[Ullr]

I've been shopping around for a good bolt action/scope combo. Being left-handed, and of the opinion that's it's better to have one outstanding rifle than a safe full of adequate ones (unless you're equipping a batallion :p ), I've settled on the Blaser R-93 Synthetic.

Finally a gun maker who doesn't penalize you for being a lefty! I was handling one in a local gunshop the other day, and smiling and nodding through the guys pitch. I do nearly all of my research on the Internet beforehand, so he wasn't telling me anything new (or particularly accurate... lots of anecdotes about his amazing 800yd shots on Georgia Whitetail).

So I've settled on the rifle, and ask to see what scopes he has in stock. Well, he's all sold out of Swarovski right now, and "that's all you'd want to put on a rifle like this" anyway. I asked about a Leupold VX-II and he nearly wet himself -- "oh no, you don't want to put a cheap scope on a rifle like this."

Since he didn't have any of the high dollar scopes in stock, I thought I'd check with you fine folks. What would I be missing by using a "cheap" Leupold? The rifle will be a "do everything" sort of piece -- .308 Win, and a variable scope -- something along the lines of a 2-7x or 1.5-6.5x compact. Shots will be confined to less than 300yd for the most part. Maybe some paper punching "way out there" but that would involve finding a range with that much grass.

Thanks for your assistance!

[cratz2]

Well, the 6x42 is an excellent overall scope. My Swarovski is clear down to about 40 yards abd bright as all heck. My favorite scope by far. Only other scope I have in that league is a Zeiss 2.5-10x52 with a 30mm tube. At 6x, the Swarovski is noticably brighter and has a 26mm tube.

Lots to recommend for a 1.5-6x scope of this caliber. Plenty of brightness and a little more versatility at the cost of added $$$, being physically longer and, in the end, less reliable. May outlast you, but I just can't see how a variable can be as reliable as a fixed power of equal quality.

Between the Kahles, Zeiss, Swarovski and Schmidt & Bender, you're sure to be pleased. If you haven't already, look on www.samplelist.com to see what deals they have on slightly used high-end optics.

If I were going to have a two rifle battery on a reasonably limitless budget, for the sort of shooting and hunting I expect to do in the next 50 years, I'd probably have a one lighter rifle in 257 Roberts, 25-06 or 6.5x55 with a 6x and a medium weight 270 Winchester or 7mm Remington Magnum with a 2.5-10x. Can't imagine many situations that one of these wouldn't cover. Might not be ideal for taking 500 yard shots but then I guess I'm not a 500 yard shot kind of guy.

[Art Eatman]

Without worrying about brand, quality or cost, I note that I've made out just fine with a 2x7 and a 3x9x40 for over 30 years. I"ll admit that an old Weaver K2.5 seemed a bit "shy" on power, back when I was varmint hunting with my very first '06 in the dim, dark and distant past. :)

Before I bought anything, I'd get a Leupold VX III and go side-by-side with one of the named scopes.

If you hunt at first or last light, your needs for light-gathering are different from a walking hunter who's mostly out during full daylight. (I've never felt under-nourished with a 33mm or 40mm objective lens.) I admit to a bias against the weight and bulkiness of 50mm scopes.

If you hunt in thick brush or timber, or in swampy country, a fixed-power scope of even 4X can narrow the field of view to where you can't get a good sight picture on a very-near-by target. Heckuva note to have to back off from a hog to get far enough away to know where the crosshairs are! :D BTDT.

Art

[Ullr]

As always, sage advice. I'll definitely do some side-by-side comparison. Leupold has always seemed "plenty-nice" for the type of shooting I do. There's certainly some snob appeal to fine "Chermann" optics, but I'm not convinced the extra $$$ is worth it.

Thanks for the tip on the website -- I'll check that out.

I'm very interested to hear from folks who've owned some of these brands and can make comparisons. Said gun-shop "sniper" was talking about being able to resolve ticks on a deer's back (I believe that might have something to do with magnification rather than price... ;) ). Who swears by them? Who doesn't see the need?

[Bottom Gun]

Might want to take a look at the better quality Nikons as well. The two I have are every bit as good as my Leupolds and they aren't too far behind my two Zeiss scopes.
My only gripe with the Leupolds is that they don't come with lens caps and I'm not real partial to the aftermarket caps presently available.

[cheygriz]

Obviously, the Swarovski, Hensoldt, Schmidt & Bender, Ziess, Kahles, etc are the finest scopes in the world.

However, the Nikon and Leupold aren't far behind them. While I personally prefer good German/Austrian scopes, I wouldn't feel the least bit put out if all I could get were the Nikon and Leupold.

[Swamp Yankee]

I agree with all the previous comments regarding the Nikon scopes. Optically they're great, construction is good and warranty is up there with all the other companies. I believe they are an excellent value for the money.
Another scope line to consider, is the Burris Signature. This is a sleeper that doesn't get much attention but they are truly good quality scopes with a well deserved reputation for being built like a tank.
If your heart is set on a European scope, by all means go that route. You will not get stuck for sure.
Take Care

[cratz2]

Just want to suggest that before you plunk your money down, be sure to at least look through a Swarovski compared to a VariX III. If you enjoy the finer things in life, and are willing and able to pay for them, good glass is pretty dog-gone impressive. ;)

[cheygriz]

Cratz2,

I'll second that, my friend! I would also add the Hensoldt and Schmidt & Bender to that "top o' the line" list.