the hunt....for a scope

[dubbleA]

Haxby, I am not going to argue with you as you are obviously not educated in modern optics. The 30mm tube's sole purpose is a wider field of view. It does not "gather light", nor does it cure cancer. You should probably stick with Barska scopes. Outahere.

I have always been under the impression that the 30mm main attributes were......a physically stronger tube, larger internals and more windage/elevation adjustment.

Never heard of them having a wider field of view but I have been wrong before.

 

[Cee Zee]

The benchrest shooters I know swear by Weaver scopes like the T-36. Of course that's not a hunting scope unless you're sitting on your back porch shooting varmints a quarter of a mile away. But Weaver makes solid hunting scopes too.

A fixed scope still means you're paying for glass instead of variable magnification. You get better glass with a fixed scope compared to a variable for the same money. I don't know about you guys but I almost never change the magnification on any of my scopes when I use them. But there are variables that will get the job done. Still that wasn't the OP's question. He's looking for the best scope for the money to hunt deer and he has a price range in mind that's pretty good.

I also like spending as much on a scope as I do the rifle but I don't do it very often. I buy either Weaver or Nikon scopes depending on how much money I want to spend. I have a Simmons scope that is 6-18X50 that actually works pretty well. I will say that any scope can fog up on the outside of the lens if you take a cool scope from an air conditioned house out into the humid, hot air of a late fall day. My Simmons has never fogged up inside. My other scopes have fogged up but only on the outside too just like the Simmons.

My suggestion would be to get a good fixed Weaver for the price range suggested.

 

[aka108]

Put "Clearidge Optics" in your search engine and take a look at their products. 100% Japanese from start to finish. I use one of their rimfire specific scopes and it is about as good as I have found so would imagine the one for the "big guns" are excellent also.

 

[littlelefty]

Thanks to all of you for the continued feedback.

Cee Zee - I especially appreciate your input regarding fixed power. So is it likely that the Leupold FX-II 4x33 has better glass than the VX-2 (either 2-7x33 or 3-9x40), since they are all the same(ish) price?

And does anyone out there have a comparison between a fx-ii 4x33 and a late model Weaver k4? Wondering if it's really twice the scope since it is twice the price?

 

[Art Eatman]

I've used scopes for over sixty years. A great amount of brightness might be a Good Thing in the earliest or latest shooting light, but as I think back I don't recall that a "less than wonderful" scope ever kept me from hitting where I wanted.

My concern, nowadays, would be for the sturdiness of the adjustment system. I want to "set it and forget it" after I leave off from sighting in at the bench.

From that standpoint, I don't see a lot of difference among the major brands.

 

[Mohave-Tec]

Hey OP, the best value in a decent hunting scope today is probably the Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40. About $150.

 

[itsa pain]

I've used scopes for over sixty years. A great amount of brightness might be a Good Thing in the earliest or latest shooting light, but as I think back I don't recall that a "less than wonderful" scope ever kept me from hitting where I wanted.

My concern, nowadays, would be for the sturdiness of the adjustment system. I want to "set it and forget it" after I leave off from sighting in at the bench.

From that standpoint, I don't see a lot of difference among the major brands.

Words of wisdom Art. I had 100 dollar scopes on guns for 20 years getting all types of rough handling and they always held zero. In gander mt there is a row of about 40 scopes on mock stocks priced from $150 to $1200. I see hardly any difference looking thru them from cheapest to most expensive. I did not bang in railroad spikes with them go deep sea diving or try to hunt in the dark with no moon either

 

[Haxby]

is it likely that the Leupold FX-II 4x33 has better glass than the VX-2

Leupold has upgraded their variables in recent years, but not their fixed power scopes. Unless they have changed very recently, the FXII 4X33 is no better than the VX-1, as far as glass and coatings.

 

[WVRJ]

I have 11 rifle scopes that I use frequently...by frequently I mean the rifles they are on get shot on a monthly basis,and they do it all year round.Rain,snow,cold,heat,anything Mother Nature can throw at them.One of them was on the same rifle for almost 30 years and once zero'd,I never took the turret caps off in that many years.Now that's holding a zero.It was on my main whitetail rifle,and it made a couple of elk hunts to boot.It is a Leupold 2X7 Vari-X 2.Needless to say,the other 10 rifle scopes I own are Leupolds as well.I don't know of any more value you can get for your scope dollars.I almost always buy them used-there's no risk,if anything goes wrong,just send em back and they're fixed.Over the past 30 years,I've sent 3 scopes back,they were repaired fast and free.One had a speck that showed up in the reticle,one broke a crosshair when I overtightened a mount that I wasn't used to,and one had something go wrong in the erector system that caused a grouping problem on a precision rifle.Really minor stuff for that many scopes over that many years.

 

[littlelefty]

The hunt is over

I came across a little extra $ for Christmas and went for the VX-3, 2.5-8x36.

OpticsPlanet had 10% off too, so that brought it down to "only" $60 more than the VX-2 (never mind that I also could have gotten 10% off of the VX-2, ).

Anyway, thanks for all of the fantastic inputs.

Happy New Year!

 

[littlelefty]

Oh, and Haxby - you are spot on...

Here is the input I got directly from Leupold regarding FX-II versus VX-2: "The FX-II has MultiCoat 4 Lens Coatings for 92% light transmission, whereas the VX-2 has Index-Matched Lens Coatings for 94% light transmission. The VX-2 is actually higher in quality, but because we sell many more of them than the fixed powers, are able to provide them at an attractive price. Volume sales mitigate costs of manufacture in this case."

 

[Haxby]

IMO, that's an outstanding choice.

 

[redneck2]

Superb choice. The problem you will have is that, once you start to use it in low light conditions, you get spoiled.

 

[Bobson]

I came across a little extra $ for Christmas and went for the VX-3, 2.5-8x36

What's with the x36? I thought a bigger objective lens results in a bigger FoV (a good thing?). Not trying to start an argument or suggest this was a poor choice, just looking for a lesson in optics. I thought a 40mm objective lens was the standard on hunting scopes.

What advantage is there to the 36mm objective lens? And yes, I've read every post in this thread, and the question wasn't addressed. Whole lot of opinions, not much information.

 

[Haxby]

a bigger objective lens results in a bigger FoV

That wouldn't explain all those 20mm scopes with the really wide FOVs.

 

[Bobson]

I didn't know there were any 20mm optics with really wide FoVs. So will you share the explanation?

More importantly, why is a 40mm lens so common? And again, what's the advantage of a smaller (36mm) objective lens?

 

[FitGunner]

Great choice! Congrats and enjoy your new scope. Also...happy new year.

 

[redneck2]

Smaller objective will take in less light, everything else being equal. Benefit is that it's smaller and more compact, sits lower. Also costs less. IMO, you're better off to have a smaller objective with better glass.

I have a Savage 99 in .250-3000 that will need a new scope. The scope that he got looks about perfect for what I want. The 2.5 low end covers the FOV thing.

I've got a couple of scopes with 50mm lenses (Burris Black Diamond, Leupold VX-L, and a B&L 4000). Light gathering, clarity, and FOV are great, but they're the size of a beer can on top of your rifle. These are on varmint rifles, not carry rifles. Typically on carry rifles I use 40mm or smaller.

In this forum I just started a thread about a super deal at SWFA if anybody needs optics

 

[littlelefty]

Bobson,
Not sure I can completely answer your questions; looks like redneck has provided some good insight.

For me, exit pupil and quality of lens (and its coatings) are at least, if not more important than objective size. Also, as quality goes up, naturally price does as well. That leads into the subjective realm of each person's own financial line in the sand. For me, I wanted to stay at $300 or less and was looking hard at the VX-2 3-9x40 or even the 2-7x33 (and some wandering around the fixed power world). When I got that little extra $ I up-sold myself to what I believe to be higher quality.

Other subjective things were mentioned by redneck. I don't want 50mm objective sitting on my rifle just because I personally think its ugly.

Here is what I think to be a decent thread on scopes: http://www.opticsplanet.com/howto/how-to-choose-a-riflescope.html?section=1

there are others online as well. Chuck Hawks comes to mind.

Hope this helps.

 

[Art Eatman]

And littlelefty now has his Happy New Year!