[Jeff Higgins]

Ah yes, the "German ought-six". Nifty caliber in a nifty rifle. Really kind of a handloader's caliber, though, if you want the most out of and don't want to spend more than necessary on sometimes hard to find ammo.

Your Nikon 3-9x is a great choice. I'm assuming this is meant for hunting, given the choice of rifle and caliber. That magnification range will serve well in the broadest range of field conditions, and the Nikon has a good reputation. Ya done good...

Just a couple of points in response to some of the discussion above. First, I think most guys over-scope their hunting rifles. 3-9x is absolutely as high as I would ever consider, and that only if I was planning on hunting rock chucks, or maybe prairie goats with it. 9x is unnecessary for most big game at any reasonable range, and even 3x is marginally too much in the woods. Lots of guys make the mistake of thinking seeing better equates to shooting better. Lots of guys mostly carry their rifles from the trunk of the car to the shooting bench. Lots of guys only shoot at stationary targets from well supported (bench rest) positions at known ranges with no time contraints. Hunting ain't like that. That rifle/scope combination that worked so great at the range soon becomes a burden to carry in the field, and that too-high magnification won't allow you to follow that six point bull walking through the dark timber. Way too much of this stuff gets vetted at the range these days instead of in the field. The requirements are vastly different.

The only way in which low mounted scopes are "better" has to do with stock design, not any sort of ballistic advantage. As a matter of fact, mounting a scope higher above the bore will "trick" the combintaion into having a "flatter" trajectory. So, no, it's really all about cheek weld on the comb. Funny, even in this day and age of rifles sold with no sights (and, in my opinion, there is no excuse for that on anything other than a pure varmint rifle), they are still being stocked for open sights. Sometimes even with the lowest scope, one must lift his cheek too far up on the comb to really hold the rifle properly.

And, finally, this whole occular lense debate. We have been sold on the notion that "bigger is better" because of superior light transmission. While true to an extent, we have, to a degree, seen marketing take over. The real issue is the "exit pupil" diameter provided by the scope. Once it exceeds the "input capability" of the human eye, the rest is wasted. Many, many scopes on the market today do just that.

Between that and some misidentified need for more magnification, way too many guys have burdened themselves with way too much scope to be useful in the field. Then again, I suppose many of these rifles (and their owners) never really venture into the field per se, or when they do, it's aboard a quad (at best) or in the cab of a truck. You can tell the hunters who actually get out and do it on their own hind legs by the fact that their scopes are smaller, lower powered, and lighter, their rifles are smaller and lighter, there are no silly bipods hanging off the forearm.

Oh well... Done editorializing. Nice rifle, cool caliber, good choice in a scope.