Been out of the scope game for a while, recommendations?

[stillquietvoice]

I recently bought a burris dtoptine 4.5-14×42 ,dud a side by side test with my ff2 same magnification, and can see no difference in optical clarity. Both have bdc basic thin stadia lines, both work well out to 300 meters, both made in Philippines, both have forever no questions asked warranty, both under 200.00.

Both are parallax adjustable.

 

[12Bravo20]

I recently bought a burris dtoptine 4.5-14×42 ,dud a side by side test with my ff2 same magnification, and can see no difference in optical clarity. Both have bdc basic thin stadia lines, both work well out to 300 meters, both made in Philippines, both have forever no questions asked warranty, both under 200.00.

Both are parallax adjustable.

The difference between FFP and SFP is which focal plane the reticle is on. If the scopes are otherwise identical, the you should not see any difference in optic clarity.

With SFP the reticle stays the same size no matter what the magnification is. But any holdovers built into the reticle (BDC. MILDOT, etc) will only be true at 1 magnification. Most manufacturers set the reticle to be true at max magnification. So with a 4 -14 SFP scope any holdover marks in the reticle will only be correct at 14X magnification. The holdovers will be off at any other magnification.

With a FFP the reticle changes in size as you change the magnification. The reticle will be smallest at the lowest magnification level and will be largest at the maximum magnification. While the size of the reticle changes depending on the magnification, all holdovers will be correct no matter what the magnification is set at.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. You have to decide which fits your needs the best.

 

[westernrover]

If I understand correctly, your price range is significantly under $500. In such a case, I would suggest a fixed power scope. In new scopes, the Leupold FX3 6x42 is well suited to your focus on target shooting (which I read as plinking) and good for whitetail except in tight woods where you wouldn't need any scope. Buying a scope used can also bring quality optics down into affordable prices. Meopta offered a 6x42 that was somewhat recently discontinued, so they're available like-new for low prices. I've seen older Schmidt & Bender 6x42 (what they call Klassik now), and Zeiss Diavari 3-9X variable scopes, or Swarovski Habicht also in this price range. Maybe if you narrow down the magnification you'll actually use, you could look for a good scope of that design. A lot of whitetail hunting is close range, but some hunting is not at all. Paper target shooting calls for high power and the narrow field of view is acceptable, but awful for hunting. If you don't mind low power and a wide field of view for informal target shooting, it might be ideal for hunting and give you a larger exit pupil as well. I've mentioned 6x42, but 4x32 or even a LPVO might be better depending on where you hunt.

Also consider a red dot. A good clean red dot works great at 100 yards and is probably as good at the low power as LPVO's that cost three times as much. They might bust your budget though. I just saw an Aimpoint for $901. Sheesh.

 

[westernrover]

..........Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Good explanation of SFP vs FFP. Reticle tick marks will shrink and grow with a FFP reticle, keeping a 1 mil or moa mark 1 mil or moa. With a SFP reticle, the image will change scale, but the reticle will stay the same, making the reticle marks of variable meaning. From this alone, it seems like FFP has the advantage unless the shooter has no need for reticle tick marks at all. You mentioned the FFP will be smallest at low power and largest at high power. What might not be evident is the reticle in a FFP scope may be too small at low power for fast acquisition in low light. The lines may just be too fine to see. Alternatively, they may be too thick at high power and obscure a small target. This is where the design purpose comes in. A long-range target shooter is going to prefer a fine FFP reticle that allows precision at high power. This would not be suited to a hunter who dials the scope down to a low power and needs to see a reticle in low light. It doesn't make FFP unsuitable for hunting, but the FFP reticle is going to need to be matched to the purpose and intended power. SFP reticles have served hunters well for a long time because they're sized well for acquisition and stay the same size. Hunters have long used reticles without any tick marks and lots of hunters continue to use MPBR and shoot within ranges that don't need wind holds. That doesn't mean there aren't also those that are shooting at longer ranges, using laser range finders, dialing and or using reticle ticks, and holding for the wind. Just depends on what you want to do.

 

[BigBlue 94]

If I understand correctly, your price range is significantly under $500. In such a case, I would suggest a fixed power scope. In new scopes, the Leupold FX3 6x42 is well suited to your focus on target shooting (which I read as plinking) and good for whitetail except in tight woods where you wouldn't need any scope. Buying a scope used can also bring quality optics down into affordable prices. Meopta offered a 6x42 that was somewhat recently discontinued, so they're available like-new for low prices. I've seen older Schmidt & Bender 6x42 (what they call Klassik now), and Zeiss Diavari 3-9X variable scopes, or Swarovski Habicht also in this price range. Maybe if you narrow down the magnification you'll actually use, you could look for a good scope of that design. A lot of whitetail hunting is close range, but some hunting is not at all. Paper target shooting calls for high power and the narrow field of view is acceptable, but awful for hunting. If you don't mind low power and a wide field of view for informal target shooting, it might be ideal for hunting and give you a larger exit pupil as well. I've mentioned 6x42, but 4x32 or even a LPVO might be better depending on where you hunt.

Also consider a red dot. A good clean red dot works great at 100 yards and is probably as good at the low power as LPVO's that cost three times as much. They might bust your budget though. I just saw an Aimpoint for $901. Sheesh.

Yeah im cheap! Cant justify the high cost of great glass. Im not opposed to fixed power, and own a few, even a 12x.

I recently got a nice scope for a contender pistol used for about 1/3 the cost of a new one. Watching a VX-II 3x9 right now that is about the same.

I did recently get my first red dot, a Sig Romeo7. I like it, and it didnt break the bank. Might try it on there just for kicks.

 

[Sniper66]

Welcome back to buying fever. The variety of options for scopes will make your head spin. If you are willing to bump your bottom dollar up a bit, many more options unfold. I once swore I would never spend a lot of money on scopes, but have changed my tune in the last few years. I just spent $575 on a Meopta and it was a bargain. That's the second Meopta I've bought in the last year for over $500 each. And really, that's not that expensive. It is easy to spend a few thousand on a top of the line scope. The reticles will also drive you nuts. I've switched to dot scopes and don't like my duplex scopes as much as before. And then there is zero stop, and illumnated, then first or second focal plane. Welcome back and get out your wallet.
ur wallet

 

[12Bravo20]

Good explanation of SFP vs FFP. Reticle tick marks will shrink and grow with a FFP reticle, keeping a 1 mil or moa mark 1 mil or moa. With a SFP reticle, the image will change scale, but the reticle will stay the same, making the reticle marks of variable meaning. From this alone, it seems like FFP has the advantage unless the shooter has no need for reticle tick marks at all. You mentioned the FFP will be smallest at low power and largest at high power. What might not be evident is the reticle in a FFP scope may be too small at low power for fast acquisition in low light. The lines may just be too fine to see. Alternatively, they may be too thick at high power and obscure a small target. This is where the design purpose comes in. A long-range target shooter is going to prefer a fine FFP reticle that allows precision at high power. This would not be suited to a hunter who dials the scope down to a low power and needs to see a reticle in low light. It doesn't make FFP unsuitable for hunting, but the FFP reticle is going to need to be matched to the purpose and intended power. SFP reticles have served hunters well for a long time because they're sized well for acquisition and stay the same size. Hunters have long used reticles without any tick marks and lots of hunters continue to use MPBR and shoot within ranges that don't need wind holds. That doesn't mean there aren't also those that are shooting at longer ranges, using laser range finders, dialing and or using reticle ticks, and holding for the wind. Just depends on what you want to do.

Thank you.

And yes you are correct. How a person plans on using the scope will definitely determine if a FFP or SFP scope is best for their use. SFP usually is best for hunting while the FFP shines for precision target shooting.

 

[BigBlue 94]

Well the Leupold didnt go on sale and they sold out of em. So i picked up a Burris Fullfield IV 2.5-10x. Went with the E3 reticle. Will be mounting it in a pair of medium Weaver Grand Slam rings. Should be here tomorrow.

This one here.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/102234897?pid=437343

 

[BigBL87]

Well the Leupold didnt go on sale and they sold out of em. So i picked up a Burris Fullfield IV 2.5-10x. Went with the E3 reticle. Will be mounting it in a pair of medium Weaver Grand Slam rings. Should be here tomorrow.

This one here.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/102234897?pid=437343

I'm curious to hear what you think. I went with the E1 over the IV due to country of origin, was the best tie breaker I could come up with, haha.

 

[David Hoback]

Darn shame… That’s happened to me in the past. Waiting for price drop & they don’t, but I was too late. Good luck. I think the Leupold would have been a better choice. I’m not a fan of anything Burris.

 

[BigBlue 94]

Went to mount the scope on the TC the other day. I bought weaver rail rings and wasnt thrilled with how they left a small gap on the pic rail. But i mounted it up on the medium height rings. Woah, talk about a loq rider, there wasnt a 1/4" under the bell and the main tube about that far off the base. It looked very svelte and streamlined. But i went to adjust the crosshairs for levelness and the darn boss for w/e knobs hit the base right as i got it near level. I dont want that contact so i have to order a set of high rings: picatinny style this time. Ive got another LER scope needing rings so no harm no foul!

Gonna start shaping a forearm for the contender today out of walnut.

 

[243winxb]

I wanted more power then the 3x9 Banner that came on the Axis.

Bushnell mid-priced scopes have worked well in the past. The Trophy was on sale $139.99 on Sept 4th. Todays price is $ 174.99 https://www.natchezss.com/bushnell-...mm-sf-1-tube-multi-x-reticle-matte-black.html

 

[stillquietvoice]

I wanted more power then the 3x9 Banner that came on the Axis.

Bushnell mid-priced scopes have worked well in the past. The Trophy was on sale $139.99 on Sept 4th. Todays price is $ 174.99 https://www.natchezss.com/bushnell-...mm-sf-1-tube-multi-x-reticle-matte-black.html

I have the Bushnell banner 6-18÷50 on my 223 bolt action, it works fairly well but I get some edge distortion at magnification over 16x. Not sure if the glass is better on the Trophy model or not.

 

[thump_rrr]

Burris and Vortex are definitely on my radar. Most seemed more pricey than i wanted to spend i think

With Vortex you're buying a great warranty you'll probably need it unless you're buying their top tier Razor line.
If you're in the market for razor priced glass there is better in that price range.

I have a Vortex Viper PST that went back 3 times before it was made right.
It now sits on my 338 Lapua which doesn't get shot that often.
If it breaks at least it has a lifetime warranty.
It was defective right out of the box.