Best Current 4x32 scope?

[HCM]

Some fun facts about 870 and 500 shotguns.

The Remington 870 was intruded in 1950. 11 M sold in 73 years.

The Mossberg 500 was introduced in 1961. 12 M sold in 62 years.

Personally I've always had a prejudice against Mossberg shotguns. I purchased a new 870 in 1970 and still shoot it.

Numbers don't lie however. Mossberg 500 series was/is a popular shotgun. Even with QC issues, which are common these days with many firearms.

Crack, Heroin and Fentanyl are “popular.” It doesn’t make them good.

A lot of people, private security and unfortunately even some police, have shotguns, but rarely, if ever fire them.

Mossberg has long been one of the cheapest U.S. made pump shotguns, though those number include the guns made in Torreón, Coahuila, Mexico since 1988 under the “Maverick” brand as the Maverick 88.

IME the Mexican made 500s are the equal of the US made guns and many of the US “made” guns have Mexican components.

Another issue is Mossberg’s history of problematic semi shotguns. They sponsor Jerry Miculek, but the joke among tactical shotgunners is JM’s gun is the only one which runs.

[Tannhauser]

Not really many (if any) options for current production 4X scopes. I think Meopta made a run of 6X a Thule ago, but I could be wrong.

All of my lever guns or carbines wear LPVOs these days.

[TCinVA]

Seems odd.
Were these 590A1 mil spec models? 25 countries, including the US military use Mossberg shotguns. Maybe the participants in TC's class didn't know the difference in a Maverick and a 590A1.

Even if they don't, I do.

I've had very few Mavericks come to class. Which is to be expected as typically someone buying the most inexpensive shotgun they can find doesn't buy training. The Mossbergs that have had problems were all 590s, all of them of relatively recent manufacture. (A couple were literally unboxed at class)

I've had some come in and run great while others locked up so hard we had to tell them to send it back to Mossberg with an empty shell still stuck in the chamber.

[stomridertx]

For better or worse, the fixed 4x scope has been essentially replaced by LPVOs or the lower variable power hunting scopes like 2-7, 3-9, etc. The industry has figured out how to make variable scopes durable. There's no downside anymore, and you can set it at the mag you want and forget it if desired.
Bushnell has a hunting focused LPVO that is a solid alternative to Leupold, the Elite 4500 1-4X24 MULTI-X. They are assembled in South Korea, come in at a very good price, and reviews are good. I think if I was kitting up a 30-30 lever gun this would be the scope I'd go with.
https://www.bushnell.com/scopes/shop...EL1424BS3.html

[gato naranja]

For better or worse, the fixed 4x scope has been essentially replaced by LPVOs or the lower variable power hunting scopes like 2-7, 3-9, etc. The industry has figured out how to make variable scopes durable. There's no downside anymore, and you can set it at the mag you want and forget it if desired.

Truth.

Finding a genuinely compact one that still checks all the right boxes might require some fudging, though. The ocular bells on some otherwise rather trim variables can be quite large.

[okie john]

For better or worse, the fixed 4x scope has been essentially replaced by LPVOs or the lower variable power hunting scopes like 2-7, 3-9, etc. The industry has figured out how to make variable scopes durable. There's no downside anymore, and you can set it at the mag you want and forget it if desired.
Bushnell has a hunting focused LPVO that is a solid alternative to Leupold, the Elite 4500 1-4X24 MULTI-X. They are assembled in South Korea, come in at a very good price, and reviews are good. I think if I was kitting up a 30-30 lever gun this would be the scope I'd go with.

https://www.bushnell.com/scopes/shop...EL1424BS3.html

Agree with LPVOs replacing the fixed 2.5x and 4x scopes. They're versatile but a lot of them were designed with rifles like the M-4 in mind, which assume the use of high rings and a 1913 rail. On bolt guns, I've had problems with LPVOs that have a straight tube (like the one cited above) as opposed to those with objective bells that are 36-42mm in diameter.

Most of these scopes have very short tubes, which limits ring spacing. A rail fixes this but puts the scope higher than is ideal and interferes with cheek weld. Extension rings work but they limit access to the ejection port. A third option is Burris steel Tactical Bases. They’re low and they take 1913-compatible rings but they’re not available for everything.

The power ring and ocular bell on these scopes also tend to be long and they sit aft of the rear ring, which forces you to use a rail to get proper eye relief. The power ring and ocular bell also tend to be large in diameter, so they won’t clear the rail if you use low rings. None of this is a problem on an M-4 since the low bore line requires high rings anyway. But on a bolt gun, these things increase mount height, which makes the rifle top heavy and wrecks your cheek weld. One common fix is to build up the stock, which is fine for shooting prone or with a bipod but not for fast offhand shooting.

Third, most of the weight in a straight-tube LPVO is aft of the rear scope ring. That's OK if there’s weight out front (like a can) to counterbalance it, but without that, the muzzle will float on fast offhand shots.

LPVOs with a 36-42mm objective bell are far better suited to fast offhand shooting with bolt guns, especially those with a short and/or light barrels. It’s easier to mount them low and they move a lot of weight forward, which improves balance. Ideally, these would have 1” tubes and simple illuminated reticles, but very few people make anything like that.


Okie John