Need opinion on new scope

[easttexas]

Hi all I am in the market finally for a new rifle scope do to the fact I have turned down a couple of deer and hogs in the last few years because of not being able to see the reticle on my scope. I have an old Simmons 3x9x40 (please stop laughing) on a A-bolt .270, I hunt part time a in a low heavily wooded bottom land where it is very difficult to see the cross hairs on to much unless its sunny high noon. I also hunt on a side of a hill that overlooks two big pastures on the edge of a creek. I was wanting to get one of the illuminated reticles thinking this is the best of both worlds illuminate when dark and hazy, and the standard reticle when in the open country or when fit to shoot a hog. I have been reading and came across the Burris Sig. Select 4-16x44, and the Xtreme 3-12x50 that looked the closest to what I want. Then I was reading that the illum. scopes are not all they are cracked up to be and to stay with a higher-end brand, just then I came across a deal on some Kahles with and without the Illum. the Kahles are at the top of my budget actually a little over but if they are that good I could justify it. So my question is what is the opinion on these two Burris's and the Kahles, would the Kahles illum. be of better quality or do away with the illum. reticle, and get just the Kahles or some other scope?

 

[dakotasin]

i am not a fan of burris at all, so won't reccomend for one. i have no personal experience w/ kahles, but would be more than willing to take a chance on one.

i think, though, that your problems would be solved w/ a leupold vx-3 w/ a heavy duplex or a zeiss conquest w/ a z-plex reticle.

 

[lencac]

You know and I know as well as everybody else that just cut to the chase and get Leupold of your choice. There won't ever be a question then.

 

[Tarvis]

I believe lencac has an excelent point. Not to say that you may luck out with a burris or a khales, but leupold is a guarantee it will be a good scope. By luck out, I mean what it looks like at the store may not be what it looks like on your rifle. I bought a Millet (illuminated) in 1.5-6x44 and was very dissatisfied with what I got. Picture was abnormally distorted around the edges and clarity was mediocre. This was after it was highly recommended by the Impact Guns staff. I don't know what your budget is, but $200 will get you a good Leupold.

As far as illumination goes, check your state laws. Idaho law was just changed to make illuminated reticles legal again for varmints but not big game (iirc). I have used my illuminated ret. once when we were shooting at glowsticks at night. The scope is on my mini14 which i dont use for hunting game, but an illuminated reticle could be handy for dawn/dusk shooting. That being said, I wonder how anyone ever killed a deer with a muzzleloader, musta been pretty hard without a rangefinder and a 20-50x spotting scope and a gps and and and.. you get the idea. Necesary? Absolutely not. Handy sometimes? Sure

For your magnification: I don't know what ranges you'll be shooting at, but I really doubt you'll ever use the full extent of 16x unless youre shooting at 400+, maybe even more than that. I have a 4.5-14x50 Leupold vari x III with the tactical turrets for shooting out to 1000 yards. I'm not a professional and this isnt a competition gun, but it should be enough to see, possibly shoot at big game at those ranges.

If I was you (guy with a budget), I would buy a scope I knew would perform. Taking a chance means buying a scope you could be really unhappy with for whatever reason, possibly a scope you can't see out of very well and in the end, wanting a different scope. If you don't have a lot of cash to throw at it, do a lot of price checking/research and find the perfect combo of price and quality that fits your range.

P.S. the millet I bought was in the $200 range. Not all $150+ scopes are a good buy.

 

[browningguy]

The Burris Signature select with illuminated dot is a very good scope, much higher quality glass/coatings than any of the low end Leupolds. I'm not knocking Leupold, but compare a Sig. Select to a Rifleman/VX1/VXII and there is an obvious difference favoring the Sig. Select. I do like Kahles scopes but am wondering about service, once CDNN starts selling them that often means no longer available in America. I think they are owned by Swarovski now so it may not be a problem.

Like some of the others I think you may be going for a little overkill on magnification, most people can easily use a variable up to 6 or 7 power for out to 200 yards, and a 9 or 10 power for out to 400.

 

[jpwilly]

I'd get an illuminated rectical scope with adjustable brightness settings...I have a few that didn't cost much and have given excellent performance.

 

[easttexas]

Hmm... dakotasin is what you're saying that a heavy duplex might be darker than the object or background its on, if so Im going in the wrong direction with this then. The Kahles is around half off, I thought the leupold was in the top 3 scope manufactors but everything Ive read online that compariers the top scopes says Luepold is not even in the same league as the Kahles for quality, and brightness, so if you could have a Leupold or Kahles for the same price which one.

 

[MCgunner]

I have an old Simmons 3x9x40 (please stop laughing)

Bwaaaa, ha, ha, ha....uh, ehem, sorry....

I think it's Bushnell that makes that glow reticule, you just shine a light in it and it glows for the next 15 minutes or something? I've wondered about that. I have a cheap lighted reticule on an SKS that really ain't bad. You can adjust illumination intensity to fit the situation. It's a 40mm scope and pretty bright, pretty impressive for a cheap scope.

What I don't like about bigger than 44mm reticules is they sit high on the gun. However, Leupold has an answer for that now, a 50mm objective that's curved on the bottom of the bell to allow it to fit in lower bases. Sounds like a real nifty solution. You really won't need lighted reticules with a quality scope and large objective. I find 40mm adequate and 44mm a little more adequate. I have a 44mm Weatherby Supreme that I can see the reticule in on a good moonlit night. That thing is bright. But, my 40mm Weaver can take me right down to beyond legal shooting hours.

 

[redneck2]

I think that, if you get a good quality scope, seeing the reticle won't be a problem. I deer hunt in thick woods on dark days and have no problem. The light gathering of a decent scope is significantly better than a cheap scope. IMO, illuminated reticles try to make up for crap glass that won't gather light. Batteries tend to go dead just about the time you need them.

Guess some of the guys here don't like Burris. IMO, they're one of the best values out there. I worked in a large gun shop, and the guys there (slightly) preferred the Burris over Leupold.

FWIW, I've got 3 Leupold VX-III's, 3 Burris, and 2 B&L's, and a Weaver. I'd put the Burris Black Diamond against anything short of a Swarovski. The Leupold on my 12 gauge holds up well with slugs. Held zero for 3 years unti I changed slugs. I haven't touched the B&L on my Knight in maybe 5 years.

Guys wonder why a higher end scope costs more. We'd send back maybe 3 or 4 of 10 Swifts, Barska's, Tasco's. Maybe 1 of 50 Leupolds. Never saw a bad Burris. Do yourself a favor and buy one good scope in your life. You'll understand why they cost more. I had a Simmons scope that I thought was a "deal". Fogged up on the cold rainy day that I finally saw the 14 pointer that I'd been after for 5 years.

I just got a new Natchez catalog. They've got a Browning (made by Burris) 2-7x32 that was $239 for $139. I have no idea why you'd buy a cheap scope when you can get a good scope cheap. I'd stay away from too much magnification. Less power give you more brightness.

 

[MCgunner]

This is a deal. I gave 150 for mine on sale 14 years ago. It's a very high quality clear and bright scope.



http://www.gunsamerica.com/976853954/Non-Guns/Scopes-Mounts/Weatherby_Supreme_3x9x44_rifle_scope.htm

 

[Shawnee]

Hi McGunner...

It says the listing is closed,

 

[rangerruck]

go with a burris or bushy with a illum reticle, this will make a world of diff,
in low light situations. I think bushy makes a 32 or 42 with a firefly reticle, which would be a excellent choice.

 

[noydb]

Here you go: http://www.muelleroptics.com/products/lists/illuminated-scopes.html

When I'm at the range, I have people with much more expensive scopes look thru them before they know the brand name. So far 100% have been favorably impressed. I have four.

You will find on this subject that there is a lot of manure spread about brand names. Advertising works. Also some mental justification. The "I spent $700 on my scope there is no way I will admit that a $200 scope is just as good, because then I would look $500 stupid".

My personal preference is for the Illm center dot style of reticle. The ones that light up the entire cross hair can overpower the target and actually be worse. However if you remember to use the lowest settings, they do work.

If you HAVE to spend lots of money to be secure, don't forget that Leupold will install custom reticles. They have several Illm versions that would work great. http://www2.leupold.com/products/reticles.htm

BTW, the odds of that 14pt record buck coming out at last LEGAL light and the extra hundreds of extra dollars scope actually making a difference are about the same as winning the lottery. Besides most wall hangers are shot midday.......

 

[loop]

I'm confused...
What ranges are you looking to shoot at?
What light conditions?
A good peep sight will shoot moa if the gun is up to it.
I NEVER use illuminated reticles for hunting (although I rarely use optical sights anymore anyway).
In '98 I was on my way to my stand in the Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho when the biggest buck, with the best rack I'd ever seen walked right in front of me broadside (had a deer permit even though I was on an elk hunt).
I was working at the time and had to take my kill with a Glock 20 or forfeit my wages. I slid the big Glock out of the holster and lined up the tritium sights on the deer. All I saw was three big green dots. If there was a deer out there, I couldn't see it anymore. While my eyes adjusted I heard him trample brush toward the bottom of the canyon.
Several years later on another assignment near dusk a coyote comes in and shuffles around at about 200 yards. He just can't decide whether to respond to my plaintive calls or look for din-din somewhere else.
I silently flip on the red illuminated reticle and see it really well. Unfortunately the background, coyote included, turns into a gray-scale landscape.
OTOH, Winchester Model 94 at close range, snapshot ... rack is on the wall.
Coyote at 300 yards at dusk with a CZ52, 7.62X25 pistol, spins and falls.
What I see with my own eyes changes when it is filtered through some sort of optic.
Seems the more I lean on technology, the less often I pull the trigger.
I'd find a sighting system that makes me comfortable with the particular gun and take my shots when they feel right.
I've got a 1939 Sako that I'll pop anything out to 500 meters if I believe I've got the shot - and it has the original military sights.
Also have a highly doctored .45 that was horrible. Painted the front sight white, then took a thin strip of plastic and put a red dot of nail polish in the middle - tack driver.
Key is to see what works best for you.
I'd start with a good peep sight and analyze options from there.
OTOH, I like target shooting and a quality peep is your best friend when seeking consistency.
IMHO, I'd start over and review my actual needs and, quite possibly, my choice of hunting location.

 

[BlazingAngel01]

A BSA Deer Hunter. its cheap and it works good