Opinions on this scope


PDA






Heck
August 29, 2009, 12:54 PM
I am thinking about this scope for Marlin 1894S in 44 mag.

http://swfa.com/Barska-125-45x26-Euro-30-Rifle-Scope-P5767.aspx

I'd rather not scope the rifle but I have astigmatism and am required to wear my glasses when shooting irons. When shooting irons on this rifle I am looking over the top of my glasses and I just can't focus clearly on the sights without them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Opinions on this scope" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Al Thompson
August 29, 2009, 01:11 PM
No clue on the brand (don't have one), but your spot on for power. I've used several 2.5 power scopes (Weaver) and been very pleased. IMHO, a cheap fixed power scope is much more durable than a cheap variable. Less moving parts. :)

MIL-DOT
August 29, 2009, 01:14 PM
Barska is pretty widely considered so much junk. Seriously,I would recommend you keep shopping. ;)

Walkalong
August 29, 2009, 01:21 PM
Yep. I am a cheap b****** who like a deal as much as anyone, and even I won't buy a Barska. Buy a good scope. You will never regret it.

And I agree 2.5 is a good choice, or a 1.5 to 4 or something similar.

Heck
August 29, 2009, 01:24 PM
I am guessing this would be a better choice

http://swfa.com/Burris-4x20-Timberline-Rifle-Scope-P10998.aspx

Tully M. Pick
August 29, 2009, 01:36 PM
I'd save a little more and get this one:

http://swfa.com/Millett-1-4x24-DMS-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P9251.aspx

I hear really good things about them. I'd definitely steer clear of the Barska, though.

Heck
August 29, 2009, 01:40 PM
I have the millet DMS on my Midlength AR. I Love the scope but would like to spend a little less and have a more traditional reticle since this will be used for hunting

Walkalong
August 29, 2009, 02:11 PM
I am gussing this would be a better choiceYes....except you will lose field of view using 4X.

jpwilly
August 29, 2009, 02:53 PM
I've had OK luck with low end scopes through the years. BUT the Baraska's I've had were all disappointing. The best low end scopes IMO are currently Centerpoint.

Heck
August 29, 2009, 02:55 PM
Yes....except you will lose field of view using 4X.
Field of view is comparable to my millet DMS at 4X and I find it adequate for the intended pursose. The stand I plan use this carbine on is relatively heavy with a max shot of 90 yards. Will probably be my go to hog set up as well.

falldowngoboom
August 29, 2009, 03:02 PM
Weaver K-4 4x38mm and don't look back!

http://swfa.com/Weaver-4x38-Classic-K-Rifle-Scope-P5054.aspx

Compared it with my cousin's 3-9x50mm Leupold VXII and it was a tad brighter in low light. Obviously apples and oranges, but his cost three times as much.

MMCSRET
August 29, 2009, 04:34 PM
I have two Barska scopes, one in 6X and One 1.5-6X. Both are 30MM and seem to be worth the money. I, also am a cheap B-----D an have had excellent service from cheap scopes; Tasco, bushnell, BSA, J.C. Penny, a few "no name" that aren't in existence any longer. When I start working with a cartridge, I start cheap and work my way up as needed. Works for me!!!!!!!!

Maverick223
August 29, 2009, 04:38 PM
I owned one (past tense...I bestowed it upon someone else), it held zero, but would change the POA by about 1MOA when the magnification was adjusted. There are worse scopes in existence, but much better as well. I would look elsewhere...perhaps a low end Bushnell or a CenterPoint would fit the bill. :)

Walkalong
August 29, 2009, 05:25 PM
Field of view is comparable to my millet DMS at 4X and I find it adequate for the intended pursose.Then you are good to go. I love the field of view on my VX-III 2.5 X 8 X 32 Leupold. AT 2.5 power I have not seen anything like it for field of view. Awesome, plus the glass is great.

It hurt my wallet to buy it, but I am so glad I did. You can't go wrong buying better glass. (I wouldn't have a VX-I or VX-II.. The Nikon Buckmaster beats them all to heck in that price range)

I, also am a cheap B-----D an have had excellent service from cheap scopes;I have a Tasco on a 39A that has served me well for over 30 years, but my point is to buy better glass, you won't regret it. Once you get used to a clear sight picture, even in overcast conditions, or looking down into a shaded area, you'll never be happy with poor glass again.

IMHO of course. ;)

jimmyraythomason
August 29, 2009, 05:37 PM
So..what is wrong with a Barska? I have a Ridgeline 3x9x40 in Mossy Oak Break-up camo($115). I haven't mounted it yet but it seems to be clear and collects plenty of light. Does it not hold zero? Does it fog up with rain or temperature change? Just WHAT makes a Barska junk?

Maverick223
August 29, 2009, 05:58 PM
Just WHAT makes a Barska junk?Read my above post...it is not complete junk, just a poor scope for the money IMO. It held zero (at one magnification level), but changed POA with the magnification. The glass was not terrible, but there is certainly beter glass at that price point as well. :)

jimmyraythomason
August 29, 2009, 06:58 PM
"Barska is pretty widely considered so much junk. Seriously,I would recommend you keep shopping." This is the statement that prompted my question. Considered junk by whom and why? Maverick223,that explains YOUR particular problem but is that a problem with EVERY Barska? I'm not defending Barska here. The one I have hasn't been tested yet so I don't have anything to go on. Anecdotal "evidence" does not prove the question but maybe there are others with similar experiences with Barska?

Maverick223
August 29, 2009, 07:04 PM
Maverick223,that explains YOUR particular problem but is that a problem with EVERY Barska?I have read about others having a similar experience, but the one I bought was enough to dissuade me from trying another...perhaps there is a good one out there somewhere, but I wouldn't chance getting it. That said, there are certainly worse optics out there...but I believe it is best to stick with a Bushnell if you are on a tight budget.

BTW your "Timberline" is Burris not a Barska...right? :)

jimmyraythomason
August 29, 2009, 07:11 PM
Won't argue against Bushnell at all. Very good scopes for the money. I also understand where a past negative experience with a particular brand will taint a product. That is why I will never own another Browning High Power. In the meantime I won't call anything "complete junk" until I try one and it falls apart in my hands.

Walkalong
August 29, 2009, 07:14 PM
Barska is a bottom of the line scope, by all measurements. If that is what a fellow wants, OK, just don't expect a lot from it.

Better to tell someone now, than have them come back and fuss cause we didn't warn them first. ;)

Maverick223
August 29, 2009, 07:16 PM
In the meantime I won't call anything "complete junk" until I try one and it falls apart in my hands.Didn't call it "complete junk"...just said that I thought there were better due to my limited experience with the one I owned...it was enough to dissuade me from making another purchase, so I don't believe that I will be trying another...they had their shot...and missed. If you're buying I'll try another. ;)

jimmyraythomason
August 29, 2009, 07:19 PM
I'm not talking about you Maverick223. I was responding to the post by Mil-Dot.

Maverick223
August 29, 2009, 07:44 PM
I'm not talking about you Maverick223. I was responding to the post by Mil-Dot.My apologies...missed that. :)

DBR
August 29, 2009, 08:02 PM
I suggest you take a look at the Weaver 1-3X. It has Japanese lenses and the two I have are noticeably sharper and brighter than the 1-4X VXI Leupolds I have.

At 1X you can use it just like a dot sight except you have the optical aid for your eye problems.

Natchez sells them for about $130.00.

Heck
August 29, 2009, 09:04 PM
I guess all this wouldn't matter if I would just learn how to shoot left handed. I have near perfect vision in that eye.

OrangePwrx9
August 29, 2009, 09:38 PM
Just when I've come to appreciate them, decent 2 to 2.75X fixed power rifle scopes with 20 mm objectives have become scarce as hen's teeth. They're all many guns need; the 1894 Marlin is a prime example. Small, light, low to the receiver and nearly as reliable as irons....perfect for a light handy levergun. They really shouldn't be expensive, there's not that much there to go wrong; and at 2.5X, the optics can't be very demanding either.

Instead we get variable power optical wonders with 32mm, 40mm and 50mm objectives and fancy pants reticules. These things dominate the gun, destroy any possibility of a low sighting line and cause mounting problems. Since they cost $300-$400, the "po-boy" fixed powers just hafta be a bargain at $200, right?

It doesn't bother me that people like the big variable power scopes. I own more than a few myself. But why do the manufacturers each offer dozens of different versions of these beasts while only a very few low/fixed power 20mm scopes are available?

Wouldn't I love to see the old steel tube Weaver K2.5 back in production. China! Are you listening??
/rant off

jimmyraythomason
August 29, 2009, 09:49 PM
I had a Bushnell Sportview 4x32 low over bore on my 1894 Marlin .44 mag. I bought it from Wal-Mart in the early '80s for $32. It never lost zero, had quick target acquisition and was "clear as a bell". I have used it to kill rabbits on the run and my brother took a very large 8 point buck with it. It seemed the perfect match for the little saddle ring carbine.

Maverick223
August 29, 2009, 09:52 PM
It doesn't bother me that people like the big variable power scopes. I own more than a few myself. But why do the manufacturers each offer dozens of different versions of these beasts while only a very few low/fixed power 20mm scopes are available?Demand. The lower magnification I can understand, but why on earth would you want a 20mm tube much less 20mm objective? :)

Maverick223
August 29, 2009, 09:55 PM
I had a Bushnell Sportview 4x32 low over bore on my 1894 Marlin .44 mag. I bought it from Wal-Mart in the early '80s for $32. It never lost zero, had quick target acquisition and was "clear as a bell".I have one as well...they are very good scopes for the money. The scope that you describe was my first "real" scope (not including air rife optics), and has (and still does) served me well. I purchased mine in the mid-90s for about the same as you paid then...also bought mine at Walmart. :)

OrangePwrx9
August 29, 2009, 10:45 PM
Maverick: "The lower magnification I can understand, but why on earth would you want a 20mm tube much less 20mm objective"

With no objective bell, a 1" tube will mount a 20mm objective. I don't want a tube any smaller than 1"; just 1" tube diameter at the objective end.

Also, with no objective bell (and just a 1" tube), the scope can be right down tight to the receiver and the sight line will be the minimum distance over the bore. Therefore the difference between POI and POA will be minimized from the muzzle on out to the sight-in range.

Beyond that, rifles like the 1894 Marlin are generally stocked so that optimum cheek weld is acheived with iron sights (fair amt. of drop, no Monte-Carlo). Therefore a scope whose sight line is very close to that of the irons will be best for quick mounting and accurate shooting.

The big objectives are brighter, but most of the time the 20mm objective at low power is plenty bright enough while being sharper than a mediocre 40mm objective. If you're shooting coyotes by moonlight, a big objective makes sense.
Bob

Maverick223
August 29, 2009, 10:55 PM
With no objective bell, a 1" tube will mount a 20mm objective.Alright, now I follow you. A 1" tube is more than enough for most hunting use...thought you were talking about one of the 0.75in. (about 19.05mm) tubes that were used on the old Weaver scopes. I prefer a little larger objective (about 32mm for 2-3x) but I can understand your logic. :)

Heck
August 30, 2009, 10:54 PM
Took a chance and ordered a Swift 1.5 X 4.5 X 20mm today.

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