Scope for a Varmint Rifle. Suggestions?

Asking about what scope to get is like asking people what they want for lunch. Hard to get a consensus. I have five Vortex Viper Scopes that are 6x20. Why, well it keeps my from learning a new scope. A Leupold would be an excellent choice. I liked the Viper and the rest is histroy.

Leupold is what you use, and all I use, stay with what has been working for you.You cant do better than Leupold IMHO.

Get a Simmons or Nikko Sterling. If you are happy with Leupold stay with it. I think Leupold scopes are boring, boring in a very good way.

Sounds like a fine scope to me. The only thing I would opt for is a mil or moa reticle. That would allow you to really reach out and touch them. The BDC reticles are okay, but they cannot compete with a mil or moa reticle once you know your rifle's drop.

There's probably something better than what you have, but I sure can't think of it. And I like NICE scopes

When I PD hunt, I use VX-III 6.5-20 and 4-14 VX-3's. I've compared them side by side against Swarovski and Zeiss and find them just as good or better. I seldom go above 12x

Your Leupold selection is top notch. I'm reluctant to spend that much on a scope, so have opted for a Bushnell Elite 6-24X on my Kimber 84M .204. I get these scopes for 50% off MSRP, so it's a deal. I frequently crank it up to full power and while not as clear as my lower-powered Leupolds, it is adequate and I've killed 100s of prairie dogs with my .204 and a .223 with a Bushnell Elite 4-16X. I'd love to look at them thru that Leupold though. Have fun!

cdb1 said:

Get a Simmons or Nikko Sterling. If you are happy with Leupold stay with it. I think Leupold scopes are boring, boring in a very good way.

Click to expand...

BSA offers some quality varmint scopes. I typed that with a straight face.

Hard to argue with success. Sounds like you've made your choice already, and I certainly won't try to dissuade you.

entropy said:

BSA offers some quality varmint scopes. I typed that with a straight face.

Hard to argue with success. Sounds like you've made your choice already, and I certainly won't try to dissuade you.

Click to expand...

Please enlighten me about these quality BSA varmint scopes. I thought BSA was a noted maker of motorcycles from years gone by.

They're junk. The scopes, not the bikes. I don't know if the scope line is the same name or what as the bikes.

The Bushnell Elite 6500 4.5-30x50mm has been a favored P-dog blasting scope for me. Burris XTR-II 5-25x50mm, Nightforce Benchrest 8-32x56mm and NXS 5-22x56 as well...

I commend your choices on cartridges - barrel friendly, but plenty of range.

22 Hornet and the other in .221 Fireball. Both rifles wear identical scopes - Leupold VX-3 LR, 6.5-20x40
Over the years Leupold has changed their scope names several times. If you are happy with the two you have why change. I wouldn't even know what Leupold calls the equivalent now. I too like the power, 6.5-20. I also prefer the 40 mm bell as opposed to the 50 mm or larger. I like the scope as close to the rifle as I can get it and have everything work. Between 1976 and about 8 years ago I accumulated several heavy barrel varmint type rifles. Rem 700 .243 with a 4-12 Redfield, Old Sako heavy barreled .222 with a 6-20 ? Zeiss, custom Mauser single shot 22-250 with an old Weaver KT 15. I too have two Coopers. Both Montana Varminter models, one .17HMR, the other .204 Ruger. Knowing only what I have for variable power 6.5-20 x 40 would be my choice. For a knock around that I shoot the best, the Weaver 15x fixed power.

I was going to suggest a Leapold 6-18, but it looks like I dont have too.

A standard bolt action rifle in 17HMR, 17 Hornet, 22 Hornet, 223/5.56mm will do what you want and nobody in the USA makes a bad bolt action gun.

If you do not want to worry about your gun rusting all the time - pay a little more $$ for a stainless gun.

If you do not want to worry about you gun's stock getting hurt - do not buy a gun with a pretty stock! Look for a synthetic stock that can take a beating and is low maintenance. Or - you can pay a little more $$ for a laminated wood stock - these will take a beating and still look like a million bucks.

A good scope for varmints is important. That front lens - needs to be big - like 50mm. This is the lens that picks up all the light at dawn and dusk when the animals are most active and sends it to your eye. You get a cheap 32mm or 40mm and you might not see things that your buddy with a 50mm front lens can easily shoot.

TaxPhd said:

What would a mil-dot reticle do for me that the Varmint Hunter reticle won't?

Click to expand...

I've noticed that all over this forum that the majority of people are gay for Leupold. I really feel its largely dependent on how serious you want to get into shooting small targets and what distances you are shooting. So redbullitt has a point...within reason. It depends on the person. Are you going to use the reticle for range estimation. besides varmintor, and a few others, i haven't seen that many people on here that are into that kind shooting. Do you want to dope your rifle's drop per atmospherics, a particular load and traverse turrets? Do you want to use mils or moa reticle for correction?
I never learned how to use luepolds varmint reticle...so i cant really comment on it. However the way I look at it, whats better about it then a horus styled reticle? Sure the price point but you get what you pay for. What is better about using a proprietary reticle hold over than just dialing your drop? Why use 2nd focal plain if you can use first? Just different ways of doing it i guess. If you feel comfortable with the style scopes you are using, just use those, especially if your good at it
I have a different opinion on what "i" know to work for small targets at range. im a mil/mil kind of guy, just my preference, it's what i was taught, its what i stick with. I use the same for hunting, and for steel.

richard0110 said:

A good scope for varmints is important. That front lens - needs to be big - like 50mm. This is the lens that picks up all the light at dawn and dusk when the animals are most active and sends it to your eye. You get a cheap 32mm or 40mm and you might not see things that your buddy with a 50mm front lens can easily shoot.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not true.

cdb1 said:

Absolutely not true.

Click to expand...

its half true. Low light settings depend on a few things. Mostly exit pupil diameter. Which objective lens plays a part to.

Glass quality and coatings are much more important than objective size. Everything else being equal a larger objective will get you a little further in low light, a minute or two.

cdb1 said:

Glass quality and coatings are much more important than objective size. Everything else being equal a larger objective will get you a little further in low light, a minute or two.

Click to expand...

As I said it was half right. I agree that lens coating..especially that which assist with blue light spectrum is important. Which is why im am a fan of S&B glass. However exit pupil diameter is also important. In twilight, go to max magnification, then step it back to its lowest...you'll notice the difference. You're messing with exit pupil. Objective helps. Nothing wrong with a 50mm or a 42mm. Any lower, i wouldnt be as confident. Small detail to debate unless you hunt in the grey area of legal hunting times, or youre sniping dudes.

I like Leupold. I don't have any with 50MM objectives. I do have a friend with a VX-3 3.5-10x50 and VX-3 4.5-14x50. We compared his two Leupolds to a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 and a Meopta MeoPro 3.5-10x44 at 9:00 PM one night. Magnification was set at 5x. The Leupolds couldn't hang, he was shocked. We then compared his Leupolds to my VX-3 1.75-6x32. Difference was negligible.

Objective size is not as important as other factors.

cdb1 said:

I like Leupold. I don't have any with 50MM objectives. I do have a friend with a VX-3 3.5-10x50 and VX-3 4.5-14x50. We compared his two Leupolds to a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 and a Meopta MeoPro 3.5-10x44 at 9:00 PM one night. Magnification was set at 5x. The Leupolds couldn't hang, he was shocked. We then compared his Leupolds to my VX-3 1.75-6x32. Difference was negligible.

Objective size is not as important as other factors.

Click to expand...

its cause Leupold sucks in the big scheme of scopes. I know that is subjective. To the OP and the 99% of other people who just love Leopold for whatever their reasons its fine. Once we move up to comparing the Swarks, and the Schmits to the higher end Zeiss and nightforces, hell even throw the higher end vortex's in, there will be distinct differences, compared to....everything else.
Back to the objective, it only helps to let light in, so there will have to be light for a test to actually work. I'm not sure how artificial light would play into being a unwanted variable in a test like that, but natural light in low light settings is the best way to compare. Exit pupil at the end of the scope will be listed in the scope specs.... or you can do ojective diameters in millimeters ÷ magnification level = exit pupil size. Average size of lowlight pupil diameter in most humans is 7mm so you want it to be more than that for optimal light transmission. In sun light pupil diameter in people are usually 2mm. Increasing magnification usually helps from the "owch my eyes" if your not use to getting direct light in your eyes with certain scopes, but i don't think that is necessary. All things being equal, you'll be able to see targets with more mag with a bigger objective lens, also not a big deal to many, but its a fact since bigger gives a greater pupil diameter, especially for scopes that dont go below 10x.

Klint Beastwood said:

Back to the objective, it only helps to let light in, so there will have to be light for a test to actually work. I'm not sure how artificial light would play into being a unwanted variable in a test like that, but natural light in low light settings is the best way to compare.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why the test was done outside at 9:00 PM in July where there was no artificial light but still some natural light. Jeez.