What scope would you put on my .270?
- Thread starter megastink
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
Zeiss MC Conquest Rifle Scope 4.5-14x 50mm Side Focus Target Turrets
Here's your perfect scope for your .270 for hunting. They'll be back in stock on the 24th, and you can go ahead and order it and wait for it to come in. When it comes in, Midway will ship it out to you. That's a great company to deal with, if you've never shopped with them before. As far as online retailers go, that's about the best company I've ever dealt with. And thteir UPS ground shipping is fast as hell. On average it takes 2.5 business days (3 tops) for them to ship things from their location in Earth City, MO to me in Alabama...
Here's your perfect scope for your .270 for hunting. They'll be back in stock on the 24th, and you can go ahead and order it and wait for it to come in. When it comes in, Midway will ship it out to you. That's a great company to deal with, if you've never shopped with them before. As far as online retailers go, that's about the best company I've ever dealt with. And thteir UPS ground shipping is fast as hell. On average it takes 2.5 business days (3 tops) for them to ship things from their location in Earth City, MO to me in Alabama...
megastink
Well-Known Member
Though its a great optic, it's not perfect for me. Many if my shots are between 50-100 yards. Some of those shots are closer, and a 4.5 on the low end might make things tough to pick up at close range. I want something 2-3 power on the low end, 4.5 is too high. The 3-9x50 fits my rifle well. Not to mention the 4.5-14 is WAY out of my price range.
Do u need the 50mm objective? Im not trying to talk you out of it just wondering aloud. With your shots being close you may not need it. Plus it will save u money. Try to get to a local store at dusk to look through all your choices.
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
Didn't realize you were shooting so close....My bad.
megastink
Well-Known Member
My supplier actually has the 50mm cheaper than the 40mm Objective.
Plus, I'm wondering if why you would be against it? Besides the fact that its bigger, it will only make the picture clearer. Why NOT a 50mm?
Dr. Vette
Well-Known Member
Taller rings will be needed, and it may make it more difficult to get as good cheek weld and a repeatable mount when shouldering your rifle. There is a definite difference in shouldering a rifle with a 40mm objective vs a 50mm objective which requires taller rings. In addition it doesn't make the picture any clearer - the glass quality is still the same. The benefit is that the larger objective lens allows more light in during low light situations. So, the first or last few minutes of the day is where it may have the advantage.
The 3-9x40 is still available around $400 online, and with patience you may find it less here in the classifieds or on eBay.
megastink
Well-Known Member
Maybe I'll just buy a Weaver Grand Slam mil/mil 3-10...
CHARLIEDUECE65
Well-Known Member
Never seen where 4.5 power on the low end was too much. Must be hunting in some super thick brush! I agree with mudrunners suggestion that power range of a scope is about perfect, although a 4x16 power would be better IMO. I just recently got a semi custom 270 winchester built also. I am leaning towards getting the zeiss 4.5x14x50 with target turrets.
megastink
Well-Known Member
This isn't really a long range build, but a short range rifle CAPABLE of 400 yard shots. I just don't need anything over about 10x, and with most of my shots being sub-100 yards in brush, 3x would be better.
Sully2
Well-Known Member
3-9X-50mm objective Zeiss Conquest. Crystal clear glass and a 50mm objective for lower light viewing
CHARLIEDUECE65
Well-Known Member
I purchased the Zeiss Conquest 4.5x14x50 with hunting turrets and Z-plex reticle for my 270 Win. It's a big scope at 14 inches in length. I really like the reticle alot more compared to the Leupold Duplex. The finer lines are longer or more spaced out than the leupolds that are so close together.
I have read several posts stating the reticle was too thick at long range. Not sure why they were saying that. The inner crosshairs are pretty thin. The glass is very nice.
I ended up putting this scope on my longer, heavier barreled, 7mm Remington Magnum, due to it's size. It looks better on it than on the lighter barreled 270.
I'm now looking at the 3.5x10x50 Zeiss scope for my 270. gun)
I have read several posts stating the reticle was too thick at long range. Not sure why they were saying that. The inner crosshairs are pretty thin. The glass is very nice.
I ended up putting this scope on my longer, heavier barreled, 7mm Remington Magnum, due to it's size. It looks better on it than on the lighter barreled 270.
I'm now looking at the 3.5x10x50 Zeiss scope for my 270. gun)
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
Ah ha! I see we have created another convert and believer in the Conquest scopes. The truly are remarkable pieces of glass for their pricetags. Be sure to post pics of both one you get the other installed.
