What's your favorite pistol scope?

[Steve in PA]

Bushnell 2-6x scopes, either Trophy or Elite model. Both no longer made, but you can find them for sale. I have several, most are on T/C Contenders. I have one on a Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Mag.....been on the gun for about 25-30 years. Steady diet of heavy 240-300 grain bullets. Rock solid.

 

[Trashyshoots]

Refer to my opening post, yes I already have the vx3. I like it a lot, but it is expensive and i opened the thread to see if other scopes hold up and what other peoples experiences are. I have 3 handgun scopes and a lot more handguns that I want to scope and not have to switch back and forth. My vx3 holds up to the recoil of my 460 and everything else I have put it on(I have it mounted in QD rings). I have no doubts about its durability. And the glass is quite good. $650 good? Well I haven't decided that yet, but have had it for 3 years and have absolutely no complaints.

Thanks for the write up, I wouldve seen that if I didnt have the attention span of a gnat.

Im honestly looking for a clear, high quality pistol scope for a 1911, that will have a frame mounted scope mount so no slide movement to deal with, just recoil.

 

[captain awesome]

Thanks for the write up, I wouldve seen that if I didnt have the attention span of a gnat.

Im honestly looking for a clear, high quality pistol scope for a 1911, that will have a frame mounted scope mount so no slide movement to deal with, just recoil.

No problem. I sometimes skip over longer posts. I would say that scope would perform quite well for the job of scoping a 1911, but I doubt it is necessary, as it seems others will do the job just fine. I came to the conclusion that my vx3 (maybe will have more in the future) goes on the heavy recoiling handguns and the Burris's will be fine for everything else. I intend to explore more of the 2x fixed power options. That being said I just acquired a Burris 3x-12x that sits on top of a BFR in 500 S&W magnum. I purchased it mainly because the scope was essentially free with the handgun, it came lightly used and was already mounted. I haven't put it through its paces yet but so far is holding up. The eye relief on that one isnt quite long enough for me though so I need to figure something else out as far as mounting options.

 

[sscoyote]

Loved the 2-7X Burris and 2.5-8 Nikon (Nikon was great since it came with a target turret and ballistic reticle) for a 7-270 WSM XP-100 that I used to have. 2X Nikon. Loved the 2X Nikon (~120 MOA target turret travel) though it's only on a Ruger Mk 3 22 now I use for prairie dogs. Several 3-12X Burris have been used on a number of custom XP's over the years, and it was fine though the eye relief is too long for a center grip pistol shot from prone. Great from the bench though.

 

[black mamba]

I'm a fan of the UltraDot 30s. Non-critical eye relief, very light weight, fast dot acquisition with plenty of precision for 100 yard shooting (for me). 340s at 1200 fps haven't fazed them.

 

[Bristol Mt.Man]

Leupold 2X sits on my SBH. Never let me down.

 

[lkydvl]

Tasco Pro-Class

 

[labnoti]

Ok, for those with Ultra Dot's or other tubular red dots, what's makes these worth their bulk compared to one of the larger open reflex sights like a C-More or Leupold DPP or something like that -- even Ultra Dot's own Pan-A-V Reflex sight? The open reflex sights would have less bulk, lighter weight, and less dot offset. Ultra Dot claims theirs "withstands even the heaviest recoil." What are they missing?

Next, why the Ultra Dot instead of one of the other tubular red dots? For example, Trijicon MRO, Aimpoint S1, T2, H2 etc., Leupold Freedom, etc. ?

 

[black mamba]

I have tried at least half a dozen different reflex sights, and they all have the same problem: slow to acquire the dot. The way I have reasoned it in my own mind is that the tube of the UltraDot helps you to orient the gun so the dot comes up fast. When I bring up a pistol with a reflex sight on it, I have to twist, bend and rotate my wrist for a few seconds to find the dot. With the UltraDot you just bring it up and you get the dot every time. The weight is hardly different, as the UltraDot only weighs 4-5 oz. with it's included rings. For me that is one of the biggest plusses over a scope, the lighter weight makes offhand shooting so much easier. They are a little bulkier than a reflex, but not in a way that makes much difference. And over any other tube type red dot, UltraDot has the proven track record of standing up to massive recoil.

 

[BillTell]

I think I'm going to disagree with you a bit black mamba...I say "think" because I'm not completely sure what you're saying...These are my main hunting weapons. What I can tell you from over a quarter century of hunting with handguns, is that I find red dots to be absolutely faster than any scope, accurate as heck, EASY ON MY AGING EYES, and the bottom line is that my bullet hits whatever that red dot is on when I pull the trigger.
If you fire your gun a couple times to "see if it's on" before hunting season, and then not again until it's time to shoot an animal, you may have problems finding the dot. And again, that's because you're not looking in the "right place" because it's actually pointing somewhere else. You need to practice more and learn the gun a bit better, so that you have a good idea of where that dot's going to be when you bring the gun up.
When I first get into my stand when I hunt, when I'm settled in, I usually hunt with my pistol across my lap. But I turn on the dot and bring the gun up to the rail a few times and sight on different objects like trees or stumps at various distances, and just to see WHAT ANGLE I NEED TO BRING UP THE GUN, SO THAT MY EYE IS MOSTLY ALIGNED IN THE RIGHT AREA SO THAT THE DOT IS VISIBLE FROM THE MOMENT I LOOK THROUGH THE SIGHT.
If you can bring up the gun so that you can catch SOME glimpse of the dot, the subconscious just takes over and centers the dot. Then it's just a matter of mechanics.
All the sights you see are shot out to 100yds. All are great performers with tight groups at that range. (Better than any shotgun I own. Rifles aren't allowed in my county) I don't have easy access to a range over 100yds, but I never really see anything at those distances anyway. Everything I shoot is mostly between 40 and 65 yards anyway. However, I feel that any of these guns would perform well at 150yds, and at least 2 I would shoot with confidence out to 200yds if I were able to sight in with them and practice at those ranges before hand.
I guess I'm just saying I've tried the scope thing, and since I put a red dot on a handgun in the early 90's, I've never looked back. I have 'em on shotguns, rifles, and my Marlin '94. I'm a big fan.
All that being said, while stated earlier, mostly I hunt in close conditions. I own many rifles that sport glass. If I consistently shot over 100yds, I think a scope would be the way to go.
P.S. The .357 I use 180gr. Black Talon's. The 7.62X39 is bored .308. I use 150gr. handloads in it.

 

[labnoti]

I have tried at least half a dozen different reflex sights, and they all have the same problem: slow to acquire the dot. ...

I'm not arguing with your personal experience, but reflex sights don't seem to have that problem in speed competitions where they are much more popular than Ultra Dots and all tubular dots, even among the frame-mounted optics (as opposed to slide-ride).

 

[jmorris]

For what? I use different ones for different reasons.

 

[JDeere]

Had a Weaver 2x on my Bisley Hunter. Great scope but I could not shoot it free hand worth a hoot. Open sights for me and I am a much better shooter. I don't shoot but 60 yds max hunting with it.

 

[BillTell]

That's great if you can SEE your sights...mine are just a blurr without glasses. With glasses I can see my sights, but now my target's a blurr. With the dots, all is clear from dot to target.

 

[Jakes10mm]

I would toss in "environmental conditions" on the discussion over tube and reflex sights. The reflex emitters are open to the elements and "could" be obscured or refracted by snow or rain. Tubes are sealed from the elements. Both are subject to build-up of their glass. I have a Millet SP1 on my Super Redhawk 480 and a Leupold DPP reflex on my CZ P09; two different uses: one all-weather hunter the other a fair weather range plinker. I have a Redhawk Hunter 44 that will be next for an optic upgrade. I'm leaning towards the Ultra Dot, but I do like the larger "window" on some of the reflex sights.

 

[BillTell]

I think that's pushing it a bit... I've never had a problem with the sights with any weather conditions. I think the reflex sights have that covered, especially the higher end ones (like the Burris Fastfire, Leupold's, etc.) but just in case, if it rains, I'll stay home. If it's snow, I'll use my Super Blackhawk with the EOTech which is a holographic sight, and not subject to all of that. I think with the EOTech you could actually break the glass and still see the holograph which will still be on target.

 

[CraigC]

For me, a revolver needs no more than a 2x fixed. The 4x's are difficult to use at close range and the bigger variables are a lot of unnecessary and unusable weight/bulk. Leupold is probably the most robust but I love Burris, especially the older models. I have them in 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x and 7x.

Ok, for those with Ultra Dot's or other tubular red dots, what's makes these worth their bulk compared to one of the larger open reflex sights like a C-More or Leupold DPP or something like that -- even Ultra Dot's own Pan-A-V Reflex sight? The open reflex sights would have less bulk, lighter weight, and less dot offset. Ultra Dot claims theirs "withstands even the heaviest recoil." What are they missing?

Next, why the Ultra Dot instead of one of the other tubular red dots? For example, Trijicon MRO, Aimpoint S1, T2, H2 etc., Leupold Freedom, etc. ?

Maybe this is a training/familiarity issue but I always search for the dot with a reflex. Never have to do that with a tube. I really don't like them in general, even the big EoTech and only use them where their advantages are clear. Such as mounted 45° on a tactical rifle that wears a scope.

The Aimpoint Micro would no doubt handle the recoil but they also cost four times that of the UltraDot. Same for the MRO, awesome sight but also twice as much at $460. They all weigh the same so all you're saving is about 2" in length. Not to mention that their mounting options are somewhat limited. My favorite scoped hunting revolvers are Super Redhawks and the tube style red dots allow me to use the Ruger style rings (Leupold) and keep my iron sights. Anything requiring a picatinny rail would require removing the rear sight.

 

[BillTell]

As I said, I've been using these well over 20 years now. I believe it IS a training/familiarity issue. Also, again, while I believe them capable out to 200 yards, I think they shine under 100 yards. I also think the tube type need that "scope squint" whereas the reflex TRULY have the ability for anyone to shoot with both eyes open very easily. This translates to being able to watch your game very easily as you bring the gun up and get on target. I have a hard time shooting with both eyes open, however that doesn't apply with the reflex. That dot's just there. I didn't mean to get on a soap box about this, I just have been using these so long, and while I need glasses to read, my distance sight is just fine. For my eyes, (and maybe that's part of it) I can't imagine using anything else that would be easier, quicker, or more accurate. And, as I said, for many applications, I still use scopes.

 

[CraigC]

I believe it IS a training/familiarity issue.

I would say so. I never close an eye to shoot a tube style red dot. Or most scopes for that matter.

 

[Jack Ryan]

None. Scopes go on rifles. It defeats the whole purpose of a HAND gun to turn it in to a handSSSSS gun. Those are rifles. Sort of in the same league with people who call other things stuff that they are NOT. Like calling magazines clips.

 

[CraigC]

None. Scopes go on rifles. It defeats the whole purpose of a HAND gun to turn it in to a handSSSSS gun. Those are rifles. Sort of in the same league with people who call other things stuff that they are NOT. Like calling magazines clips.

No it doesn't. Adding an optic to a handgun does not make it as easy to hit with as a rifle. In fact, it extends its effective range and shooting light but makes it MORE difficult to shoot.

The one hand versus both hands on a handgun is just absurd.

 

[black mamba]

I shoot a couple hundred rounds a week, and have been doing so for a loooong time. I shoot both pistols and revolvers, with iron sights, scopes, reflex and tube type red dots. I'm not saying I couldn't do better acquiring the reflex dots with more practice, but I shoot enough to know that it's easier and quicker with a tube type, for me. Professional shooters burn thousands, not hundreds, of rounds per week, and they also do almost everything from a holster, which makes the reflex sight far preferable. I've been a handgun hunter for over 40 years, of both small and large game, so I have some experience of what works for me. I don't post ideas to get support for them, but to offer a choice based on my experience. I'm happy for you, Bill, that reflex sights work so well, and if they had for me, I could have saved a lot of money, trial and error. It's great that we have so many options to choose from. I see that CraigC has a similar opinion of tube type red dots, and he has done an immense amount of shooting as well. I'd love to hear Max's views on his preference for the UltraDots.