 2-7x32 AO (IR or otherwise) will be my next scope.

You won't go wrong there Tony, works a treat on my HW99!

[TonyL]

You won't go wrong there Tony, works a treat on my HW99!

I'll have to check the measurements as I always prefer to use a Sportsmatch one piece mount. That rules the 2-7 Airmax out for me, leading me towards the Vantage. I appreciate that using the Sportsmatch double screw two piece mounts would, most likely, be perfectly fine, but I always feel more confident and assured with the one piece version on my springers.

[robs5230]

I find smaller objective scopes, allow lower mounts, which promote good repeatable head position

Obviously, if you have an adjustable cheek piece, the height can accommodate larger objective scopes, without compromising head position

[Muskett]

Agreed. And the scope must be able to be mounted so that it's comfortable to use without the user having to contort him, or her, self into an uncomfortable position to view properly through it.

Absolutely, and in heaps.

Many modern technical rifles are fugly to accommodate the large feature rich scopes, and modern shooting positions. There is even debate on scope super high to match trajectories. The results on winners boards show where progress has been made. However, these are far too technical and take the sporting fun out when most people want an all rounder do everything rifle such as a sporting light weight rifle.

Why to have more than one combo. Heck, have one in .22 not just .177 If it looks right it probably is. Not much between a 1" tubed 4x40 or 3-9x40 or even 4.5-16 x44. Things get a whole lot bigger after that.
Same goes for mounts, how big do they need to be? Solid sure, height correct absolutely, but again match their scale to the scope, and by "looks" often works.

The rifles that are my keepers look right.

[Muskett]

Forgot to say, there are only two scope types anyone needs. One for point blank with hold over/under, and precision long range where higher mag and all the features for long range technical shooting. The former is fast, the later takes time.
Nice to have parallax and the better the glass the better the view in all lighting conditions. Dot or plex for the former, kiss, and ladder and or target turrets for the latter.
Build the combo that reflects how you want to shoot.

[Blackrider]

Owned several Bushie Elites and Legends, Simmo Pro Airs and Tasco AG's on a range of 12 ft/lb springers over the years but I seem to have settled on smaller, lighter scopes, these being: a Simmons 1.5-5x20 WTC, 3no.Simmons Expedition 1.5-6x32 WTC's, 2no. Vortex DiamondbackHP 2-8x32 and a 3-12x42.

I've sort of settled on a Low/Medium mag, 32mm Objective format mostly which suits me fine at ranges from 25 to 35 metres.
I still frequently use a Simmons Pro Air 4-12x40AO on a HW 80 .22, a combo which I've had a fair old time and I'm particularly fond of !