At the risk of being repetitive...

3-9x40. There are reasons they're so popular.
Good prices lately on Bushnell 3500 Elites. Still made in Japan, AFAIK.

Also, a 2-7x33 will give you enough magnification at 200 yards in a slightly smaller and lighter package.

There is no logical reason for limiting your scope budget to less than what you paid for the rifle. At the distances you're taking about the difference between a scope that is merely serviceable and a high quality one will become apparent.

At 50 to 100 yards, probably not.

Just a thought.

Understood. Scopes are one of those things where there really is no upper limit to what you can spend. I've spent less on a car than what some scopes go for.

Nikon is a good serviceable brand. Bushnell is another. I think either one will do fine. A red dot will just be a waste of money.

There is no reason to think the price of the scope should have anything to do with the price of the rifle.
You get the rifle you need, or want, and the scope you need, or want. Walnut and blue might cost twice as much as matte and synthetic, for the same rifle. The same scope will work equally well on either one.
A Bushnell Elite that costs less than $200 is a better scope than anything that was available for $400 20 years ago.
Considering your short-range requirements, a 2-7 might be the way to go. Stick with something like the Elite, or a Burris, Leupold VX-1, Nikon, or a Vortex Diamondback, and you won't go wrong. None of them is garbage.

A few value for money propositions for consideration:

https://www.natchezss.com/nikon-ref...riflescope-nikoplex-reticle-matte-360846.html

https://www.natchezss.com/leupold-vx-1-rifle-scope-3-9x40mm-duplex-34-6-14-6-4-2-3-7-gloss.html

https://www.natchezss.com/nikon-refurbished-3-9x40-buckmasters-reiflescope-bdc-reticle-matte.html

There are plenty of decent 3-9x by 40mm scopes out there for cheap. For an occasional use 200yd gun they are perfectly adequate. My first hunting rifle back in the day was a $239.00 Remington 700ADL (.270 Winchester) from Kmart with a $29 Bushnell 4x scope. I used it on deer, elk, coyotes and marmots out to 300yds with zero problems over the years.

Use proper torque and Lock-tite on your rings and bases.

Your reply certainly didn't seem flippant to me at all. I've just heard people express an unwillingness to pay more for a scope than the rifle it's on, which simply never made any sense to me. All equipment has its limitations, but I would never want to limit a rifle's accuracy with inferior optics. If anything, it probably should be the other way around.

I don't think you can go wrong with any of the scopes mentioned in this thread. None of them are garbage at all. I understand budgetary limitations and it's certainly wise to decide what that should be, otherwise the sky's the limit.

Most of the Savage Axis I have looked at come with either a Nikon or Bushnell scope. Not a top line scope but serviceable. You might want to check on that.

Leupold VX1 3-9x40. Its what I have on my Ruger American in .243 and I've never regretted it. Great glass for around $200. I'd also recommend similar priced Nikons, or a Redfield Revolution.

-Jeff

The Burris FF-II in 3-9X40 is my go to recommendation for a good quality scope at the best price. The Redfield Revolution is another good choice, both are right at $200. I wouldn't touch anything cheaper. The Leupold VX-1 is there too, but it costs just a bit more and isn't really any better. If you want to move up to a $300-$350 scope the Leupold VX-2 is the value leader at that price point.

I love the Nikon scopes, and you should be able to get one right in your price range.

as a matter of fact, that's a Nikon (Prostaff 3-9x50), on a .308 Savage (12BVSS), in my avatar pic.

Bartojc said:

Leupold VX1 3-9x40.

Click to expand...

Second the Leupold. Great glass, and a forever no-questions-asked warranty.

jmr40 said:

The Burris FF-II in 3-9X40 is my go to recommendation for a good quality scope at the best price. The Redfield Revolution is another good choice, both are right at $200. I wouldn't touch anything cheaper. The Leupold VX-1 is there too, but it costs just a bit more and isn't really any better. If you want to move up to a $300-$350 scope the Leupold VX-2 is the value leader at that price point.

Click to expand...

Go to the Cabela's near you and look through some scopes. The Burris Fullfield II along with the Minox ZV are my favorite scopes by far for under $200.00. Cabela's carries the 3-9x40 Fullfield in store, the 2-7x35 model is only sold online by them. The Minox is sold through Camera Land and is $99.99 to your door. I believe the glass to be on par with a VX-2. You can call Camera Land and ask about their return policy. There's a good chance they will let you return it if you don't like it and haven't mounted it. Ask for Doug- the owner and if he isn't available ask for Neil, Doug's assistant. While you are at Cabela's look at a Diamondback, Prostaff, Buckmaster, Redfield, Elite 3500 and VX-1, one of them will speak to you. If Camera Land will allow you to return it I'd try the Minox, they are unbelievable.

If you are willing to drive to the Fort Worth store I'll meet you and look at scopes with you. It's twice the size of the Dallas store anyway.

The Nikons with the BDC reticle are pretty decent and not very expensive. Or check your local pawn shop for a used Leupold, which might fit into your price range.

v35 said:

There is no logical reason for limiting your scope budget to less than what you paid for the rifle.

Click to expand...

hdwhit said:

Yes there is; the size of my bank balance

Click to expand...

Kind of a non-sequitur there, as one could counter - in a case where someone can't pay as much on the optic as they did on the rifle - if the size of your bank account is the issue, then you paid too much for the rifle, and you might remain to be paying too little for appropriate glass.

The optic is for the shooter, not the rifle, and the demands for the optic are determined by the application in which the shooter is employing the rifle rig. If your application isn't important and as such, dictates the appropriate budget for both is "as cheap as it gets," then a $50 scope on a $200 rifle makes sense. Alternatively, if the application dictates moderate precision at extreme long range, a guy might find it appropriate to put a $2,000 optic on top of a $1,000 rifle. A small game plinker wanting to kill bunnies out to 100yrds will be well served with a $200 22LR rifle, but would likely be well served by a $300 optic, to match in terms of quality. A big game hunter wanting to kill deer at 100yrds or less is well served by a $400 rifle, but could live happily with a $200 optic - the target is much, much larger for the big game hunter than it is for the bunny hunter, so his demand for optic quality is lower.

The pricing scales for rifles and optics are not linear for quality, nor are they similar in dimension. The rule to spend as much on the optic as the rifle is completely arbitrary.

Be willing to spend what it costs to purchase the appropriate optic AND appropriate rifle for your application. Don't waste time comparing the bill for the two.

Many people have good luck with used guns. I own a few simply because they aren't made anymore such as my Detective Special. I try to buy new if I can though since there is a safety net if the firearm has issues - i.e. a warranty.

hdwit said:

$289 for a new rifle is too much?

Click to expand...

.

Good point.