Ordering CZ in .223 need a scope suggestion


PDA






makarov
June 3, 2003, 01:01 AM
I'm ordering a CZ-527 Varmint with the Kevlar stock tomorrow. Will be needing a good scope soon. The only thing I have on hand at home is a K-4 Weaver. A fine old scope but a little underpowered. Does anyone have any current best buys that they have seen on the net or in flyers? Have been to the Kalinka website and have looked around on the net. I want a target type turret scope. Not sure of the best magnification range to get. Maybe someone who shoots .223 could help me out. All my other shooting to date has been either iron sights with a 1903-A3 and Swedish Mauser or with .22LR with a 4x scope. What is the best range of scope for this caliber? The fixed 8x scope on the Kalinka web sight looks good, but is that enough magnification. The range I use has up to 600 yards available, but I don't think I will be up to that initially. Big step up from the 50 yard plinking with the CZ-452 in my backyard!

Thanks.


- Makarov

If you enjoyed reading about "Ordering CZ in .223 need a scope suggestion" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sactown
June 3, 2003, 01:28 AM
Weaver Grand Slam 6-20X40mm is a really good scope for the money. It has target turrets, but not those super tall tactical ones.

cratz2
June 3, 2003, 01:55 AM
Well, I would suggest to get the best optics you can afford but that probably goes without saying.

Do you plan on shooting you .223 out to 600 yards? Is that a reasonable expectation from the rifle? I mean, I don't know the twist rate but if it's anything less than 1:9, 600 yards may prove to be a bit frustrating. I don't usually suggest something that may have to be replaced in the future but in all honesty, if you've done most of your shooting at 50 yards or so, I'd probably suggest a higher quality lower powered scope than a moderate quality higher power scope.

I also used to think that longer distances required higher powered scopes until my buddy (benchrest competitor, best rifle shooter I know by a long shot) told me he did almost all of his shooting either with a 6x scope or a variable set to 6x. He can get itty bitty groups at very long distances. I've seen him shoot 1" - 1.5" groups at 300 yards with his .25-06 and the scope set to 6x. Not trying to talk you out of a higher powered scope or anything, but I just kinda got the feeling that you had written off anything other than a 6-24x50 scope and that really isn't needed.

If the gun is going to be used purely shooting at paper, then a variable probably isn't needed. I'd personally probably go a quality fixed 6x scope. The same buddy has one of the Leupold 6x scopes on his medium weight 25-06 (25-06 is his cartridge and has three of 'em) and with his handloads, I really wouldn't think anything within 600 yards would have much of a chance from him. They even have one with target turrets priced at about $400. I used to have a Burris Signature fixed 6x scope that came on a rifle. This was back when I thought everything should be variable. Only scope I regret selling. I think they go for about $300 nowdays.

I'm a big fan of the Weaver Grand Slam series of scopes. I have three of their 3-10x40 scopes on various rifles. At $240 a pop, I think they are the very best value of any scope, period! But no target turrets. They do offer a Tactical series (with MilDots, adjustable objectives and target turrets) but the prices go up pretty quickly. I think they start just under $500.

Probably the best price on a decent quality scope with target turrets I can think of is the Bushnell Elite 3200 10x40. Matter of fact, I had it on my 10FP in 223! Very clear but not up to the Weaver Grand Slam level of optics. I think I paid $200 including flip ups. It is on the shorter side and someone commented to me that it looked too small to be a 10x and looked kinda dinky on a heavy barrel rifle. I don't really care much about looks of scopes but it is pretty small. It's the second one back in the picture. As a point of reference, the scope in front of it is a typical 6-18x scope and the two behind it are both 6x42s. Both of the 6x42 scopes are larger than the 10x Bushnell! I could recommend the scope, but I would recommend the 3-10 Grand Slam if you were willing to not have target turrets. You can still count the clicks.

http://photos.imageevent.com/cratz2/guns//DCP_1455a.jpg

Andrew Wyatt
June 3, 2003, 02:39 AM
It's not hard to mount an ACOG 4x32 TAO1 on a CZ boltgun.


An ACOG has really, really good optics, and is bombproof.

Badger Arms
June 3, 2003, 03:11 AM
4x is fine for a hunting rifle. If you intend to do any serious target work or just plinking, a good variable that tops out at 9 or 12 power would do you fine. 6x20 scopes are passable, but I've found that I'd rather have the lower power settings available and I generally never had a need for anything larger than 12x on anything but the bench. For a target scope, 20x is great and getting a scope that topped out there would be advisable. If you intend to do much plinking, I'd seriously consider a good low-powered scope like the old standby 3x9.

Brands? Weaver is often overlooked but they have a good selection of scopes in that range. What most people will tell you is probably going to be personal opinion or preference. I've never had problems with the following brands: Weaver, Leupold, and Burris. I have had problems with Simmons, Tasco, Bushnell, Redfield, and any number of other 'toy' scopes along the way. All of my serious rifles have one of the three 'good' brands. Sure, there are other brands like Pentax, Millet, Nikon, etc. that are bound go be good but I can't speak from experience on those. I prefer mid-priced scopes and that'll taint my opinion.

Badger Arms
June 3, 2003, 03:17 AM
Forgot to add:

Burris: Good optics, good adjustment, HEAVY but solidly built. I don't like their finish.

Leupold: Excellent in all aspects. Outstanding customer service. Built fairly solid but have been know to lose zero when beaten around a good deal (4-wheeler ATV's, Snow Mobiles, Guide guns) and middling in weight.

Weaver: Optics are not quite up to the above two. Price and selection are outstanding. The posi-lock system does a bang-up (literally) job in preventing loss of zero. Lightweight and rugged scopes.

cratz2
June 3, 2003, 04:14 AM
Weaver: Optics are not quite up to the above two.

Really? You don't think the Grand Slams are even comparable to the VariX IIs or the Burris Fullfields - the two lines that are priced similarly to, though still over, the Grand Slams?

I've talked with several folks that didn't like the company, or the changes they've gone through... but the optics are rarely bashed compared to the price equivalents. :confused:

Badger Arms
June 3, 2003, 12:40 PM
To tell you the truth, I've never handled a Grand Slam so I can't say anything about their optics. As for the lower-priced ones, they are just fine for most of your work or if you are not super-picky. I'm probably not going to get any Grand Slam scopes anytime soon as the Leupolds sell the best and the Burris will sell whenever a Leupold doesn't. For my personal rifles, I'm set for another 5 years or so.

cratz2
June 3, 2003, 05:49 PM
Ahhh... I see. In my opinion, while the lower Weavers are decent, the Grand Slams are far and away superior to the V10s and Classics. While I'm sure Leupold isn't losing sleep over the Grand Slams, two major retailers have suggested that the Weavers cut into the Leupold VariX II and III sales and that Leupold reps have noticed.

And one local shop that typically has very good prices on guns and most accessories charges about $100 more for the Grand Slams than they cost from SWFA or BearBasin because, while some folks just automatically get a Leupold, folks that compare are very impressed by the Grand Slams.

Well, good luck makarov. Let us know what you get and how you like it.

ed dixon
June 4, 2003, 11:58 AM
I'm wondering if there's something to the fact that Cabela's seems to have a nice selection of scopes, but no Weavers, added to the fact that the two big gunstores around me both stock several dozen different scopes but have to special order the Weaver Grand Slam. With all the good buzz the Weavers get here, I was surprised by this. Conspiracy or neglect?

cratz2
June 4, 2003, 08:11 PM
Like I said... many folks are glad to pay for a Leupold VariX III. But put a scope that looks almost just as good, from a company they know right next to it for half the price... well... you might find yourself selling a few Weavers. ;)

nextjoe
June 4, 2003, 08:27 PM
One thing to keep in mind is that the CZ is a miniature Mauser action. A big scope will look really out of place on it. *I'd* go with a compact Leupold or maybe a Burris, but I don't like huge scopes or very high magnification.

Best,
Joe

Swamp Yankee
June 4, 2003, 11:23 PM
Big fan of Nikon scopes.
Nikon Buckmasters series, excellent optics and value for the money. Exceptionally bright, the fit and finish is Nikon all the way.
For more money there is the Nikon Monarch series. Optics in these rivals scopes costing far more.
Take Care

makarov
June 5, 2003, 12:20 AM
Thanks for all the great suggestions. I am on a pretty limited budget for right now. I ordered the gun today. $600. Right now I am leaning towards either a fixed power scope from Kalinka, either a 6x40 or 8x52. Not sure about an objectiive that large. Will require tall rings. Have also seen some good deals on Bushnell Scopechiefs and some Simmons and Tasco Target scopes. Maximum range that I will be shooting is probably going to be 500 yards. If anyone spots a great deal on any of the internet sites let us know. The Kalinka's are under $100, but not sure about the wait time on them. Have heard the optics are very nice, but the exteriors are a little funky. I don't care, I like Maks and CZ-52's so they might be just fine.

cratz2
June 5, 2003, 07:01 AM
I certainly won't bad mouth the Monarchs... I've had a couple and they were both pretty much faultless. But the two Buckmasters, I've handled, the power ring was next to impossible to turn. Both were the 3-9s. One was on a BAR in 300 Win Mag and the knurling was literally imprinted on my fingers just getting it turned from 9x to 8x... And I wanted to go to 3x! The other wasn't quite as bad, but still bad enough that I noticed and commented on it. Maybe they're not all like that but it makes one wonder... if there is that much variation in the difficulty in turning the power rings, how much variation is there in the lens placement? Plus the optics seemed far below the Monarchs. I'd put the Monarch's optics on par or even ahead of the VariX IIIs and just about even with the Zeiss Conquest. But the BuckMarks I think are definately below the newer VariX IIs and even or maybe below that of the VariX Is. I can't see paying the same amount for a similar optics from a company of less than stellar customer service with a power ring so hard to turn I have to wear gloves! But that's just me.

I've played with a couple of the ProStaffs (in the store, not on a gun) and they seemed almost as good optically as the BuckMasters. Actually the 2-7 shotgun scope would probably work out great on a 30-30 or 35 Remington.

Just my opinion.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ordering CZ in .223 need a scope suggestion" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!