Which scopes has the longest eye relief?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joel1316

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
37
Location
Pittsburg, CA
I'm looking for a scope that has a long eye relief of around 4" - 5". I've seen that Bushnell offers a scope that has a 6" eye relief that sells for about $80! It would be perfect, but I'm sort of leery about an $80.00 scope.

I really don't want to spend more than $200-$300 on this scope.

You guys have any recommendations?
 
Be VERY leery of an $80 Bushnell. Bushnell's budget line of scopes (below $150), in my experience have been rather bad. Won't hold zero, terrible paralax, poor clarity, etc.

And while the Elite 3200, Elite 4200, and Legend are good, they fail your requirement of 4" or more of eye relief.

The only scope I'm aware of for your requirements would be a Leupold VX1 or VX2.
 
The Sightron SII line has, on average, better eye relief than the VXII and VXIII lines.

I am particularly partial to the 1.5x-6x/42 for both generous and non-critical eye relief.
 
That scope will make you very sad - the eye relief changes DRAMATICALLY as you zoom thru the optical range. There's a reason for the large range in the specs - because you can't use the same head position at 4x as you will need to use at 12x.

Been there, done that, dude. It's BAD. The entire Leupold 4x-12x line (Rifleman thru VXIII) uses the same basic optical design, and they all suffer from this issue.

You've been warned. Unless you leave the scope at one end of the range or the other, you will be very sad.
 
I'll continue the search as I'm no rush right now. My problem is that I have a Ruger No.1 which places he scope too far forward. Right now I'm having to "crawl" the stock to get good eye relief. I just ordered some Ruger extended rings to help, but I think I need another inch or two...

Another option is to find a long scope so that I can get the scope farther back....
 
This is a semi-educated guess. I suspect eye relief is a function of the size of the lenses and magnification. I'd guess there's little a manufacturer can do to change the laws of physics. I can tell you that cranking up the power on a scope cuts the relief distance.
 
I had exactly the same problem with my Ruger #1. I ended up using both offset rings and a Leupold 6x42. The 6x42 has 4.5 inches of eye relief.
 
I have a Remington Model 7 and am having the same problem.
Thinking about this one
http://www.muelleroptics.com/products/EX31044.html

Any bad reports on this? My problem is not only eye relief but the rear ring encumbers easy loading. Moving the rear ring all the way forward would help the eye relief, but then the two rings would be very close together. Seems scope mounting is more of a black art.

attachment.php

KKKKFL
 
Last edited:
"I had exactly the same problem with my Ruger #1. I ended up using both offset rings and a Leupold 6x42. The 6x42 has 4.5 inches of eye relief."

I have medium height offsett rings.... I'm assuming you have high offset rings to accomodate the 42mm?
 
Thanks DTOM,
I think the Short Mag will work perfectly for me:
Burris Short Mag Scope 3-9x 32mm Ballistic Plex Reticle Silver.
In my budget, enough eye relief at low magnification and its 32mm objective should work with my medium height offset rings...


Closer attention and I find that the second half of the Short Mags tube is really short, not much room for bringing scope farther back. I wish I could just test it out first.......
 
The new Nikon Monarch line is suposed to be a constant 4" eye relief. Haven't put it on the rifle yet, but it appears to work that way just holding it.

May be out of your price range, but a 4-16x42 cost me $389 delivered.
 
I have a Zeiss Conquest, which has a constant 4" eye relief. It is an outstanding scope and I like it a lot better than the Leupold VXII it replaced. The Leupold was not as clear or sharp, especially in low light, and it drove me crazy when I had to crawl up the stock every time I dialed up to higher magnification. With a $400 price tag however, the Conquest is outside your specified budget. If you can manage the extra $100 though, it's definitely worth the extra money.
 
Thanks guys, if I can't find a scope that will fit my needs in my current budget, I'll wait a while to gather another $100.

I thought I would try shortening the stock, but I measured my lenght of Pull last night and its 13 3/4", not much to cutoff if I went that route to help...
 
You won't get much of a scope for under $200 unless you find a nice used one.

I would suggest taking a look at the Nikon Monarch scopes. They are excellent. I have several. Thet are bright, clear and the colors are true. I found the brightness to be slightly better than my Vari-X III scopes and the Conquests I used to have.

The Conquests are nice, but overrated and overpriced in my opinion. I replaced the two I owned with Nikons as I felt the Nikons were overall better scopes for half the price. The Nikon eye relief was also better for me than the Zeiss.

Please note: This is my personal opinion only and I am not interested in arguing with Zeiss owners. To each their own.

Eye relief can be important when you are shooting heavier loads as Pamm discovered on our elk hunt this year. She nailed herself on my 2.5-8 Leupold.
She handled it like a trooper but I know it had to hurt like the dickens. I bet she doesn't do it again. . . . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Is it possible to extend the eye relief of a scope?
Replies
4
Views
2K
taliv
T
H
  • Locked
Long eye relief scope?
Replies
9
Views
964
rockstar.esq
R
atek3
  • Locked
Which is faster, a conventional scope or an intermediate eye relief?
Replies
9
Views
1K
ArmedBear
A
Col. Plink
  • Locked
Bushnell Banner long eye relief scope?
Replies
7
Views
3K
Col. Plink
Col. Plink
A
  • Locked
Scout scope question
Replies
4
Views
461
Okiecruffler
O
Back
Top