What is the absolutely best hunting rifle scope??? No limit on cost..

C

cjacobs

New member
I am looking for opinions on the absolute best hunting scope that I can buy. I am going all out on this one...one and done. Leaning towards the Zeiss Victory Diavari FL or HT.

I know the following are considered to be the best: Zeiss, Swarovski, Schmidt and Bender, Nightforce, Burris, etc.

Looking for best in low light, best image, and I will want a custom laser-etched turret dial like the Leupold CDS dial.

Opinions and thoughts please...
 
Last edited:
Well, best and heavy, or best and lighter? :)

I dunno. I generally can't afford them, but I think most people would say best in a hunting scope would be a Zeiss, Swarovski, Hensoldt, or Leica (or maybe even a Docter, Kahles, high-end Leupold, or Trijicon Accupoint).

But the line is blurred between hunting and "tactical", so some of the best of the best in tacticals would make pretty good hunting scopes, though heavier since they're made so tough, especially Schmidt & Bender and US Optics..... but also Nightforce, March-Kelby, IOR-Valdada, and some others.

It's certainly pretty arguable that Schmidt & Bender is the best all-around - I'll go with that. Though in a no-holds-barred (budget wise) tactical scope, I'd go US Optics. In a dedicated long-range target rig, March-Kelby.
 
My advice is irrelevant I'm guessing, dearest scope I've purchased was a $650 konus and wasn't as good a scope as my $350 redfield but I can easily the best clarity, clearest, scope I've looked through was a $2000+ nightforce at the range on the blokes gun that tops every shoot, I simply sigh, dream and walk back to my latest dodgy $170 special like looking through a fog after the nightforce! Looked through ziess, Schmidt , kahles, never owned but the nightforce stands out. But I'd take my advice with a grain of salt, my latest scope was a Chinese made ZOS 10-40x60, and cost me a whooping $170 delivered( it's actually quiet an amazing scope for the money) still it got nothing on the premium brands!
 
A friend of mine just broke down & bought a Zeiss, on my recommendation & against his better financial judgment. He's previously used Leupold & so on very happily.
On returning from a 7 day guided hunt in Scotland he apologized for all the nasty things he said about me as he sucked huge gobs of currency out of his bank a/c to get the scope before the hunt.:eek:

Having used the Zeiss he is now hooked as he swears it gave him almost another 2 hours time in the field at sunrise & sunset.

Guess which I'm voting for:D
 
Buying the "best" scope, is subjective at best.

Like asking someone how the recoil is on a certain cartridge.

You have to look through it, and find the features you want. Not what someone else thinks is best.

Sorry not to be "helpful", but this is the reality of such things.
 
Buying the "best" scope, is subjective at best.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that if it were a discussion about what magnification or something. That is very subjective.
Actual optical quality is both measurable & visible unless you have a optical problem yourself. Its just that many have just accepted that high end mass market US scopes are "good enough" without ever using a better alternative under "poor" conditions.

Everything looks good in the store, even the $49.95 Chinese air-soft stuff.
 
No limit on cost would be Zeiss Diavari for me. While I've not looked through all of them, I have the Divari.

I'll also add this. I actually have a Divari, bought used. I wouldn't pay the premium on a new one over a Leupold or Zeiss Conquest. The cost vs quality with optics reaches a point where it takes a huge amount of money to see a tiny improvement in quality.

I have to look real hard to notice the difference between a $400-$500 scope and a $2000 scope. The difference between a $200 scope and a $400 scope is huge. There are a lot of $400 scopes out there that I'd rather have than the $2000 options.
 
Are you sure that you really mean no limits on cost?

You can EASILY spend more on a scope than most folks will ever spend on TWO expensive rifles.

Start at around $3,500 and work your way up from there. Spending $4,000 isn't hard at all.

You can buy the whole gun/optics package that even aims for you to varying degrees... from around $6,000 up to about $15,000.
 
Brian Pfleuger said:
Are you sure that you really mean no limits on cost?



You can EASILY spend more on a scope than most folks will ever spend on TWO expensive rifles.



Start at around $3,500 and work your way up from there. Spending $4,000 isn't hard at all.



You can buy the whole gun/optics package that even aims for you to varying degrees... from around $6,000 up to about $15,000.
Click to expand...


Less than $3,000! Lol
 
I don't hunt...

But wouldn't this hinge on max range (magnification), light transmission...
Wouldn't an illuminated reticle be beneficial for low light conditions?
Weight (if for a lightweight hunting rifle)?
 
The top of the line of any of the well known Euros Schmidt, Swarovski, IOR, Kahles, etc. Leupold VX-6, U.S. Optics. It's really personal preference when you're talking the best of what these have to offer.
 
I have not fooled with a lot of scopes, but for what it is worth, the sharpest, clearest scope I have seen on a rifle, on the range, looking at a distant target, was a Swarovski. Sorry, I do not know the model.

I am pretty content with my Leupolds.
 
"T*" is a particular form of multi-coating used by Zeiss.
"HT" is a specific type of optical glass.
As neither says it has both features that would be my guess.
The HT has high transmission efficiency glass, the other has the top of the line multi-coating to reduce ghosting, flare & internal reflections but not the "shott" type glass.

Lots of different types of glass are used in scopes each having a particular performance that best suits its use in a specific way so the one may need the shott glass, & not the other.
 
Damn, that's a lot of dough for a SFP optic...
Now like I mentioned, I don't hunt, and prefer SFP scopes because they maintain a very thin reticle, at high magnification- useful to me for teeny tiny targets at very long range- known distances.

But for hunting, I think I would prefer a FFP optic for accurate ranging, and holdovers, at any magnification, not just the one where the subtension is accurate.

What am I missing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top