3-16x42 too much scope for a .30-06?

[kenl]

I have a basically stock Remington 700 adl chambered in .30-06. Its only upgrade is a triggertech trigger. It's always had a 3-9 scope on it, and I have been relatively pleased with the setup. When things go right this is a 1.25 - 1.0 moa rifle. It weighs about 8 3/4 lbs as it sits.

But things have changed. The scope is going back to the factory for some work, and I'm looking at some out of state hunting where longer range shots are common.

I have on hand a sightron s-tac 3-16x42. It is a bit more than the basic 3-9 that was on the 700. Very nice glass, adjustable parallax, second plane moa reticle. But one issue is it weighs 1/4 lbs more than the scope it's replacing.

Is this too much scope, or just about right for what I'm looking to do?

Thanks for the input.

[Preston-CLB]

Mount it, sight in and choot it! That extra 4 oz isn't going to make much difference, imho. The higher top end magnification will be a boon at longer ranges.
-P

[Garand Hunter]

Use it !

Psalm 1

[CartridgeCalls]

Should be a great scope with that caliber

[kenl]

Thanks!

[God Bless America]

With a 42mm obj., the image won't be too awesome at 16x, but will be fine at 9x or 10x or so.

Still no worse than what you had for hunting, but better at the range.

[Cowboy T]

Depending on the game animal and your marksmanship, a .30-06 can be effective against a game animal out to 1,000 yards.

If your 3-9 riflescope has a 40mm objective--the most common scenario--then you should have plenty of exit pupil with that scope, even at 9x. It depends on just how far you will be shooting. What sort of distance do you mean when you say, "longer range shots are common"?

[GW]

That's not too much magnification for a 30-06. Whether 4 oz is too much extra weight or messes up the feel/balance of the rifle is purely up to you.

[kenl]

Originally Posted by Cowboy T

Depending on the game animal and your marksmanship, a .30-06 can be effective against a game animal out to 1,000 yards.

If your 3-9 riflescope has a 40mm objective--the most common scenario--then you should have plenty of exit pupil with that scope, even at 9x. It depends on just how far you will be shooting. What sort of distance do you mean when you say, "longer range shots are common"?

Sorry about being vague about the hunting spot, it's because we're looking at elk hunting in several places in Montana, Idaho, Colorado, etc. My friends and internet gurus say that 600 yard shots are common. After a lot of practice, 600 is about my max.

I've successfully have taken game at 300+ yards with a 3-9x40 with no issues.

Generally I like the 3-9x40 format. Light and with decent power, it's worked for me for awhile now, and 3 rifles wear them. This change in scope is partly fueled by needing to send one out for repair, and having the 3-16 just sitting on the shelf, looking for a home. BTW image quality doesn't seem to drop off at 16x, at least to my untrained eye.

Thinking about it the extra weigh shouldn't matter that much for what I do. The 700 will never be a light weight, even if I use iron sights. I'd take the .243 savage axis with a vx2 3-9x40 scope mounted (7lbs fully kitted out) if it did. And no, the .243 wouldn't be used for elk.

Again, thank you for all of the thoughts and answers.

[God Bless America]

Originally Posted by kenl

BTW image quality doesn't seem to drop off at 16x, at least to my untrained eye.

It will matter when the light is an issue. 42/16 = 2.6mm exit pupil, that's on the small size. In bright sunlight at the range, no problem. Dawn, dusk, or in shadows, might be a problem. If it is, just back off the magnification until it isn't. 9x is enough. People used to be impressed with fixed 6x.

Good luck with the hunt and keep us posted!

[Cowboy T]

If you're hunting out to about 600 yards, then believe me, a 3-9x40 is quite sufficient. Remember that Gunny Hathcock used a fixed 10x to nail Viet Cong soldiers at longer distances than that, sometimes much longer.