New scope for 250 or less

If you have binoculars you don't need 12 or even 9X on a hunting rifle. Longest shot I ever made was on a little Texas 8 point at 400 yards with a Leupold 4X M8 scope. I had to use binos to count the points. If you use the riflescope as a spotting scope, the 4-12 could be useful, I now have. 3-9s on my hunting rifles, both are set aqt 6X. When you think about it, a lot of deer have been killed with open sights, at ranges of 100 yards plus. 4X at 400 yards equals a 100 yard sight picture. 4X at 100 yards is like 25 yards with the naked eye. I now think the 2 to 7X might be ideal for a big game scope. 2-7 would be good for close in at 2X and very good at 6 for long range. I still like the Leupold scopes, generally lighter weight and more compact than most others. They are priced very good for what you get.
 
I sold my 300M a couple of years ago. The scope was a 4x Lepupold. Plenty of scope.
I replaced it with a 300 WSM Winchester a lot lighter and a little less kick.
 
I switched all my scopes (7) to Nikon Pro Staff (P223, P308, and 5) I've owned Burris, Leopold, and Weaver and these are, hands down, the best I've ever used. I really like the external controls, too.
 
Mattj4867 said:
Hi all. I received a Ruger Hawkeye in 300 win mag for Christmas and I need to outfit a scope on it. I am considering a Nikon Prostaff 4-12 but am unsure of how it will hold up to the 300 win mag’s recoil. I am open to any other suggestions. Thank you everyone and Merry Christmas!
Click to expand...

My suggestion would be a good 2-7x. You'd probably never need more than about 4x for big game hunting.
 
A somewhat recently developed pet peeve of mine: people over scoping hunting rifles as if they are some kind of world class shooter planning to go after elk, deer etc from long distances.
Click to expand...

But isn't this, to a certain extent, why we have magnum calibers and quality, powerful optics? Anyone can practice to proficiency at 400 or even 1,000 yds. And once you are proficient, deciding to take that shot is as ethical as the 100 yd shot.

With that said, perhaps this needs to be a conversation had elsewhere. I've noticed a good many posts, this month, have had someone voice concerns about ethical shots at distance.

Hi all. I received a Ruger Hawkeye in 300 win mag for Christmas and I need to outfit a scope on it. I am considering a Nikon Prostaff 4-12 but am unsure of how it will hold up to the 300 win mag’s recoil. I am open to any other suggestions. Thank you everyone and Merry Christmas!
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything wrong with 4-12 for that rifle, but I might encourage you to open your budget just a hair. I think there are some really decent optics in the $300-$500 range. The first thing to limit a rifle, after the shooters skill and discipline, is optics. I bought a Rem700 300WM 3 years ago, and deliberated over the optic for quite some time. I ended up with Cabelas Bargain Cave Vortex Viper. It's 4-16x44, and I think it's certainly all the scope I would ever need for deer or elk hunting anywhere on this continent. It has somewhat to do with the fact that I don't like carrying binoculars. Once you've matched a good optic to a rifle you're comfortable shooting, you'll have potent tool for life.

To me, it comes down to this: The primary faculty of hunting and shooting is sight. Enable yourself to see clearly. Enable yourself to see in low light. Enable yourself to see at distance and actually ascertain what distance is. Then take your shot based on the limitations, of yourself and your rifle, that you have learned through practice.
 
I'm not so sure that the guy you didn't see is really pleased about you checking him out with your scope!
Click to expand...

My dad's good friend was a game warden. When he would drive around in his truck with the logo and lights on it, he didn't even like to look through his bino's at those orange specs on the ridge....because every time he did there was a scoped rifle staring back at him. It makes a man a bit uneasy.
 
Don Fischer said:
I'm not so sure that the guy you didn't see is really pleased about you checking him out with your scope!
Click to expand...



Context is everything. I hunt on a large plot of private, family land. If there is someone else there, he should be nervous!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I really appreciate everyone’s thoughts and opinions for helping me choose the best scope. After much research and studying, I’ve settled on a Vortex diamondback hp 3-12x42. Reports have shown that the glass is extremely clear, crisp, and acceptable in low light conditions. I will update my thoughts about it once it gets used. Thank you everyone.
 
I have a Vortex Viper HS 2.5X10-44 30mm tube. I like it . It is bright, clear and has good eye relief . I also have a Leopold VX 2 3X9. It is bright, clear and has good eye relief . I like he Leupold better. Both scopes are of the excellent quality, but my eyes prefer the optics of the Leopold. I am not sure why.
 
Leopolds are renowned for their clarity. I prefer vortex and burris. Just do a google search and youll find the right one for you, i wont tell you what to buy.
 
I have a Mueller 4-14x40 with adjustable objective. I specifically bought it for the AO and to be used on a .22 bolt action. I recently replaced the Mueller, which is about $140, with a Chinese made Simmons .22 Mag 3-9x32, which costs $40. The Mueller was just too heavy for a rimfire, but is was very clear and it is rated for .300 Win Mag.

Just figured I'd mention it. One of the posters said something about lifetime warranty being one of the most important things for a scope on a heavy recoiling rifle and I agree.
 
I'll put up another vote for the Vortex Crossfire. I put one on my 30-06 a couple years ago and have been very impressed by it.

I try not to get into the "what range of magnification" debate. All I'm gonna say is that each shooter is has a different comfort level as well as a different skill level. Therefore each shooter should fit their optic/gun combo to what they are most comfortable with and what will enable them to make the very best, most ethical shot possible. Its not up to me to make that decision for anyone else, or tell anyone that their optic is too big/powerful.
 
I bought one of the Cabela's special Nikons. It is a decent scope for the $129.00 and it is a 3X9X40. Put it on my new Savage Scout in conventional position, high mounted so I an keep my irons. Lifetime warranty. I wanted a nicer Nikon or Leupold and will still do something different but even so I can mount the cheapie on another rifle.

Glassing with a scope to identify a target, to me, it is a mortal sin. One cannot call a bullet back.
 
Glassing with a scope to identify a target, to me, it is a mortal sin. One cannot call a bullet back.
Click to expand...

The notion of "identify[ing] a target" leaves a lot to assumption. In the context of hunting, I have never shot anything I wasn't able to first identify with my naked eye.

And while the imperative to "never aim at something you aren't willing to destroy" is a very good one, I would say that being unaware of your situation/surroundings as well as the lack of control involved in an accidental or poorly planned discharge, which you "cannot call back," is a much more grievous sin than using a rifle optic to determine the specifics of a target.
 
Mattj4867 said:
I really appreciate everyone’s thoughts and opinions for helping me choose the best scope. After much research and studying, I’ve settled on a Vortex diamondback hp 3-12x42. Reports have shown that the glass is extremely clear, crisp, and acceptable in low light conditions. I will update my thoughts about it once it gets used. Thank you everyone.
Click to expand...
I had always used Leupolds with the exception of Simmons Aetec and a 44 Mag I've had for years.Bought a Vortex crossfire last year.It made 3 rounds to the range before crosshair pin broke internally.Got a full refund and bought an old reliable Leupold VX-1.Got a VX-2 for Christmas and outside of a possible Swarovski somewhere down the road I'll stick with Leupolds.....tried and true.
 
Throw every one of them in that price range in a box, tie a blindfold on and reach in the box and pick one. They are pretty much all the same. The glass is all sourced from LOW. They are all assembled in either the Phillipines or China and pretty much have the same durability and quality. Some may hold up better than others but, they will all fail eventually. The best thing going for you in those is a lifetime warranty, you'll use it.
 
Saltydog235 said:
Throw every one of them in that price range in a box, tie a blindfold on and reach in the box and pick one. They are pretty much all the same. The glass is all sourced from LOW. They are all assembled in either the Phillipines or China and pretty much have the same durability and quality. Some may hold up better than others but, they will all fail eventually. The best thing going for you in those is a lifetime warranty, you'll use it.
Click to expand...
BULLPUCKEY..........While Leupold states on their website that they import their lenses due to an inability to source sufficient high quality supply in the US, they fabricate their scope bodies in Oregon and assemble the entire optic in the USA.From the VX-1 and up.



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tNKq7PPac
 
It’s all the same crap whether you want to believe it or not. It’s subbed out and all foreign components. It may be assembled in Oregon, doesn’t mean it’s any better, just means it carries a higher price tag because some union guy is putting it together, not a 12yo on an assembly line. A $300 optic is a $300 optic, none of them are marginally better than the others.

I’ve had 3 Nikons fail and two Leupolds fail. Both were repaired/replaced and neither was very good. Hard to trust something that lets you down like that. Though I have a bit more faith in the longevity of a Leupold, they’re lower end optics just aren’t that good. Low light performance sucks and that flair is the worst I’ve seen in any optic I’ve owned. Still have a few holdovers but I rarely use them. I’ve been tempted to try a VX5 or 6 HD but it’s difficult to do so when you can spend the same money for better like Ziess, Leica, Swarovski etc

I do admire the Leupold loyalty though, some people refuse to try something new. It’s fun to watch them when they experience looking through a better optic that costs the same. A buddy just did that with a Trijicon, his eyes are open now. Heck, my 9yo son just did it.
 
Saltydog235 said:
It’s all the same crap whether you want to believe it or not. It’s subbed out and all foreign components. It may be assembled in Oregon, doesn’t mean it’s any better, just means it carries a higher price tag because some union guy is putting it together, not a 12yo on an assembly line. A $300 optic is a $300 optic, none of them are marginally better than the others.

I’ve had 3 Nikons fail and two Leupolds fail. Both were repaired/replaced and neither was very good. Hard to trust something that lets you down like that. Though I have a bit more faith in the longevity of a Leupold, they’re lower end optics just aren’t that good. Low light performance sucks and that flair is the worst I’ve seen in any optic I’ve owned. Still have a few holdovers but I rarely use them. I’ve been tempted to try a VX5 or 6 HD but it’s difficult to do so when you can spend the same money for better like Ziess, Leica, Swarovski etc

I do admire the Leupold loyalty though, some people refuse to try something new. It’s fun to watch them when they experience looking through a better optic that costs the same. A buddy just did that with a Trijicon, his eyes are open now. Heck, my 9yo son just did it.
Click to expand...
Last night I looked at what all was out there in my price range,under 3 bills.I really looked mostly at Nikon glass.........after several hours I still couldn't bring myself to do it and finally ordered another Leupold VX 2 3-9x40.IMHO best glass out there at that price,under $250 shipping and all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top