Opinions on scope selection

S

SerenityNetworks

New member
I have a Browning BBR 30-06. On it I have a Nikon Prostaff 3-9x50. I purchased it with the thoughts that it was a good scope, it fit my budget, it had a lifetime warranty, good light gathering, and enough magnification for what I thought would be my needs. However, I missed the mark on the magnification.

I'm 56 and wear glasses when shooting. I really didn't think I would be shooting at more than a few hundred yards. But I find that I am shooting longer distances and the 9x magnification is limiting me. Even at 300 yards, I believe I could shoot better if I had more magnification.

I like the brightness of the 50mm objective, but I believe in the situations where I'll be shooting longer distances that I don't really need 50mm. I like the BDC reticle, although mildot would be fine too.

I'm looking at a replacement scope with greater magnification (at least 12x, if not 16), BDC or mildot, a lifetime warranty, somewhat rugged (I hunt, but I don't push it). What brands and scopes should I consider? There is such a great selection, I'd appreciate some experienced opinions.

Thanks in advance,
Andrew

NRA Life Member
------------------------
"There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual will believe them." - Malcolm Muggeridge
 
I'm not going to try to pick a scope for you but will comment that as the power goes up, the size of the objective lens matters more not less. It controls the brightness and determines the exit pupil.
I would not want less than 50mm on, say, a 6-18.
It would be hard to find a small objective high powered scope these days anyhow.
 
Stepping up to better glass is going to help more than magnification or objective size. The ProStaff is a decent entry level product scope but stepping up to a Weaver Classic V10 2-10x38 is probably going to be an improvement. Weaver Classic V16 4-16x42 is a good choice of you want more magnification without giving up more on the low-end. Similar scopes are Nikon's Buckmaster and Burris' Fullfield II line. This guide should help you compare brands and models.

http://www.natchezss.com/brand.cfm?...16AO Riflescope STT Ballistic-X Reticle Matte

To top the optical quality of the Weaver Classic V series you'll have to move up to a Nikon Monarch, a Weaver Grand Slam or the Bushnell linked below or similar. The following four are pretty much on par with each other optically.

http://www.natchezss.com/product.cfm?contentID=productDetail&prodID=WE800472&src=exrbSrch
http://www.natchezss.com/product.cfm?contentID=productDetail&prodID=WE800477&src=exrbSrch
http://swfa.com/Nikon-3-12x42-Monarch-Riflescope-P42340.aspx
http://swfa.com/Nikon-4-16x42-Monarch-Riflescope-P42341.aspx
http://swfa.com/Bushnell-4-16x40-Elite-Rifle-Scope-P48250.aspx

If I were looking for a $300-400 hunting scope and weight wasn't an issue my first choice would be a Weaver Super Slam 2-10x42 which is a bit better than all of the above. My second choice would be the much lighter and nearly as good 3-10x40 Grand Slam for $260.
 
Last edited:
I'm looking at a replacement scope with greater magnification (at least 12x, if not 16), BDC or mildot, a lifetime warranty, somewhat rugged (I hunt, but I don't push it). What brands and scopes should I consider? There is such a great selection, I'd appreciate some experienced opinions.
Click to expand...

This Vortex Viper 6.5-20x50 PA has been on my Grendel starting two years now. Very pleased with it.

I've been using this Alpen Apex XP 6-24x50mm for a few months now on my N6 and it matches the Vortex in performance, less money, and the Apex has more eye relief.

Until a few years ago I had only used as high as a 4.5-14X magnification. Going to the 20 and 24X has shrunk group size considerably.
 
If your not satisfied with 9 power I would probably skip the 12 and go up to a 14 or 16. If possible see if you can look through some at a store. The majority of the scopes I've purchased are leupold and nikon.
 
Vortex would be my first choice. The Viper PA line is great. But there less expensive lines are very clear and all have a no question lifetime warranty with great CS. I have at least one from each line and would put the Crossfires up against many other, more costly options.

Another value priced scope I like was the Millet TRS 4-16 with the focus knob. Good price and a good optic.

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk 2
 
Serenity:

Let me save you some money. Way back, when I was your age, I planned a trip to South Dakota to murder prairie dogs. I put a Leupold 6.5x20 on Ruger heavy .223 rifle. Before we left PA, I had that thing shooting 1 1/4" groups at 300 yards. I was ready.

Got to SD and I was introduced to mirage. At 20x the little dogs seemed to float around when the sun was out hot. I had to turn the scope down to about 12x for it to be useful. Early in the morning it is not so bad, but that doesn't last.

There are some real expensive scopes out there. There are some junky scopes out there. I have used many different brands over the years. One thing stands out: Leupold is never a wrong answer. They are not cheap, but they are real good. There are more expensive scopes out there, but, I cannot SEE the difference. For me Leupold quality justifys the cost. More expensive scopes don't help me shoot any better.

Why don't you find a friend who has a 16x or so on a rifle and ask him if you can shoot a group at 300 yards on a sunny afternoon. See how you cope with the mirage issue before you spend a close to a grand on a scope. Your eyes will tell you the true story.
 
Everyone, thank you for your input. This is good stuff.

I'd spaced off that certainly higher magnifications, not just the objective size, reduce the light gathered. I've also not encountered much with mirage (even in the Texas heat, mid-afternoon, at the range - so I hadn't really considered the issue. I can see mirage with my cheap spotting scope, but it has never impacted my shooting (that I can readily tell).

I normally will save and buy the best (for my needs), but spending $1000+ for a Leupold will likely not be an option for quite a long while. That's what prompted this thread. I'm looking for options based upon others experiences.

I appreciate the options on other scope manufacturers that if it were not for your input I would never have even considered.

And, yes, most certainly I am going to try and get some guys at the range to give me some time on their scopes.

Thanks again, and please keep the suggestions coming.

NRA Life Member
------------------------
"There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual will believe them." - Malcolm Muggeridge
 
Hardbawl,
Excellent advice. I once found that high power spotting scopes suffered from the mirage problem.
Jerry
 
The Zeiss Conquest series is probably your best option if you're trying to stay under $1k. $ for $ it beats the Leupolds hands down.
 
For now I need to stay in the $300 to $500 range (preferably closer to $300, but possibly willing to go up if there would be a huge bump in quality). It's likely to be quite awhile before I can go for more.

The suggestions so far lead me to believe I could get a better scope than my Prostaff and still remain in my limited dollar range. Those are the scopes I'd like to have opinions on now. At some later time I can look to something like a Zeiss or Leupold.

Thanks again,
Andrew

NRA Life Member
------------------------
"There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual will believe them." - Malcolm Muggeridge
 
Scope

I'm 53,I have worn glasses since I was 16yo....I'm now into progressives....I have ,a Zeiss conquest ,Leupolds,to many to list and a Burris IIRC Black Diamond,in 4 x16 50mm Obj,with a 30mm tube on it,and Mil-dot anyone looking thru this scope loves it ....I bought it used form a fellow out west I believe on this forum for $400.00,it was worth $800.00 when new....

The Zeiss Conquest,has very clear optics,and shooting 200 yards with it is not an issue....I have never tried 300 yds.....as I have no range that long to test the scopes on in my neck of the woods....

as usual my 2 cents,BB34 :D
 
Look at the Weaver at Natchez Shooters Supply, they are running soem pretty good sales on the Grand Slam, Super Slam and other models right now. I picked up a couple of Super Slam in 2X10X50 with the EBX for $329.99 a few months ago but did notice in my latest flyer they were pushed up to $399.00, still a pretty good price for that scope IMO.
 
granted this is me not you but ive shot truckloads of deer at long range. Some out to 600 yards and i only have a few scopes with magnifications of over 9x and dont ever remember thinking after a shot that i could have used more magnifcation. My eyes are old and tired too but with an 06 a guy is usually big game hunt and the targets are tiny like when varmit shooting. Id about bet after you take it in the shorts selling your scope used and buck up for a new higher powered one that your going to find you gained very little if any.
 
Everybody is different, but as an Olde Phart with tri-focals for many years (before cataract surgery), I never had much of a problem with any scope. I've ruined prairie dogs at 300 yards with a 2x7 on my .243, for example. Hit where I wanted to on a buck at 350 with a 3x9x40 set on 3X at the time. Managed sub-MOA at 500 yards on a steel plate with 10X.

I'm happy for folks to use whatever makes their little heart go pitty-pat, but I'm sometimes not quite sure about the reasoning for their decisions.

I can understand a 50mm objective lens for a guy who hunts at first and last light. And, maybe, in bench rest competition--but that's an unknown to me. Otherwise? I've never seen the need in most hunting situations.

I'm a hunter, so I stay out of the world of target shooting. Not my deal. For me, repeatability of adjustments is unimportant, since I'm a "set it and forget it" guy.

Just some points to ponder...
 
I'm of the opinion that you need more quality, not more X's on your scope. Using a cheap scope at 16X won't show the target as clearly as a quality scope at 9X.

Bigger objectives are not as helpful as many think. While the 50mm lense does let in more light, it is far more than the human eye can use unless you are using a scope set above 10X and well after sundown. Any advantage in a scope with a lense greater than 35-40mm would only show up long after legal shooting time has passed. In many places in Europe it is legal to shoot long after dark and the big lenses are helpful there. Not here, at least not during legal shooting times.
 
I'm 56 and wear glasses, too...

I've got two scopes that work well for me.
One is a Leupold Vari-X III 4.5-14x40 A/O, with really good eye-relief. Nice.
The other is a NIKON Monarch 3.3-10 Mil-Dot A/O. Eye-relief is adequate.
BOTH are sharp and clear optics.
BOTH were new when purchased.
BOTH could be purchased 'used' now, online, if you shop around.

IF I could find one of the OLD NIKON 4-12x40 A/O's, I'd buy it.
They were sleek.

I must admit that I like the extra eye-relief afforded by the Leupold, even though I was never enamored by the 'Golden Ring' snobbery associated with the Leupold brand.
They do make a good scope.

I really like my NIKON scopes, though.
Well made, reliable, and priced just right.
Never had a problem with them and the eye-relief has been fine for my use.

Remember not to get caught up in the adjustments on-the-fly.
Set it and forget it, as mentioned.
It's a lot simpler that way.

Good luck shopping!
 
For more than 9X at $300, you could check out the 4.5-14 Burris FFII E1 and the Nikon Buckmaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top