Scope selection help

[Razorbacker]

Okay, I'm gonna lay out my conundrum. On my 8mm RM I mounted a Burris 4.5x14 E1. It s got the dots and all and I like it but the O-bell is 42. Which I did not notice when I ordered it. Which means I had to scoot it farther forward than I'd like for optimum eye relief. If the eye relief is where I want it then the O-bell just kisses the barrel. This is not good.

Most of my hunting is still hunting so I've had many instances of almost stepping on a buck. It happened last season with this combo. 4.5 is too much in that scenario. All I could find in the scope was hide. Nothing to squeeze on for an ethical shot. On the other hand this rifle is capable of mid to long range shooting. with my style of hunting i need that rifle to come to my shoulder and be on. Much like a shotgun. Instead of flushing birds it's deer.

So I've been looking to try to find say a 2.5x14x40, It ain't out there as far as i can tell.
The world is full of 3.5x10s

All i can think of is get higher mounts, which wont solve my flushing buck cheek weld issue or settle on a VX3 3.5x10x40. Which doesn't help with mid to LR shooting.

Any ideas? Thanks

 

[Oldtrader3]

I don't know about you and your shooting but I have shot deer at 425 yards with a 3.5-10x40 Leupold and never had any issues with not enough magnification. I have shot a lot of deer at 300+ yards in Utah with a 2.5-8x36 Leupold or Conquest and have not lost one yet because of inadequate magnification.

 

[Guest]

I'll suggest a couple of options. I've used my Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 on my 300Wby in exactly the scenarios you're discussing. The format of that scope is such that it mounts fine in medium height rings, where a Pentax Pioneer (clone of the Burris FFII E1) needed some massaging to fit on the same rifle, due to shorter span prior to the objective. My solution in that instance was to add about .015" of clearance with Burris Signature Rings with offset inserts. I barely noticed the difference in scope height when shouldering the rifle, but I could visually confirm the scope had adequate clearance over the barrel. So that's an option, and a cheap one, too, coming in at about $50 for the whole setup, including the offset inserts.

But really, what would work just as well, and have only the added cost as a downside, is to get a quality 2-10x40 class scope and mount it up. As Charlie said, 10x is plenty out to 400+. I used a 3-9x on my 270Wby for a couple of years, and never felt underglassed out to 500yds. What's available in a 2-10? A good bit, at prices from a few hundred up to a couple thousand, depending on your budget. On the low end, look at the Bushnell Elite and the Vortex Viper. Mid-range, I'd suggest the Minox ZA5 or Meopta MeoPro (though I think it's a 3.5-10x). Upper mid-end is going to go to the Zeiss Conquest HD5, which at $800 or less is about the best deal out there in a scope in that power range, in terms of phenomenal glass and still a 3-digit price. If you're going to spring for more than $800, look at Leica and Swarovski. The ZA6 is $2k, but it's also 1.7-10x42, which would be just about ideal for your rifle, if not nearly so for your wallet. (I could not do that scope, so don't feel bad if it's not in your budget either.)

You might also consider a 3-10x or 3-12x, which opens up some other brands. Good luck with the search. Getting the glass right on a rifle with wide ranges of use is tough. Post some pics when you're done.

 

[Razorbacker]

Thanks for the replies guys. Y'all have got me rethinking the issue. I've taken Mule Deer and elk out past 300 yds with a 2.5x8 and a 3.5x10 and I don't remember the animals looking tiny.
I think I have the picture in my minds eye of how little a target looks way out there. I think what I may do is just get some slightly higher rings and if that's to tall for comfort in the still hunt, then I can use my '06 which wears a Lueopold Vari-X 2 2.5x8x40. But dang it I just really enjoy that 8 so much.
We'll see how it goes I reckon. I have a Vari-X 3 3.5x10x50 on my .300 WM and I swore I'd never go over 40 on another O bell again for just that reason.
Thanks again.
p.s. When my wife gets home I'll see if she can help me figure out the pic post procedure for this site

 

[HOGWILD338-378]

I have one of these in 3-9x40 and like it a lot and it sounds like the style hunting you are doing is stalking and is it all in heavy timber or is it possible for a longer shot? Looking at putting one on my Benelli M1 Super 90 slugger as 200 yard shot would be around the max distance my ammo would be effective! Most everyone to include me usually over powers their rifle with the wrong scope! I suspect a lower magnification optik will correct you're issue or try another rifle? BTW WPS!! :lol:
http://www.leupold.com/hunting-shooting ... flescopes/

 

[Razorbacker]

Well hogwild, it's pretty thick stuff. In some places to thick for still hunting. But it had been my experience that no matter how thick there is always an opportunity for a longer shot. Not hunting Wyoming longer but still longer. And I've hunted out West many times and hope to do so again. So I like to keep my options open.

 

[HOGWILD338-378]

With the BT turret you can set your first 4 preset zeros and I like mine a bunch and nothing will beat this glass in any low light conditions and I know it is a tad expensive but hard to believe a 1 inch tube performs the way this one will!! My 270 Lazermark is a tack driver with this 3.5-18x44 !

http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/prod ... tic-turret

 

[JD338]

The VX-3 2.5-8x36 is my favorite scope and has more than enough magnification for hunting out to 500 yds. The standard duplex fits perfectly in a 6" bulls eye at 500 yds. The Leupold Mark 4 4.5-14x40mm sits on top of my 338 RUM and has worked very well on WT deer from 40 yds out to 800 yds. I have a VX-3 3.5-10x40mm on my 280 AI and it too has served me well from WT at 40 yds, to steel at 600 yds.

JD338

 

[bullet]

The truth is with any decent glass from entry level Redfields, Simmons and Weavers to the 3-9x40mm Swaro I had on my custom 30-06 Ackley or the VXIIIs I have had on so many rifles I have owned as well as the four Conquests setting on different Weatherby Mark V's, and I have never failed to see or take game out to 500yds and a few to 600yds and 90% under 200yds at legal times to shoot. Go to the store, look through the glass they have that is in the price range you want to spend and the one you like the best buy it, it will do just fine.

There is a lot of boloney out there in the scope hype world and it is the most snob filled area in all of shooting and hunting. We are talking hunting out to 500yds and over 90% of all hunting is under 300yds with most under 200yds. Hard to go wrong with glass today and remember 40mm brings in more light in most glass than the human eye can use. Yes, from Simmons to Swaro I have taken game and never lost game due to my glass. If there ever was and is a field in our sport that cannot always say, you get what you pay for, it is the field of optics.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I would start with the VX-R, VX-3 Leupold's or a Minox ZA-3 and go up from there to say that anything at that level or better will give you a very good and robust scope which would perform well and give you good optical performance as long as you owned it.

You get what you pay for in Optics but you may pay 3X as much money for 25% better optical performance, so you need to decide for yourself, how much is adequate for your particular needs.

 

[Guest]

I'll disagree, to a point, with the idea that you do not get what you pay for in optics. Let's frame the discussion with the following information:

I've shot through every major and many of the minor brands of scope, to include Tasco, Simmons, Weaver, Thompson Center, Armsport, Leupold, Zeiss, Minox, Meopta, Burris, Pentax, Bushnell, Nikon, and others. In my experience, if you buy a decent scope you won't have problems. The part that defines decent for me is as follows:

* Brightness to see a deer in thick woods. I'm not talking about in a food plot or in a power line easement - think pine forest at dusk on an overcast day
* Clarity to distinguish whether a deer has antlers or not, at 1min before the end of legal shooting hours, in thick woods, on an overcast day.
* Full lens clarity to distinguish animals from the cover surrounding them in dim light.
* Sufficient eye relief to allow for various shooting angles and recoil from the rifle without getting a scope scar.
* Brightness/clarity to see not only the deer but also the crosshairs - clearly - in dim light at the beginning or the end of the day, without question, when it matters.

Now, to be sure, you don't need a $1500 scope to do all this. Heck, you don't even need a $1000 scope, or a $500 scope. If you're satisfied with more traditional power ranges, you can get a 3-9x40 in many models for under $500 which will provide ample clarity, brightness, and eye relief for the task at hand. But not every scope has this, and precious few of the <$150-200 scopes have it at all.

The bottom line is, you don't need the very best optics to hunt during legal shooting hours in North America, but you do need a minimum of optics. I'd start in the Bushnell Legend/Nikon Buckmaster/Burris FullField II E1 range (~$200 for a 3-9x40) and work up from there. Do I see more with my 4.5-14x44 Zeiss Conquest or my 4-20x50 Minox ZA5? Sure. But I can see enough to shoot at the end of legal shooting hours in thick woods with little or no real direct sunlight left, with my Bushnell Elite 3200s and Pentax Pioneer (Burris FFII clone) and I have several friends who see plenty well enough with other sub-$500 optics to make deadly shots. You'd be amazed what you can see with a $200-300 3-9x40 class scope these days. Heck, if you shop around, you can get a Minox or Meopta or Zeiss Conquest in that price range, too. You'll have to be patient, but you can do it. I know from experience.

But you do get what you pay for. It's just that above about $300-500, depending on the power level you're after, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and you pay a lot more for a little better glass and coatings. It's like we used to say around the shop when we were drag racing. The first 400hp are cheap. It's that last 25 that cost all the money. The same holds true for optics.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Sorry Dubyam, I usually do not say anything or challenge your replies to my posts but in this case, I have also owned just about every popular scope that has ever been made, at least starting with Bushnell Elites and Nikon Buckmaster, Burris Fullfields, Weaver V9's et cetera. They all performed to a point and some were better mechanically than others but I have had more failures of scope clarity, seal leaking problems, fogging, failure to hold zero or failure to find zero with many of these scopes. I have been using scopes on rifles for 50 years now.

All this has pushed me to a baseline of MTBF (mean time between failure), and optical performance that starts where I stated earlier with VX-3 Leupold and ZA3 Minox. I could get through life perfectly well with the scopes which I have listed as my standard for optical performance and not spend a lot of money for capable and lifelong performance criteria.

I have some more expensive scopes because at one time I made sufficient wages to buy better optics but I also own (3) Leupold Vari-XII to VX-3 scopes and Minox ZA5 scopes which work perfectly well on the rifles that I have them on. My personal preference in scopes now tends to be the Zeiss Conquest series that was just discontinued and I have two of those scopes.

I can not knock my Zeiss Diavari V, Swarovski AH, or Kahles scopes either. They have never failed in the 10 or so years which I have owned them, not once, despite use on the .340 Bee and .300 Mags. Plus, they still have wonderful optics which makes me glad and fortunate that I have them

 

[bullet]

I will say it again you do not get what you pay for in most cases especially in name brand upper line scopes, because of advertisement, import fees (even those American companies ALL import their glass), when you are able to find other scope brands (which only a few really make their own scopes and yet even those still import some of the parts) you pay more than the optics are really worth. Second, your scope should never be used to glass animals to see how many points they have or for that matter anything down range because you want to see what it is you think you have seen, that is why we use binoculars.

It in fact it is against the law in our state to use your rifle and scope for glassing. It is not safe, you could be glassing a man you thought was an animal moving in that thick cover. Now I have a fine pair of 10x binos and that is what I glass for specifics and fine detail, not my rifle scope. I never lift my rifle on game until I know for sure what it is, hence once again the binos, that is what they are for. Now that said, I don't need a spotting scope are the equivalent sitting on top my rifle to kill out to 500 or 600yds on those few occasions that has happened to take game.

 

[SJB358]

If your careful and shop around a little, the 3x9 ZA3's are excellent, as are the 2-10 Minox's. I don't have a 4-20 Minox, but that is another scope that I would have a very hard time not trying if I were trying to reach out a little longer. I know I have had a couple hicups with my Minox's, but none were totally catastrophic and their customer service was nothing but excellent with me. Just don't expect immediate return during deer season, as you and 1000's of others want the same thing and something will have to give. I will take a ZA3 or ZA5 over any VX3 hands down. Just my personal slant. Also, the used market is a pretty good place to shop. Some great deals to be had.

 

[Guest]

Guys, I didn't say you need a $2000 scope. Nor did I say a $2000 scope is 4x better than a $500 scope. But I certainly think, to a point, you get what you pay for in optics. And it also depends on what you want. If you want a scope for night hunting for hogs, you might actually need a $1500-2000 scope with a monster 56mm objective. I don't hunt that way, and don't own a scope such as that. But much as Charlie has stated, there is a factor of reliability involved. In my own experience, which now encompasses nearly 1000rds downrange under a Bushnell Elite 3-9x40 (on my 8x57, and on my 270Wby for several years and on my 30-06 for several more) I have had zero failures and zero tracking issues. Now, that's a sample size of three scopes (including the one on my son's 270WSM) but it is, as I said above, the minimum entry point for a scope for me. The current Legend Ultra series is virtually identical in specs and performance to my Elite 3200s, for reference.

And for the record, I don't "glass" animals through my scope. What I'm talking about is seeing a white-tail walking or running through the woods, knowing it's a deer, and knowing it's legal, at the end of legal shooting hours. Being able to pull up on the animal, assess shot opportunity and whether or not it's a doe or spike, is a key issue with scopes in the area I hunt. Were I to pull up my binoculars every time a deer jumped up in front of me when walking, I'd lose 50% of my shot opportunities. I don't sit powerline or gas line easements (not because I have anything against it, but because my lease doesn't have any) so my style of hunting is different, and when stalking, glassing with binos is not an option on a jumped deer. Clarity in a scope is paramount at that moment. You don't have to hunt that way, but it's an ethical, valid, and legal way to hunt in all six states I've hunted. I do make sure I know where my hunting partners are, and what's downrange of my position, when shooting. I assess all that well before busting up a deer and pulling up my rifle.

Y'all can certainly pick optics as you choose, and I won't fault you for it. But I do believe the evidence shows you get what you pay for, as long as you agree that price increases in a multiple of quality, above a certain threshold. (As I said above, in my last paragraph.) To put it another way, while a $300 scope is likely twice the scope a $150 scope is, but a $600 scope is not twice the scope a $300 scope is. And a $1200 scope is not likely even 50% more scope than a $600 scope, much less twice the scope.

 

[bullet]

To put it another way, while a $300 scope is likely twice the scope a $150 scope is, but a $600 scope is not twice the scope a $300 scope is. And a $1200 scope is not likely even 50% more scope than a $600 scope, much less twice the scope.

So that is my point, some scopes you pay more for less when all is considered. Therefore with some scopes you do not get what you are paying for because they are not near enough scope in quality over other scopes costing half as much to charge twice as much for them. So, there are scopes you do not get what you pay for, because price does not fit the mere to marginal gain in quality over the scopes that cost much less and I am only talking about hunting scopes (those that are practical enough to mount on a rifle and carry hunting) in my above statement.

 

[BeeTee]

But you do get what you pay for. It's just that above about $300-500, depending on the power level you're after, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and you pay a lot more for a little better glass and coatings. It's like we used to say around the shop when we were drag racing. The first 400hp are cheap. It's that last 25 that cost all the money. The same holds true for optics.

I agree... I often think about how much some of the scopes talked about here cost and how much time is actually spent looking through them. Then, I worry about carrying that scope while crossing a steep snow/ice covered talus slope, or carrying it on a horse or ATV. And, I sometimes wonder how much peer review affects scope choice. BT

 

[JD338]

BT

You are right, the actual time spent looking through the scope is small when compared to the time invested in the hunt, the terrain and elements of mother nature. The true test is when it is "Show Time" and you need good optics to put the bullet where it needs to go with surgical precision. The better mid range optics offer crisp clarity, even in low light conditions. Whether its a deer hunt out back or the hunt of a life time, having excellent optics will pay off during the moment of truth.
Think of it as an investment and spend a little more for a better quality scope. You will be glad you did.

JD338

 

[Guest]

To put it another way, while a $300 scope is likely twice the scope a $150 scope is, but a $600 scope is not twice the scope a $300 scope is. And a $1200 scope is not likely even 50% more scope than a $600 scope, much less twice the scope.

So that is my point, some scopes you pay more for less when all is considered. Therefore with some scopes you do not get what you are paying for because they are not near enough scope in quality over other scopes costing half as much to charge twice as much for them. So, there are scopes you do not get what you pay for, because price does not fit the mere to marginal gain in quality over the scopes that cost much less and I am only talking about hunting scopes (those that are practical enough to mount on a rifle and carry hunting) in my above statement.

@Mike - By this logic, you don't get what you pay for in cars, washing machines, TVs, or any other technology based item. The rule is always that the higher up the scale you go, the more you pay for smaller incremental gains in quality and performance. Value is entirely subjective, and certainly you don't see the value in a $1000-2000 scope. I could see paying $1k for the right scope, for the right application, but I don't necessarily have to have it, either. I just think it's misleading to say 'in optics you don't get what you pay for' as you do get more if you pay more. And like all technology-based products, you get a little more for a lot more cost, at the upper end of things. In my example above, I can easily point out the differences between the $300 and $600 scope, and demonstrate that in certain circumstances, the extra $300 is money well spent. I suspect I could do the same for the $1200 scope, though the dollars per increment of benefit would be higher. Kind of like buying a 3/4 ton truck. If you need it to haul a 7500lb tractor and implements on a 2000lb trailer, along with tools and gear in the bed, that's great. It doesn't make it any more economical to operate when you're just running to the grocery store nor is it any more "benefit for the dollar" and in fact you get less for the last $10k in cost than you do for the first $20k. But if you need it, you need it. Some guys hunt in scenarios that require better optics. There are even some spots on my lease which are deep in a draw, under a thick canopy, where my Conquest gets dim at 30min after sunset, and I'd like a little more light transmission. I'm not sure I need a Swaro or S&B, nor am I sure they'll transmit that much more light, but I have it on good authority they will, and if I really needed it, I could pay the price and step up. When I shot that buck of a lifetime in the thick woods it would be worth every penny I spent, and then some.

@BT - you're likely correct that some scopes are bought due to peer influence. I've tried to use my powers for good, though, as I frequently recommend folks purchase $200-400 scopes which will serve beyond their needs. Not everybody (myself included) have the disposable income to spend on the $2k scope, and I believe not everyone needs that optic, too.

 

[bullet]

@BT - you're likely correct that some scopes are bought due to peer influence. I've tried to use my powers for good, though, as I frequently recommend folks purchase $200-400 scopes which will serve beyond their needs. Not everybody (myself included) have the disposable income to spend on the $2k scope, and I believe not everyone needs that optic, too.

Yes, this statement fits at least most hunters and their realities out there who are like you and me (although at one time I could afford the Swaro) who do not have disposable income to spend on the very expensive stuff. I also believe you are correct to state that not everyone (and I would include the majority of us hunters) needs those very expensive optics. Buy the way, that deer of a life was taken without them although it would have been a little easier if you had it. That said, I will continue to argue that the cost of that little difference is to much, out of line and not called for accept to garner a larger profit and bolster name recognition. It is so sad that people through the years are trained to relate price of something with the quality of it and what scope company wants folks to think they don't manufacture quality, so in some cases we pay for the perception to be maintained.