Need imput on a scope


PDA






dragongoddess
October 5, 2006, 11:25 AM
I need info on how to properly choose a scope for the following rifle. What scope would you suggest. Another factor to consider is I no longer have 20/20 vision.

Firearm in question is:
BAR Safari BOSS in 300 Win Mag.

If you enjoyed reading about "Need imput on a scope" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
NailGun
October 5, 2006, 05:29 PM
Sightron II 4.5 x 14 x 42. ~$400.00
Weaver Grand Slam 4.5 x 14 x 40 ~$380.00
Zeiss Conquest 4.5 x 14 x 44 ~$680.00
Meopta Meostar R1 30mm 4 x 12 x 40 ~$640.00
Nikon Monarch 4 x 12 x 40 ~$380.00
All Good scopes. They should all perform well with a .300 Mag. on big game.
(edit) Try to find a shop that has as many of them as possible so you can do a side by side comparison. I like to test them by reading price tags from across the store. If I can clearly read a price tag at 80 to 100 yards, in a large store, the resolution of the scope is good enough for me. Seems different for each person though...seems my wife "sees" things a little different when she looks through a scope. (end edit)
Compare....decide....good luck and happy shooting. NailGun

45crittergitter
October 8, 2006, 01:46 AM
Depends on how much you want to spend. Personally, if this were my important hunting rifle, I'd use a Leupold VX III. I prefer the 2.5-8x version, but pick your own. I don't recommend anything over about 10x or 40 mm for typical big game hunting, with the exception of the VX-L, which is pretty pricey.

dragongoddess
October 8, 2006, 08:51 AM
Are there any problems with the Nikons vs. the Leupold"s. These are the 2 brands I'm considering.

ocabj
October 8, 2006, 10:02 AM
Sightron II 4.5 x 14 x 42. ~$400.00
Weaver Grand Slam 4.5 x 14 x 40 ~$380.00
Zeiss Conquest 4.5 x 14 x 44 ~$680.00
Meopta Meostar R1 30mm 4 x 12 x 40 ~$640.00
Nikon Monarch 4 x 12 x 40 ~$380.00

The Weaver Grand Slam is one of the best scopes in the sub $500 range.

Sightron makes good glass. I had one of their mildot scopes that wouldn't hold repeatability, so I emailed them and they told me to send it to them and they sent me a new one. Problem solved. Great customer service.

No experience with the other three, but Zeiss is Zeiss. Big name. Big reputation.

Leupolds are great, but if you get anything less than the VXIII series, you should probably look at alternative scopes since there are lots of scopes that rival the VXI and VXII series for the same price with better performance.

Jackal
October 8, 2006, 11:56 AM
Nikon makes wonderful scopes. I own them exclusively(exception is 1 Pentax) after trying many Leupold that just couldn't cut it. As for power range, depending on the range your shots will be at, If they are under 250 yards I would use something in the 2-7x20 range. Not only would it look right on your rifle, but really, how often would you use 14x magnification on a hunt? That's like mounting a spotting scope to your big game rifle.

dragongoddess
October 8, 2006, 03:17 PM
Unsure what range I would be taking game at. I've never been hunting before. Do the scopes on the market do as well during the day as they would on overcast days, during those early morning hours or at dusk.

.41Dave
October 11, 2006, 05:05 AM
Jackal is spot on re: magnification. It seems to me many people are "overscoped". That is, they have much more magnification than they need. Unless you are hunting in beanfields or on the open plains (and even for the majority of those shots) a good 3-9x40 scope will cover all your bases, and be significantly cheaper than a comparable scope with higher magnification. Higher magnification decreases your field of view, and can cause you to miss closer shots when you can't find the animal in your scope.

I don't know what your budget is, but I highly recommend the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. You can get one for about $400. The optical quality of the Conquest is superb, and it's performance in low light is superior to any other scope in it's class. You would have to spend $300 more to find a scope with better glass. They also have an excellent lifetime transferable warranty. I have one on my deer rifle.

If you are on a more limited budget, the 2-7x35 or 3-9x40 Burris Fullfield II is about the best bang for the buck available IMHO. You can get one for about $150-$175 if you shop around. It's what I eventually decided to put on my daughter's first deer rifle. I wanted a very good quality scope that would allow her to enjoy hunting, but would not cost me a fortune in case she decided hunting wasn't really for her.

If price is not a concern, then you can't go wrong spending about $1000 on any of the high end scopes from Swarovski, Zeiss, Kahles, Etc. Optics is one of those items where by and large you get what you pay for.

CB900F
October 13, 2006, 02:25 AM
D-G;

I agree that unless you're considering taking game at extended ranges, over 400 yards, you don't need more than 10X magnification. Resolution also trumps magnification any day in my book. I'd rather have an extremely clear view of a target be a little smaller than a blurred larger view.

That being said, the two clearest scopes I've got are a Nikon Monarch 3.3-10X A/O mildot on a varmint .22lr, and a Zeis Conquest 3.5-10X mil-dot on a centerfire big game gun. I like mil-dots a lot & use them, particularly with the .22. They do cost more money & aren't at all necessary for what I percieve to be your purpose. Mil-dots don't make the glass clearer, its just a reticle I find very useful.

I also have a Weaver Grand Slam 3.5-10X that's a good scope on another centerfire. It's certainly good glass for the money & I'm satisfied with it & the value. But, it's not the scope that either the Nikon or particularly the Zeiss is.

900F

If you enjoyed reading about "Need imput on a scope" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!