Best $250-400 scope?

[SJB358]

Wow, that looks EXCELLENT Trevor! Holy smokes, that rifle is ready to roll! Nice grab.

 

[CatskillCrawler]

That does look sharp Trevor!

I've always wondered how much that front sling attach point would affect POI if you crank too hard on your sling for support. ??

 

[AzDak42]

This post made me think of another discussion I was in on awhile back..

Given the incredible quality that we have in the rifle market today, I sometimes wonder about the place of the $250 scope at the low end.

I'd rather take a good $500 bolt gun and put a $500 optic on it than run a $750 rifle with a $250 optic. I've been really surprised at what the basic/entry level rifles can bring to the table. They are more than accurate enough for any hunting need and are reliable as all get out.

Just seems to me, the optic investment has longer legs and pays higher dividends. The $500 optic can continue to provide fine service, even if I later chose to restock, retrigger or rebarrel the $500 rifle.

Don't get me wrong, the $250 dollar scope has it's place. I've been mightily impressed with the one I just put on a rifle for a family member. I can't believe the value for the money. But that was to fix a problem on a very fixed budget. If I'm building up a new rifle combo, I'll wait another few months to have the cash to buy the upgraded optic off the bat.

 

[SJB358]

This post made me think of another discussion I was in on awhile back..

Given the incredible quality that we have in the rifle market today, I sometimes wonder about the place of the $250 scope at the low end.

I'd rather take a good $500 bolt gun and put a $500 optic on it than run a $750 rifle with a $250 optic. I've been really surprised at what the basic/entry level rifles can bring to the table. They are more than accurate enough for any hunting need and are reliable as all get out.

Just seems to me, the optic investment has longer legs and pays higher dividends. The $500 optic can continue to provide fine service, even if I later chose to restock, retrigger or rebarrel the $500 rifle.

Don't get me wrong, the $250 dollar scope has it's place. I've been mightily impressed with the one I just put on a rifle for a family member. I can't believe the value for the money. But that was to fix a problem on a very fixed budget. If I'm building up a new rifle combo, I'll wait another few months to have the cash to buy the upgraded optic off the bat.

That makes alot of good sense! Couldn't agree more

 

[DrMike]

I have always adopted the view that if I can't see what I'm shooting at I can't hit it. I anticipate that I will spend at least as much on my scope as I spend on my rifle.

 

[BK]

This post made me think of another discussion I was in on awhile back..

Given the incredible quality that we have in the rifle market today, I sometimes wonder about the place of the $250 scope at the low end.

I'd rather take a good $500 bolt gun and put a $500 optic on it than run a $750 rifle with a $250 optic. I've been really surprised at what the basic/entry level rifles can bring to the table. They are more than accurate enough for any hunting need and are reliable as all get out.

Just seems to me, the optic investment has longer legs and pays higher dividends. The $500 optic can continue to provide fine service, even if I later chose to restock, retrigger or rebarrel the $500 rifle.

Don't get me wrong, the $250 dollar scope has it's place. I've been mightily impressed with the one I just put on a rifle for a family member. I can't believe the value for the money. But that was to fix a problem on a very fixed budget. If I'm building up a new rifle combo, I'll wait another few months to have the cash to buy the upgraded optic off the bat.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Compare a $500 rifle from, say 1992 to a current $500 rifle. I would say that the 20 year old rifle is at least in the same ballpark, quality wise, as a current $500 rifle. A $250 dollar scope from then compared to now is almost definitely going to be darker, not as sharp and maybe doesn't have the same repeatability as a current $250 scope. There is nothing from '92 that can touch a 3-9x40 Conquest, unless you spent at least $1000 (a buttload of money back then). What I'm trying to say is, optics are improving faster than rifles are.

 

[AzDak42]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Compare a $500 rifle from, say 1992 to a current $500 rifle. I would say that the 20 year old rifle is at least in the same ballpark, quality wise, as a current $500 rifle. A $250 dollar scope from then compared to now is almost definitely going to be darker, not as sharp and maybe doesn't have the same repeatability as a current $250 scope. There is nothing from '92 that can touch a 3-9x40 Conquest, unless you spent at least $1000 (a buttload of money back then). What I'm trying to say is, optics are improving faster than rifles are.

I don't think we're so far apart what we're discussing, perhaps more just how we're approaching it. Let me try it from another direction.

Today, a $500 factory rifle is mechanically reliable and likely more accurate than the person pulling the trigger. Especially in hunting rifles today, a $500 rifle buys you something completely suitable for the task. That rifle can go into the deepest corner of the wilds and bring out game.

In my experience, the bottom end of the scope market has a lot of failings. They are probably just fine for someone that takes their rifle out of the case twice a year. Once to check their zero with a few rounds and again sitting in their deer stand.

But from the $500 price point to the $250 you get.. at least in my opinion..
- Usually a lot more robust mechanics. Very few $250 optics can run 3 or 4 box drills back to back without being off to make a miss the vitals on a big game animal a real possibility.
- They are nowhere near as robust physically. I've seen some of the better scopes take some unfortunate drops and never miss a beat.
- Light gathering.. Usually, they aren't even in the same league. Lower light conditions, like when I seem to stumble on most game, it's night and day difference... no pun intended.

Today, $500 will get you an optic that has great light gathering, is robust physically, extremely repeatable mechanically and will last you a good long time. In the last 10 years they have come so far, that the $500 price point gives you great value.

If I'm going to invest all the time, money and wife capital, in a big game hunt, I want rock solid gear that won't go tits up on me when it matters. To me, that means, at least a $500 rifle and a $500 scope.

(As a side note.. timing is everything. I remember some very dark days when Remington, Winchester and others were cranking out some truly abysmal guns. Triggers designed by lawyers, wood that wasn't fit for a pirate's peg leg, and barrels that were made by accountants.) Factory grade rifles have come a long way...

 

[gerry]

This has been a really good discussion, thanks to all so far.

Two $400-500 scopes interest me quite a bit for putting on a 35 Whelen, just need to sell another scope or trade with someone:

The Bushnell 6500 1.25-8x32 lots of great features on this one including a ton of eye relief and turrets. I have been leary of Bushnells in the past but this one seems to be a high quality scope. On sale right now for $510 at a big retailer here in Canada.

http://www.bushnell.com/products/scopes ... 0/651832M/

The other one would be a FX-3 fixed 6X42 with the LR Duplex, simple and probably tough the LR duplex would be great for distances past 250 yards.

http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shoo ... -3-6x42mm/

 

[Oldtrader3]

Actually, you could buy a Zeiss Conquest scope in 1992. I had one, it was called the Diavari C, it was German made, had a rubber sleeve on the objective lens and cost about $600 then. It was my first European scope. In fact my middle son still has it, going strong, on a .300 WSM Browning after all of these years.

The only American scope that I still have from that era is a Redfield (Denver) Illuminator which I bought in the late 1980's for about $300. It is presently retired but has nothing wrong with it except a few scratches and lots of hard use. It still holds up well optically to many newer scopes costing as much as it did then, despite advances in multicoating technology.

The scopes that I own presently and which are also 10-12 years old are: 1-Leupold Vari XIII (4.5-14x40AO), 1-Swarovski AH (4-12x50), 1-Zeiss Diavari V*T (5-15x42), 1-Kahles (3-9x42) and 1-Kahles (3.5-10x50). All of these scopes have had at least 600 handloads fired under each of them. Several of these scopes have over 1000 rounds (including .340 Bee) recoil through them. I bought these scopes after throwing away or selling several Bushnell, Nikon and other brand scopes when they failed me in performance and/or the warranty failed.

I have a Conquest (2.5-8x32) and a Minox (2-10x40) that I paid about $400 apiece for and they are holding up just fine. I believe that there are several good buys in the scope market presently in the same price range as these mentioned. Now that I have finally saved up and bought European optics, I am not going to turn away from these scopes as long as they still serve my needs. However, if I was looking to equip my rifles now with new scopes, I certainly would look hard at some of the $400-500 scopes made today. The ones that I have are very good.

 

[BK]

Charlie, how's the Conquest or Minox compare the Diavari-C?

 

[Oldtrader3]

The only difference that I could really distinguish between the Diavari C (Germany) and the Conquest with both being direct 3-9x40 scope comparisons between them, was coatings. The newer Zeiss Conquest had slightly higher contrast and lines per millimeter resolution but that only is a function of the date when it was made as no one had these coatings when the Diavari C was made. However, I have managed to kill a truck load of deer with this particular scope during the 15 years that I owned the Diavari C and never had it fail me during legal hunting hours.

In my particular group of scopes, the Minox is actually better contrast (at least in the middle of a high power field) at 10X than any Zeiss I own except my Diavari V *T but there is not much difference and I have to about bust a vein to see it. The Minox is more eye relief critical though, so go figure. I guess for the money, both of these scopes perform really well.

We live in interesting times for optics design.

 

[Guest]

I'm a huge fan of great glass, and I think that's no secret. On the flip side, I'm also constrained by my budget more than I'd like to be, most all the time. (That's the only downfall of having three school age kids!) So I've spent a lot of time looking through various glass in the $200-1000 range. I've looked through the Diavaris/Swaros but have purposefully stayed away from them as much as possible so I didn't ruin myself. What I've found is that there are a lot of scopes in the $200-500 range that will absolutely do the job during legal shooting hours, in woods or fields, with adequate clarity and light transmission to allow for on-target shots at game out to my personal limits of range, which are 400-500yds. (And even then, only in perfect conditions beyond about 300-350yds, depending on the rifle I'm carrying.) I currently own several Bushnell Elite 3200s, a Pentax Pioneer (1st generation, Phillippine-made, same as the Burris FFII), a Leupold Vari-X II, Zeiss Conquest, and Minox ZA5, along with an old fixed 4x Armsport scope that was $50 back in 1984 (which for a kid my age back then, was a lot of money - especially going on a $200 rifle!). The brightest amongst my scopes, not surprisingly, is either the Conquest or the Minox. I haven't had a chance to do a comparison of those two yet. But, the Pentax & Bushnell are not far behind, and I can say with surety they work in adverse light conditions much better than the $175 sale price tag might indicate. I took a 175yd shot through dense woods on an overcast day in January 2011 with no trouble with the Pentax, and two of the 3200s took game this year - one right before the end of legal shooting light on a completely overcast day, and the other at about 3p facing nearly directly into the sun. These scopes are repeatable in my experience as well, having "shot the box" multiple times with all of them, swapping them around from one rifle to another. They hold zero from one season to the next, regardless of how much or how little they're hunted, and how many range trips they get. I can't complain, and would buy another if I were given the chance. In fact, all of these lower priced scopes are better than the 30yr old Leupold Vari-X II, though it is also a good piece of glass and won't be getting replaced. That little 4x32 Armsport is clear and bright well past legal shooting hours, too. And it's been sitting on my Win94 30-30WCF for about 30yrs now, without fail. It's easily as bright as the 2-7x28 Leupold when comparing both at 4x. And for, at the time, a quarter the price!

Do I think $500 and up optics are better? Absolutely. Everything I own would wear a Conquest/Minox/Meopta if I had the coin. But I don't think anyone is underglassed with many $200 3-9x40 or a $300 4-16x40 class scopes. My experience has been very positive for the last decade. It is, in my opinion, very possible for someone to start out hunting today with a brand new $400-500 rifle, and a $200 scope, and never be undergunned or underglassed in search of any of the non-dangerous game in North America. My experience has borne this out multiple times.

 

[gerry]

Might have mentioned this before but when I bought my first Burris FF II in a 3-9X40 it was amazing how well it compared in low light to my Vari X III 3.5-10X40 that was about 12-14 years old at the time. As has been mentioned earlier we have lot of great scopes to choose from these days. Had I had the extra cash I would have bought the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 demo model I saw for $425 last week but have too many things on the go right now so it had to wait.