Optics question @ 100-200 yards

[2TransAms]

I just joined an outdoor range again (Caseyville/Mascoutah,for those who followed their whole debacle),and I now have a place to shoot rifles again! Woo-hoo!

Anyway,I'm pretty much sold on this Remington 700 in .308. I'm sure I can't go wrong with that,but my question is about scopes. I've been doing my homework on THR and elsewhere and I'm pretty sure I want a Bushnell Elite 3200 4-12 x 40 or a Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14 x 40. I know with optics,like all things firearm-related,you get what you pay for but money is a factor here.

It seems that those are pretty good scopes,and if I can ever outshoot my optics then I can upgrade. So,will I really need a better scope than that? Will a better scope help me be a better shooter from the start? Bear in mind that I am not a great shot with a rifle as I've been mostly a handgun shooter until now,so I don't expect to shoot cloverleafs from the get-go. And I won't be shooting past 200 yards...that's as far as the range goes.

And let me be clear...I know that gear is not a substitute for practice. I don't want to be one of those guys with a $3,000 rig that can't hold a 6" group at 100 yards.

 

[jpwilly]

Shooting a rifle isn't hard especially from a bench. Similar to shooting a handgun. Go steady and slow on the trigger. Let the gun surprise you when it fires. A rifle rest or sandbags would really help you keep steady while you find the right ammo for your rifle. The Elite 3200 is a good scope.

 

[quicktime]

I can not comment on either one of those scopes. My advice is to save as long as you can and buy the best you can afford. You will be amazed at the difference in high quality optics as opposed to mid level.

 

[Eyesac]

I own a 3200 series scope and a Burris. I like the Burris, but the 3200 is a great scope for the money.

 

[rdaines]

Nikon makes a great scope but I'm liking Burris at the moment. As for power, try 14x to 16x with an objective (the front end) that is large (collects light) but in the range you can afford. Just remember that the more mag you use the more you have to keep the scope steady. Shootong from the bench helps this but if you're planning on shooting from a bipod, sticks or off hand practice with those. Hunting with high magnifiation creates another challenge but you didn't mention that. Basically, it's a trade off between field of view and a magnifiyed target area.
Lastly, know what kind of reticle you want.

 

[Picknlittle]

I've had countless numbers of people tell me to spend at least as much for the scope as I paid for the rifle, and twice the amount is better.

That said, with budget being a major concern, I bought a $200 Leupold Rifleman 3-9x40 for my rem 700 30-06 and could not be happier. Magnification is plenty for deer at 250 yds. ( I don't need to count hairs, just a sharp image of the critter and vitals area)

I find the more magnification I use, the more trouble I have keeping steady. Also, as already mentioned, high magnification reduces field of view.

Point is not to sell Leupold, but that there is no real need to get crazy about high priced scopes, especially if you tend to take care of your toyz.

 

[L.Puckett]

2TransAms,

It sounds like you've made some good choices, remember not to short change your rig with cheap scope mounts. You'll have a rig that works well to LR and won't break the bank. Once you've gained in proficiency you'll know what you want to change and why.

Rifles are a bit like cars, I drive a nice Ford and it can run 130 mph, if I need more than that, then I guess I'd best look at a Ferrari.

LP

 

[BOW CEFUS]

I was thinking about a Leopold Rifleman or VX-I

I just bought a Remington 700 in 308 and i love it. I bought the 700 SPS because im cheap but its still great.

 

[bender]

I have a rem 700 in 30-06, currently without a scope. I've been shopping the web for a while now, and I have it narrowed down to three choices. The same ones as mentioned in the OP, Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14 and Bushnell Elite 3200 4-12. My other choice is a Burris Fullfield II.

 

[Jack A. Sol]

you dont really need that much magnification. something in a 3-9 or even 2-8 would be great. the lower mags are so much faster and brighter than the higher mags.
reccomend a burris, or leupold. as best bang for the buck IMHO . Have heard good things about the Nikons recently too.

 

[cheaptrick]

http://www.opticstalk.com/default.asp

 

[Jack A. Sol]

good site!!