Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins
I don't think there is any facet of rifle shooting that is generally more misunderstood than the scope sight. I firmly believe that most shooters today have lost sight of its primary function - it is an aiming device. Most folks today seem to treat them as a viewing device. There is a world of difference in philosophy and function.
The manifestation of this misunderstanding is found in the ever increasing magnification many feel is necessary in their scope sights. In other words, most rifles today are vastly "over-scoped", carrying far more glass than necessary. This works well enough at the range, where the rifle is fired from a rest with all the time in the world to find the target in the scope, line it up, and fire. In the field, however, the reduced field of view necessary in a high magnification scope can be a real liability. It can be damn hard to actually find the target in the scope.
The "optical triangle" is familiar to most riflemen. Essentially, is consists of magnification, field of view, and eye relief. Any increase in one leg of the triangle necessitates a decrease in one, or both, of the others. Since eye relief on standard rifle scopes must fall within a finite range due to mounting and safety considerations (avoiding "scope eye" wherein harder kicking rifles drill the scope into one's brow), we are left with two variables that can be changed that impact one another. Magnification and field of view. More of one means less of the other.
You have probably guessed by now that I'm an advocate of lower power scopes. In addition to providing a greater field of view, they tend to be smaller and lighter than the higher powered models. They add less weight and bulk to the rifle. They upset the balance point of the rifle far less. They are simply less obtrusive. They are secondary to the rifle, serving only to aim said rifle.
With the larger, more powerful scopes, I'm always left with the impression that the rifle serves as a pretty big, awkward, heavy handle with which to carry around a nice piece of optical viewing equipment. The scope takes over from the rifle. Folks are easily fooled by these nice pieces of optical equipment, assuming because they can see better, they can shoot better. Well, I'm here to tell you, that just ain't so.
Anyway, more to the point, I don't think you can go wrong with a fixed 4x on any .22. The Mini-14 should be happy with a variable 2x-7x, 3x-9x, or at the most a 4x-12x. Look for one advertised as a "compact"; the Mini-14 is a very small rifle. A big scope will really be awkward on one.
I'm a Leupold man through and through. They are on the spendy end, but their quality and warranty are second to none. They are truly a "lifetime" purchase; in anything ever goes wrong, they fix or replace it no questions asked, with no hassles whatsoever. If they are a little more than you would like to spend, my choice in a "budget" scope is Weaver. I've had Tasco, Bushnell, and other scopes in that price range, and have been most impressed with the Weavers. They are a great value for the money.
|