Nightcrawler
Member
Which of these scopes would you prefer, and why? The use will be hunting/target shooting/whatever from 0-400 yards or so, on a 16" .308 carbine.
I'm considering the Burris 2-7x Compact:
The Burris 1.75-5x Signature Safari:
The Leupold VX-III 1.75-6x32:
The Leupold VX-III 1.5-5x20:
They're all similar. The compact Burris is the smallest and lightest, so it gets points. I also like that Ballistic Plex reticule. The other two are sub-two power (but not by much; Leupold says the actual magnification of their "1.75x" is actually 1.9x) and would be a touch more useful for very close in shooting. The Burris is less expensive.
My question is this. Is the Leupold worth the extra hundred and fifty to seventy five dollars? I like the Alumina accessories option the Leupold has; that yellow-tinted filter might be very handy in the failing light.
The Leupold would be easier to resell later if I decided I didn't like the low-power variable scope. But I'm on a budget and the Burris would be easier, especially the 2-7x compact.
Help?
I'm considering the Burris 2-7x Compact:
The Burris 1.75-5x Signature Safari:
The Leupold VX-III 1.75-6x32:
The Leupold VX-III 1.5-5x20:
They're all similar. The compact Burris is the smallest and lightest, so it gets points. I also like that Ballistic Plex reticule. The other two are sub-two power (but not by much; Leupold says the actual magnification of their "1.75x" is actually 1.9x) and would be a touch more useful for very close in shooting. The Burris is less expensive.
My question is this. Is the Leupold worth the extra hundred and fifty to seventy five dollars? I like the Alumina accessories option the Leupold has; that yellow-tinted filter might be very handy in the failing light.
The Leupold would be easier to resell later if I decided I didn't like the low-power variable scope. But I'm on a budget and the Burris would be easier, especially the 2-7x compact.
Help?
Last edited: