Who wants to spend some of my money? :)

[tddeangelo]

That VXII would be a great scope for the 257. Once you get your 45-70, the 1.5x5 would be sweet on that rifle.

I just got the Montana Sling and it seems pretty robust. Very stiff, but I imagine as I work with it, and keep treating it, it will get tuned up. Scotty

Got a link for that sling?

Turner makes an all-weather 1907 that I have my eye on....

 

[SJB358]

That VXII would be a great scope for the 257. Once you get your 45-70, the 1.5x5 would be sweet on that rifle.

I just got the Montana Sling and it seems pretty robust. Very stiff, but I imagine as I work with it, and keep treating it, it will get tuned up. Scotty

Got a link for that sling?

Turner makes an all-weather 1907 that I have my eye on....

http://montanagunslings.com/

I checked out the Turners also. Very nice as well. I may end up with one on the future for something. That Montana sling is very stiff. It will take some time with Sno Seal and heat, but I believe it will loosen up nicely. Scotty

 

[BK]

Tom, I have that same 2.5x8 with the B&C reticle on my 338WM. Favorite scope I own. 8X is way more than enough magnification for anything I would ever hunt and I do like the B&C reticle. Pretty useful and very easy to learn. Scotty

The price isn't too bad on those scopes, so that's what I'm thinking right now. My thoughts right now are that I'll set up the '06 to be more of my "intermediate" gun, keeping the 3-9x40 Conquest on it.

Then the .257 Bob can be more of a fun or fair weather gun, BUT, my kids will be using it, so I will eventually want to drop a good scope on it. I forget what model Leupold is on it, but it's a 1.5-5x30-ish model (no objective bell). VERY fine taper reticle, too. Really not my favorite scope setup at all. I have a 3-9x40 Vari-X II sitting around doing nothing, so that may get the nod for the 257 for now, but I'd like to see a Conquest on that in due time. Probably next spring.

But that leaves the 300WSM, which I'd like to set up to pretty much take it all on. Short or long, deer or elk. That means a drop-compensating reticle sure would be sweet to have on that one.

I'm also thinking of looking for some 1-1/4" QD sling swivels and slapping a Turner sling on the 300WSM. Just because...

Tom, you can always send the 1.5-5 back to Leupy and have the Custom Shop put in whatever reticle you want... duplex or heavy duplex, German #4, B&C, post and duplex, TMR...

http://www2.leupold.com/resources/downl ... art_07.pdf

And you can be uber-cool and have an M1 elevation turret installed, too! (The last part was mostly for laughs; I'm not sure even I would run an elevation turret on a 1.5-5.)

 

[SJB358]

That is a great point! Never thought of that. Scotty

 

[tddeangelo]

Tom, I have that same 2.5x8 with the B&C reticle on my 338WM. Favorite scope I own. 8X is way more than enough magnification for anything I would ever hunt and I do like the B&C reticle. Pretty useful and very easy to learn. Scotty

The price isn't too bad on those scopes, so that's what I'm thinking right now. My thoughts right now are that I'll set up the '06 to be more of my "intermediate" gun, keeping the 3-9x40 Conquest on it.

Then the .257 Bob can be more of a fun or fair weather gun, BUT, my kids will be using it, so I will eventually want to drop a good scope on it. I forget what model Leupold is on it, but it's a 1.5-5x30-ish model (no objective bell). VERY fine taper reticle, too. Really not my favorite scope setup at all. I have a 3-9x40 Vari-X II sitting around doing nothing, so that may get the nod for the 257 for now, but I'd like to see a Conquest on that in due time. Probably next spring.

But that leaves the 300WSM, which I'd like to set up to pretty much take it all on. Short or long, deer or elk. That means a drop-compensating reticle sure would be sweet to have on that one.

I'm also thinking of looking for some 1-1/4" QD sling swivels and slapping a Turner sling on the 300WSM. Just because...

Tom, you can always send the 1.5-5 back to Leupy and have the Custom Shop put in whatever reticle you want... duplex or heavy duplex, German #4, B&C, post and duplex, TMR...

http://www2.leupold.com/resources/downl ... art_07.pdf

And you can be uber-cool and have an M1 elevation turret installed, too! (The last part was mostly for laughs; I'm not sure even I would run an elevation turret on a 1.5-5.)

Hmmm....that would be cool. It'd be great for my slug barrel for my 870, I just didn't like the reticle for that use. Now you have me thinkin'.....

No hurry on that one, though. A good German #4 would rock for a slug gun, I think.

 

[BK]

Now that I ordered mine, I can pass this along...

Doug at Cameraland NY found some Zeiss 2.5-8x32 Conquests, and is selling them for $350. If you are interested, I would jump on it quick, as I bet these are gonna go quickly!

http://24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ub ... ost5265372

 

[tddeangelo]

Now that I ordered mine, I can pass this along...

Doug at Cameraland NY found some Zeiss 2.5-8x32 Conquests, and is selling them for $350. If you are interested, I would jump on it quick, as I bet these are gonna go quickly!

http://24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ub ... ost5265372

Wow...that's a good price. Not quite what I'm looking for, though, but if anyone is into that scope, get it now!

 

[BK]

All gone!

 

[tddeangelo]

Stopped by Cabela's tonight to check out VX-3's vs Conquests. And what happened was exactly what I thought would happen.

I like the B&C reticle better than the Rapid-Z 600.

I like the shorter, lighter scope of the 2.5-8x36 scope, and it didn't give much (if anything) up to it's 40mm brother as far as field of view or brightness (when set at similar magnification level).

But it wasn't a Conquest to my eyes.

On the other hand, the Conquest is a longer, heavier scope. I don't like the Rapid-Z like I do the B&C reticle. But the image, to my eyes, is better in the Zeiss. Not a lot. Maybe not enough to really make a difference, but it was better.

 

[DrMike]

Tom,

Without a doubt, Leupold has a winner in the B & C reticle. I'm with you on liking the B & C much more than the Rapid Z, which is too busy for my eyes. I tend to agree with you that the optical clarity with the Zeiss is pronounced relative to the Leupold. The older I get, the more I appreciate every advantage I can get with the scope.

 

[257 Ackley]

Tom,

Without a doubt, Leupold has a winner in the B & C reticle. I'm with you on liking the B & C much more than the Rapid Z, which is too busy for my eyes. I tend to agree with you that the optical clarity with the Zeiss is pronounced relative to the Leupold. The older I get, the more I appreciate every advantage I can get with the scope.

Just about all of my scopes over the last 10 years have been purchased with a German #4 reticle, the exception being a varmint reticle in a Leupold 6.5-20 LR. I don't like a busy reticle and find that simple is best for me (might say something about me :roll. I find that the #4 gets my eye on the target quicker than any other reticle, especially if it is moving.

 

[BK]

I'm thinking about getting a #4 reticle in something at some point... might be a good one for a .358 or .35 Whelen.

 

[tddeangelo]

Tom,

Without a doubt, Leupold has a winner in the B & C reticle. I'm with you on liking the B & C much more than the Rapid Z, which is too busy for my eyes. I tend to agree with you that the optical clarity with the Zeiss is pronounced relative to the Leupold. The older I get, the more I appreciate every advantage I can get with the scope.

The way I'm leaning now is simply toward another 3-9x40 Conquest with a duplex reticle. While I'd really love to use the B&C, my practical side tells me that the reticle does me no good if I can't see my target to use it.

Granted, that's splitting hairs, but I already have days in the field where I ring every last ounce of light from the Conquest. I let a buck walk last fall because I couldn't quite see the way I needed to in the Conquest (300 yards, bitter end of shooting time, and I needed 9x to tell him from another deer in the open with him). I just couldn't get the detail I needed to make a decision, although I could have indeed killed the deer.

Would the VX-3 give anything up to the Conquest? Probably not....except for the first and last 5-10 minutes of the day. But those are some pretty important minutes!

I think the Rapid-Z is a good reticle....in good light. That thing must be a bugger to see in bad light, though.

I have time to figure it out yet.

 

[SJB358]

I think you would be happy going with what you like. That is a great comparison, and I did look through a Zeiss with the Rapid Z reticle recently myself and it is much busier than my B&C's for sure. Kinda too much for me. With your 300WSM zeroed at 3" high at 100 (180 at 3000), you would be able to shoot to 400 holding on backline (about 12" low) and be about 30" low at 500 yards. With a regular reticle, I would say you would be fine with some shooting time. That is kinda the route I think I am going to go with the 300 WBY. It would shoot plenty flat for those 400 yard shots to not really have to worry about extra aiming points. Scotty

 

[tddeangelo]

I think you would be happy going with what you like. That is a great comparison, and I did look through a Zeiss with the Rapid Z reticle recently myself and it is much busier than my B&C's for sure. Kinda too much for me. With your 300WSM zeroed at 3" high at 100 (180 at 3000), you would be able to shoot to 400 holding on backline (about 12" low) and be about 30" low at 500 yards. With a regular reticle, I would say you would be fine with some shooting time. That is kinda the route I think I am going to go with the 300 WBY. It would shoot plenty flat for those 400 yard shots to not really have to worry about extra aiming points. Scotty

I don't mind the stuff they have going on there, I just wish they'd have made the reticle a duplex otherwise, because those fine hash-marks are impossible to see in anything less than perfect light. Even in the store last night they weren't easy to pick out. I like the heavy duplex on my Conquest because it helps draw the eye right to the center. The B&C got that part right, no question. And really, the B&C simply adds some stadia lines to use as reference/aim points. Not much different than the concept used in crossbow scopes. That's what I like about it.

I don't know that I'd zero for 300, as attractive as it sounds. Maybe when I head west I'd do that, but for hunting here, I think I'd stick with my 200 yard zero.

What I can do is figure out where to hold for 300 at the range, then use whatever "aiming point" I would use for 300 as if the gun is zero'ed 300 and hold high accordingly out to 400-ish. I don't think I'd shoot much beyond 400.

I would be tempted by a lower magnification Zeiss, though. I gotta look into those. The thing that'll get me is that the 3-9x40 is such a common offering that the price is always best on that model. My father has one on his 7-08 Featherweight as well as his 06 Featherweight XTR, and I thought they'd be unwieldy on those rifles, but they aren't bad at all.

 

[DrMike]

Tom,

You are correct that the first few minutes of shooting light and the last fifteen minutes are the active times. If you can't distinguish features, you'll lose confidence at best and lose game at worst. I was just working with a friend to select a new scope yesterday. I set him up to test them at twilight. He will have a new scope mounted on his 300 Weatherby by this afternoon. I haven't spoken to him yet. None of my Zeiss scopes have let me down in the field. In fairness, however, none of the Leupolds I've carried (and there is quite a number) have left me frustrated because they lacked clarity in the dawn moments or in the gloaming. On the positive, you have some excellent options whichever way you do, and you likely won't regret either choice.

 

[SJB358]

I think you would be happy going with what you like. That is a great comparison, and I did look through a Zeiss with the Rapid Z reticle recently myself and it is much busier than my B&C's for sure. Kinda too much for me. With your 300WSM zeroed at 3" high at 100 (180 at 3000), you would be able to shoot to 400 holding on backline (about 12" low) and be about 30" low at 500 yards. With a regular reticle, I would say you would be fine with some shooting time. That is kinda the route I think I am going to go with the 300 WBY. It would shoot plenty flat for those 400 yard shots to not really have to worry about extra aiming points. Scotty

I don't mind the stuff they have going on there, I just wish they'd have made the reticle a duplex otherwise, because those fine hash-marks are impossible to see in anything less than perfect light. Even in the store last night they weren't easy to pick out. I like the heavy duplex on my Conquest because it helps draw the eye right to the center. The B&C got that part right, no question. And really, the B&C simply adds some stadia lines to use as reference/aim points. Not much different than the concept used in crossbow scopes. That's what I like about it.

I don't know that I'd zero for 300, as attractive as it sounds. Maybe when I head west I'd do that, but for hunting here, I think I'd stick with my 200 yard zero.

What I can do is figure out where to hold for 300 at the range, then use whatever "aiming point" I would use for 300 as if the gun is zero'ed 300 and hold high accordingly out to 400-ish. I don't think I'd shoot much beyond 400.

I would be tempted by a lower magnification Zeiss, though. I gotta look into those. The thing that'll get me is that the 3-9x40 is such a common offering that the price is always best on that model. My father has one on his 7-08 Featherweight as well as his 06 Featherweight XTR, and I thought they'd be unwieldy on those rifles, but they aren't bad at all.

Yeah, they are pretty good sized scopes for the most part, so even on Featherweights they still don't look "too big" at all.

200 yard zero works just as well also. I have just gotten in the habit of the 3" high at 100 yards for so long that it is second nature. I wouldn't think you would be more than a 18-20" low at 400, which is a longer shot for alot of us.

Like Mike said, you have a ton of great options. Scotty

 

[tddeangelo]

Tom,

You are correct that the first few minutes of shooting light and the last fifteen minutes are the active times. If you can't distinguish features, you'll lose confidence at best and lose game at worst. I was just working with a friend to select a new scope yesterday. I set him up to test them at twilight. He will have a new scope mounted on his 300 Weatherby by this afternoon. I haven't spoken to him yet. None of my Zeiss scopes have let me down in the field. In fairness, however, none of the Leupolds I've carried (and there is quite a number) have left me frustrated because they lacked clarity in the dawn moments or in the gloaming. On the positive, you have some excellent options whichever way you do, and you likely won't regret either choice.

What I need to do is get the Cabela's guys to take me outside with the scopes I want to compare and see how they look in poor light. I wanted to do that last night, but they were really short-staffed (just my guess, maybe some were hiding in the back, lol) and I felt bad asking the guy to leave and go outside for me to check scopes. But that's what I need to do.


I would do the 2.5-8x36 VX3 in a heartbeat if I KNEW for a fact it would hang with the Conquest in bad light.

 

[tddeangelo]

Yeah, they are pretty good sized scopes for the most part, so even on Featherweights they still don't look "too big" at all.

200 yard zero works just as well also. I have just gotten in the habit of the 3" high at 100 yards for so long that it is second nature. I wouldn't think you would be more than a 18-20" low at 400, which is a longer shot for alot of us.

Like Mike said, you have a ton of great options. Scotty

I'm so used to the 200 yard zero, Scotty, that's why I'd do it. On my Vari-X II with my '06, I'd found that at 9x, the bottom duplex post was dead on at 300 for me. If I remember correctly, a 200 yard zero does what you predicted for 400....18-20 low. I think if I push it to 300 yards for the zero, 400 is something like 6-8 inches low? that's what I'd go with for elk hunting, but I don't know that I need it for whitetails.

The idea I had for the B&C reticle was that if I know where the next aiming point is on, then I can act with that as if the rifle is zero'ed for that range (because it is) and have kind of the best of both worlds.

 

[SJB358]

What I need to do is get the Cabela's guys to take me outside with the scopes I want to compare and see how they look in poor light. I wanted to do that last night, but they were really short-staffed (just my guess, maybe some were hiding in the back, lol) and I felt bad asking the guy to leave and go outside for me to check scopes. But that's what I need to do.


I would do the 2.5-8x36 VX3 in a heartbeat if I KNEW for a fact it would hang with the Conquest in bad light.

I have never been let down and had to leave the woods early due to the VX3 not performing, but then again, maybe the Zeiss offers that much more! I need to really check them out also! Scotty