Best scope for $1,300? Newbie needs advice!

[MarshallDodge]

I have had similar experience as Rem700SD. I have the Nightforce 12-42x56mm on my Rem 700 VLS in 6mm. It is way more scope than it needs but it doubles as a spotting scope.

I think if I were setting up a gun in .308 today I would put a 3.5-15X50 Nightforce on it. Excellent light gathering, good choice of reticles(etched on the glass), and smaller(compared to the other NF scopes) objective so it can be mounted lower on the gun. I don't believe that the lighted reticle is available in that model.
My second choice is Leupold because it is the only one on your list that I have had experience with.

The prices on Nightforce have skyrocketed since I bought mine about 8 years ago. I have not spent that kind of money on all of my scopes, some of my guns have low cost scopes from Simmons and BSA and they do their intended job just fine.

 

[TechBrute]

I have a fair amount of experience with both Nightforce and Leupold.

If you get a NF, get the NSX line. Look to their website for comparisons, but the NSX line has more features. I really like the R2 reticle, too.

I'm a big fan of Leupold, too. You'll find that their service is the best in the industry. Their MkVI line is outstanding.

Both of these scope lines are extremely rugged and as previously mentioned, have the vertical adjustment neccesary to take shots at 100 and 1000 yards using come-ups with no holdover.

As previously mentioned, someone who says that spending more than $700 on a scope gets you nothing literally has no idea what they are speaking about. That's not to say you can't get a quality scope for $700, because you can get some very high quality scopes for that price, but there are things to be gained by spending more. $700 scopes just don't have 100MOA of vertical adjustment.

 

[dakotasin]

well, and there's other things too. ever spun the turrets on a burris, and then done the same on a leupold? the burris feels like a child's toy w/ lots of slop. then, have you ever spun the turrets on a nightforce and then on a leupold? same thing - the leupold feels sloppy compared to the nf.

its the same thing w/ most things in life - the more you spend, the more you get. nightforce has outstanding glass, and they are awesome scopes for dedicated applications. again, you will never find a nightforce on one of my hunting rifles (leupold's domain), but on long range target guns, nightforce is king.

 

[355sigfan]

Not to get all off track, but I love when a guy at the range with fancy expensive stuff gets outshot by old timers with equipment a 1/4 of the cost.

1,300 for a scope?

Buy a nice one even upwards of 500, spend the extra on a new rifle or ammo.

Your far better off putting more money into your optics then into the rifle selection. With rifle technology even some low end guns shoot well like Savage and Ruger. But optics are not like that. Low end optics suck and will let you down. You get what you pay for. If you have a 1000 to spend on a scope and rifle your better off putting 600 or more in the scope and 300 to 400 into the gun.
Pat

 

[MCgunner]

I guess I answered this thread when I shouldn't have. All I do is hunt, no frills needed. I thought this was a question from a newb hunter. Oh well.

The ONE THING I'd like to see some scope maker do is put a laser rangefinder IN a scope. You press a button, it reads the range to the meter and flashes it up inside the scope. That would be REAL handy.

I've also been hoping night optics would get a little cheaper, but I guess that'll never happen. I'd like a good night scope, third generation, for hog hunting. I have a lighted reticle scope, woopie. LOL!

 

[atblis]

Zeiss

they tend to have some of the more precise internal mechanisms and the glass to match. Don't know anything about NF. You'd be amazed at the amount of slop in some of the "premium" rifle scopes cough*Leupold*cough*.

 

[Infidel]

.... The ONE THING I'd like to see some scope maker do is put a laser rangefinder IN a scope. You press a button, it reads the range to the meter and flashes it up inside the scope. That would be REAL handy.

As you wish ....
http://www.burrisoptics.com/laserscope.html

 

[Lupinus]

"Real world" difference? Could you define that? Maybe that's the key to the difference in opinions. If you're talking about mounting a higher-end scope for hunting within reasonable ranges (let's say out to 200 yards or so), then you're right. If you're talking about shooting for the best accuracy out at 800 or 1,000 yards, then you'd be wrong.

Sorry, I should have better defined myself I suppose. Real World difference as in any real gain in standard application. Hunting a deer is real world applications, picking off quarters at a thousand yards isn't. Now if you want to plink quarters at a thousand yards there just might be a difference, but for your average application there is nothing to be gained with a scope over 5 or 600 dollars, maybe 7 or 8. There is a difference, but then there is a difference between the 30-06 and 50bmg. The 50bmg will put a deer down faster but the 30-06 does just fine, while there is a difference in technicle terms there isn't any in practicle terms and the stronger one is nothing more then overkill. Now if you want to pierce armor plate the 50bmg would be a better pick, but that isn't a common application for the average user.

You get what you pay for. If you have a 1000 to spend on a scope and rifle your better off putting 600 or more in the scope and 300 to 400 into the gun.

No problem with 600 for a scope thats a good price. But to me 1300 is excessive for most applications.

 

[355sigfan]

Sorry

No problem with 600 for a scope thats a good price. But to me 1300 is excessive for most applications.

It depends on what you want. 600 bucks will do fine for a hunting scope. If you need a precision rifle scope then more is better.
Pat

 

[Infidel]

It depends on what you want. 600 bucks will do fine for a hunting scope. If you need a precision rifle scope then more is better.
Pat

Maybe one thing that contributes to the different viewpoints is the amount of time spent looking through the scope. A lot of hunters look through their scopes when they check their zero before hunting season, and again if they get a shot during the season. A lot of "precision rifle" people spend a few hours a week looking through the scope.

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

I'm surprised no has asked (unless I've missed something in my cursory reading of this thread) that qualifies the questioner about skill level.

I do know that a hallmark of this period of history is the tendency to substitute with technology what may be lacking in skill, but I think the question is warranted. By this I would ask:

1) What IS your shooting skill and quantify that, please?

2) What is your present hardware set-up?

3) Are you shooting up to your present equipment at this time, and how do you know that you are or are not? (What is your evidence procedure?)

4) What kind of training have you had, or are you self taught? (tangential to first question, but may have bearing) How do you evaluate your own skill level and make the diffentitations between the next degree of quantifiable improvement being an issue of your skill and problems and/or hardware issues? (Similar to question 3 but they are different issues)

I could ask a lot of questions (pardon me if I wax Socratic), but threads like this seem to be started and continued in a sort of vacuum.

Just my opinion....

 

[craigz]

Nobody has bothered asking the original poster to clairify the type of shooting he plans to do, because his requirements are somewhat contradictory. For hunting with a .308, you're not going to be shooting game at 700-1000 yards, and you don't need more than 10X magnification. For sniper-style long range marksmanship, 10X is also common, though you might want to go up to 16X or 20X. 36X is more for competition benchrest shooting, and the like. I'm no great authority, but my Rem 700P has a 16X Leupold Mark IV on it and I'm quite happy with it.

 

[albanian]

7-8 years ago I would have agreed with the guys that say don't waste your on a scope that expensive. That is when I tried out a really nice Leupold scope. I had been shooting with $100-$200 scopes all my life but when I tried the Leupold, I was blown away. It was much clearer and brighter and would be worth the money if I had it to spend.

If he has $1300 to spend on a scope, let him spend it. He will get a better scope than most of us have ever seen and I am sure he will be happy. Looking through a really good scope is a joy all it's own. You don't even have to be shooting, you can use it as a telescope and get some of your money out of it.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

I bet there are many with the perspective Lupinus has.

That said, if you really are getting serious about hitting targets at various ranges, like practical shooting, you're beginning to see the purpose of mil-dot or horus reticles. You're not estimating your holdover, your ranging targets, looking at your ballistic chart (or even have a calibrated reticle), and cranking on your target turrets. THATS when your really appreciate the difference between a good hunting scope, and something more sophisticated. Once you use a very good scope, you get spoiled fast.

Then again, there are some cheap scopes that have some solid basic features, in which little benefit is gained by buying more expensive scopes. As an example: A benchrest shooter can get by with a Weaver T36 or a 36 power Sightron, which both have good repeatable adjustments, target turrets, and decent clarity. They're about $400, and some folks WIN benchrest with scopes like that.

But if you you're not always shooting 100, 200, 300 and want to use the reticle to range a target, or are practical shooting, the S&B, USO, IOR, and Nightforce stuff looks like a 'best buy'.

If you buy less than you need, you've wasted the investment.

Lupinus: You really should read Zak Smith's 'sticky' post in this section. It gives insight into military/police needs, and 'practicle' shooting

 

[mmike87]

$1300?

It always bothers me when people skimp on the optics for quality rifles ...

Seriously, I have Zeiss's "lower end" Conquest series 4.5-14x44 (about $700 retail) and I think the optics are nothing short of amazing. At dusk I feel like I am looking through night vision. Well, not quite, but the image is very bright and clear. The resolution is awesome.

I don't think you can go wrong with any Zeiss scope.

 

[TechBrute]

I'm surprised no has asked (unless I've missed something in my cursory reading of this thread) that qualifies the questioner about skill level.

So? Where does this complete falsehood that beginners should buy cheap entry-level stuff come from?

I do know that a hallmark of this period of history is the tendency to substitute with technology what may be lacking in skill...

This is complete and utter crap. Seriously. Someone is new at something so they should practice with inferior equipment? Someone should buy a cheap scope instead of the best scope they can afford? WHY?????????

Will someone please explain why someone should handicap themselves straight out of the gate?

Not to get all off track, but I love when a guy at the range with fancy expensive stuff gets outshot by old timers with equipment a 1/4 of the cost.

Guess what, you're off track and this has nothing to do with the discussion. For every story I hear told about someone with cheaper equipment outshooting someone to justify that person buying cheap equipment, I've got 10 more about people who are serious about shooting and don't screw around with scopes that someone else thinks they should get because they can't afford the really good scopes. If the guy wants to shoot out to 1k yards, a $1300 scope is going to help him do it. And just because there may be someone else better in the world at shooting doesn't mean that he should handicap himself with inferior equipment.

I have worked in a precision rifle shop (more accurately, a gun shop specializing in precision rifles, after all, they did sell nearly 10 handguns a month compared to the 80+ rifles per month which seemed to average between $3k and $5k per package). I know the difference a good scope makes. I know the difference between a $700 and a $1300 scope.

My bet is that the original poster has already done some research. He's figured out that a scope in the $1300 range will fit nicely and he's asking for advice on which we prefer or why. Instead of answering his question, which seems perfectly valid to me, some of us are trying to convince him he should stick to their budget.:banghead:

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

So? Where does this complete falsehood that beginners should buy cheap entry-level stuff come from?

This is complete and utter crap. Seriously. Someone is new at something so they should practice with inferior equipment? Someone should buy a cheap scope instead of the best scope they can afford? WHY?????????

Will someone please explain why someone should handicap themselves straight out of the gate?


Guess what, you're off track and this has nothing to do with the discussion. For every story I hear told about someone with cheaper equipment outshooting someone to justify that person buying cheap equipment, I've got 10 more about people who are serious about shooting and don't screw around with scopes that someone else thinks they should get because they can't afford the really good scopes. If the guy wants to shoot out to 1k yards, a $1300 scope is going to help him do it. And just because there may be someone else better in the world at shooting doesn't mean that he should handicap himself with inferior equipment.

I have worked in a precision rifle shop (more accurately, a gun shop specializing in precision rifles, after all, they did sell nearly 10 handguns a month compared to the 80+ rifles per month which seemed to average between $3k and $5k per package). I know the difference a good scope makes. I know the difference between a $700 and a $1300 scope.

My bet is that the original poster has already done some research. He's figured out that a scope in the $1300 range will fit nicely and he's asking for advice on which we prefer or why. Instead of answering his question, which seems perfectly valid to me, some of us are trying to convince him he should stick to their budget.:banghead:

Seems banghead should go bang HIS head. He's getting all worked up..
Who the hell said anything about using cheap stuff?

As for substituting technology for skill, you sound like a double maroon on this one. Banghead, it's seen on ranges every day; it's seen in the car's people drive and don't have the skill to operate; it's in manner of technology that people BUY, but don't have the SKILL to operate. If you haven't seen this in the world, you need to get out more often.

So you work in a precision rifle shop, you say? Whoooooaa! We're impressed.

The points raised were relevent.

 

[Lupinus]

So? Where does this complete falsehood that beginners should buy cheap entry-level stuff come from?

I said 5-600 or something like that. Last I checked thats not cheap.

This is complete and utter crap. Seriously. Someone is new at something so they should practice with inferior equipment? Someone should buy a cheap scope instead of the best scope they can afford? WHY?????????

Agian, who said cheap? It isn't about cheap it is about not wasting money. He asked for advice, my advice to him was don't waste your money on something that is overkill. Thats his to take or leave I don't care either way, but advice he wanted advice he got.

Instead of answering his question, which seems perfectly valid to me, some of us are trying to convince him he should stick to their budget.

LOL it has nothing to do with my budget. It has to do with my reccomendation. If it was my budget I'd be reccomending he buy a scope for under a hundred since thats my current budget.

 

[michael_aos]

$1300 == Nightforce.

Mike

 

[atblis]

The law of diminishing returns most definitely applies to

rifle scopes. Once you start to get past the 500-700 dollar mark, I am not sure what you're paying for.

 

[rbernie]

He asked for advice, my advice to him was don't waste your money on something that is overkill.

It would seem somewhat foolish to presume that experiences gained in one application (hunting or occasional bench shooting where the time spent staring thru a scope might be measured in minutes per day) would translate directly into another useage that might require spending hours and hours staring thru a scope. Perhaps if you have an opinion to express, it would be useful to provide your experiences in practical shooting or other bona fides to help folks understand your perspective.

Let's face it - the Domino's Pizza delivery guy could give an opinion, too, if I asked him. But that opinion wouldn't be worth much unless he's also done a bunch of long-range practical shooting when he's not delivering pizzas.

600 bucks will do fine for a hunting scope. If you need a precision rifle scope then more is better.

This would seem to sum things up quite nicely. I have never spent any time behind a Nightforce, but I have spent a wee bit o' time behind a Diavari; not only was the glass simply superb but the FFP reticle seemed like A Good Thing <tm> to have when ranging distant targets.

 

[355sigfan]

rifle scopes. Once you start to get past the 500-700 dollar mark, I am not sure what you're paying for.

Clarity and light transmission as well as extended use as the sun goes down.
Pat

 

[Ash]

Ah, I see someone else has thrown out the law odmr. A $1,300 scope is better than a $700, generally. A Western Star is a much more expensive truck than a Dodge dually, even with the Hemi. Yet, that Western Star might be a bit too much overkill, as a McLarin compared to, say, a Corvette, compared to, say, a Mustang. You can get the McLarin, assuming you don't mind the wait and the cost, but if you are driving on American roads, you have gained nothing.

Take, for instance, a Burris Fullfield II. There are those who would say it is a cheap piece of junk. I beg to differ, and it does make a good entry level scope. But, a guy just starting out playing golf need not buy the absolute best. It would be a waste of time and money. He would certainly have good clubs, but a good pair is all he needs until he can do better (at which point, his old clubs might be getting a bit worn). Same with rifles and scopes.

Tech, it is absolutely false to call a $500 scope cheap crap. You tell me why someone should spend $1,300 on a scope when he is just getting into the deal, only to discover extreme shooting isn't really all that much fun? There may be nothing wrong with starting big, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with starting lower with good quality scopes. A $300 Burris (which has that mil dot reticle, by the way) would work quite well for most real world applications for someone starting out. Yes, it really would. No, it isn't cheap crap. It may not be the best, it may not have the clarity, but cheap crap it is not. There are much better scopes, of course, but it sure isn't a Simmons Golden Antler.

And, the purpose of the scope is very important as well. However, it is true that in most $500-$800 scopes would do all most shooters ever need. Once you get above $1,000, each $100 doesn't buy you as much as each $100 above $200 buys you.

In any case, this does not reflect the spirit of the original question. I cannot answer the question as I don't have the need for a scope that nice. I shoot deer, turkey, squirrels, ducks, etc. It would be silly to waste my money on a $1,300 scope, as that deer will be just as dead, especially if all I am buying is 5 minutes more in the tree stand.

Ash

 

[rbernie]

In any case, this does not reflect the spirit of the original question. I cannot answer the question as I don't have the need for a scope that nice.

Then, just out of curiosity, why did you feel compelled to contribute so much bandwidth to the thread?

Not trying to pick on you or anything, but it seems like we have a lot of folks all trying to add something to the mix when what they have to offer doesn't really address the fundamental question that was asked....

 

[Ash]

I don't know. Guess I just felt like wasting bandwidth. I suppose that is your way of saying butt out?

Ash