New scope for 250 or less

You should have looked at Weaver Super Slam then. You’d of gotten a scope comparable to their VX3 at the price of their VX2.
 
Saltydog235 said:
You should have looked at Weaver Super Slam then. You’d of gotten a scope comparable to their VX3 at the price of their VX2.
Click to expand...

After a brief Internet search it would seem it's been a while since you priced the Super Slams.Nothing even close to what I paid for my current vx2.Maybe you meant Kespa?Either way .......after years of use my Leupolds still working and not one failure to date.With that kind of track record it's doubtful I'll ever change nor need to.
 
Last edited:
I’m very pleased with Diamondback HP. Very sharp and clear. I’ve since got a new rifle. What is the difference between the Burris droptine and Fullfield 2
 
A: you don't need 4-12 for a 300 mag-you're not shooting at prairie dogs.
B: there are MANY good scopes for less than $250
I have dozens of scopes that are eminently suitable for hunting-none cost even close to $250. I only have a couple with more than 9X and those are on "range use" rifles that have never been hunting.
 
A: you don't need 4-12 for a 300 mag-you're not shooting at prairie dogs.
B: there are MANY good scopes for less than $250
I have dozens of scopes that are eminently suitable for hunting-none cost even close to $250. I only have a couple with more than 9X and those are on "range use" rifles that have never been hunting.
Click to expand...

I find posts like this quite common and very interesting.

There seems to be a prejudice against using any more magnification than absolutely necessary. It's kind of like the Jeep owners who have 4 wheel drive but won't use it until all other options, including the winch, are exhausted.

I have been blessed with exceptional vision. I don't need lots of magnification to see what I'm shooting at, but I like it all the same.

I find that the higher the magnification, the better able I am to perceive my own movement. With that awareness, the movement can be minimized.

And at distance, the higher the detail, the more the margin for error is minimized. If I can see my reticle on the middle of the front half of a deer at 300 yds with 8x magnification, great! But if I can see the shoulder profile and which way the wind is blowing the hair because I have 16x magnification, isn't that better?

I am in no way trying to fight those who feel allergic to too much magnification, but I am curious to understand the reasoning.
 
I don't get the aversion to high magnification either. If a hunter misses game because they forgot to dial down the power, they won't make that mistake more than once or twice. Also there are a lot of fixed 6X scopes still in use for hunting, so I believe any variable scope with a minimum power of 6X or less can be used effectively for hunting. My major issue with higher magnification scopes is they usually add more weight than I want to my rifles. I usually try to stick to 16 ounces or less for optics I'm going to hunt with.
 
Not sure if you are still looking for recommendations of scoping a .300 Win Mag. but on my model 70 in that same caliber, while living in Alaska, I finally mounted a Leopold 1.5X5. Tried many others, one lost both cross hairs after one shot.. :D. Zero'd it at 1 inch high at 200 yds and shot dead on from 50-350 yrds. Loaded 180 grain for all critters except the big bears, then 220 grain Barnes. This was in the 1970-80 time period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top