# Talk me out of 2x7 muzzy scope in favor of a 3x9



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

Going post crazy!
Given a reasonable range of 200-250 yards (i would say at the most), what advantage is there to a 3x9 scope on a modern in-line muzzle loader? A 2x7 scope gives you so much more field of view at low magnification which means faster target acquisition.


----------



## Buckfinder (May 23, 2009)

I think a 2-7 is perfect for a muzzy. Even a 4x will be heaven compared to 1x.


----------



## muddydogs (Oct 7, 2007)

I would think the biggest difference is the objective size. Most scopes in the 2-7 range have a 32 mm objective where a 3-9 can be had with a 40 to 50 mm objective which will help in low light conditions. Not sure I would worry about field of view as all your talking about is around 8 inches difference at 100 yards between the 2 scopes and if you can't shoulder your rifle and be looking at the animal in your scope then more practice is required.

Either scope would be just fine, I would be more concerned with scope weight and mounting height than anything. No since adding 2 pounds to my light 6.5 pound muzzy or mounting a scope that requires tall rings and then have to mess with getting a cheek weld on the stock.

I put a 3-9x40 on my muzzy which worked in the rings I had on the rifle from the 1x scope, only reason I went with the 3-9 is I put a bigger scope on my centerfire rifle and recycled the 3-9. I'm still eyeing the Vortex 2-7 or 2-8.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I have a 6-18 on an ml. Personally, I see no benefit of a 2x over a 4x. A 3-9 or 4-12 would be perfect. 6-18 is probably overkill, but it sure helps kill them.


----------



## muddydogs (Oct 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> I have a 6-18 on an ml. Personally, I see no benefit of a 2x over a 4x. A 3-9 or 4-12 would be perfect. 6-18 is probably overkill, but it sure helps kill them.


Ya just a little overkill. No reason to be packing around the extra weight of a 6-18 when a muzzy is a 200 yard rifle at best. So what happens in the dark timber when you have a 20 yard shot with 6 power?

This is where we are going to get into problems with the scope power increase. Guys are going to put these long range target scopes on there muzzys and think there 1000 yard snipers since they can see the animal so well. I've taken game shooting off hand out to 120 yards with my muzzy and 1x scope, the power increase is just a bonus for a little better accuracy and older eyes. 6-18 is just ridiculous, I was thinking my 3-9 was a little much.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I put a nikon 2-7 on my optima pro and its awesome. No reason for a 3-9x


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Watcher said:


> Given a reasonable range of 200-250 yards












Good luck with that ;-)

-DallanC


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

muddydogs said:


> Ya just a little overkill. No reason to be packing around the extra weight of a 6-18 when a muzzy is a 200 yard rifle at best. So what happens in the dark timber when you have a 20 yard shot with 6 power.


200 yards at best? Hmmm, well the deer I've shot at over 250 yards with that 6-18 on a 50 cal ML would disagree with that statement. And if I want to shoot a buck at 20 yards in the timber I will just shoot him. An ML is heavy enough I don't notice a few extra ounces. I too was "recycling" the scope. I shouldn't feel the need to justify the scope on that ML-- but it is amazing what it can do. Which is why I was against magnifying scopes on MLs- I have personally used them for ranges longer than most give them credit for.

FYI- my go to ML is a TC sidelock with open sights, shooting home poured round balls over 90gr of FFF Black.


----------



## muddydogs (Oct 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> 200 yards at best? Hmmm, well the deer I've shot at over 250 yards with that 6-18 on a 50 cal ML would disagree with that statement. And if I want to shoot a buck at 20 yards in the timber I will just shoot him. An ML is heavy enough I don't notice a few extra ounces. I too was "recycling" the scope. I shouldn't feel the need to justify the scope on that ML-- but it is amazing what it can do. Which is why I was against magnifying scopes on MLs- I have personally used them for ranges longer than most give them credit for.
> 
> FYI- my go to ML is a TC sidelock with open sights, shooting home poured round balls over 90gr of FFF Black.


Well for the general hunter 200 yards is a push as most have no idea what kind of drop there looking at. It cracks me up talking to guys that claim they shot this or that at 250 to 300 yards and when asked about hold over they look at me like I'm an idiot and claim there was none or claim 6 inches to a foot. My rifle shooting hard and fast is 24" low at 250 yards and if shooting at something over 267 yards the target would no longer be visible in the scope due to needing 30+ inches of hold over. How about guessing 44 inches of hold over at 300 yards.

So if you're making honest 250 yard shots with your muzzy I would say you probably know your ballistics or got lucky.


----------



## CROC (Sep 12, 2007)

When they used to let you shoot at the 300 yard range with ML's in Logan my bullet would hit the ground almost every time before it got to the berm. Just sayin'


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

45 cal. muzzy shooting 180 grain 40 cal. bullets in a sabot, 150 grains of powder, doing 2660 fps. for deer . almost a 220 grain 06 trajectory.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

More magnification is always better in my book. At the low end, the difference between 2x and 3x is really not much to aquire your target. The extra 2x power on the upper end can mean a bit better shot placement. So, I'm not sure of any reason to go with the lower powers? As for misjudging distance, that has nothing to do with the scope that is used, but more about KNOWING how far 100, 125, 150, 175, and 200 yards really is. That means using a range finder you trust, or putting out flags at known distances to practice knowing just how far things are. I've seen guys swear something was 400 yards, when it was less than 200. People tend to over estimate distances, I guess feeding into a machismo about making long shots. But really, few people, myself included, can accurately judge distance in hunting situations. So my thought is to get a range finder for determining distance, and get the 3-9, because the more deer in the frame, the better chance of making a good shot.


----------

