I have to agree on the Nikon scopes. I also own a few Bushnell 3200 and although they hold zero well the are a PITA to get zeroed. I also own a vx2 but have only had the pleasure of holding up to my eye off the rifle.
what kind of scope...nice and affordable ?
- Thread starter Isadorcj
- Start date
I have to agree on the Nikon scopes. I also own a few Bushnell 3200 and although they hold zero well the are a PITA to get zeroed. I also own a vx2 but have only had the pleasure of holding up to my eye off the rifle.
Bushnell 3200 series have always served me well in the 3-9x40 range.
Recently tried a leupold rifleman and a leupold VX3 .... Dunno what gives but I need reading glasses and without them , everything seen thru the leupold won't focus no matter what I do. Shoulder the rifles I have with the bushnell 3200 , ziess and monarch 3 and I can get them focussed with no issue. Anyone else that needs reading glasses only have this problem? Needing glasses is a relatively new thing for me
Recently tried a leupold rifleman and a leupold VX3 .... Dunno what gives but I need reading glasses and without them , everything seen thru the leupold won't focus no matter what I do. Shoulder the rifles I have with the bushnell 3200 , ziess and monarch 3 and I can get them focussed with no issue. Anyone else that needs reading glasses only have this problem? Needing glasses is a relatively new thing for me
Terry Perkins
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Bruce County
This is a pretty funny thread. The OP makes a statement (looking for advice), the second poster asks a pertinent question, and no answer from the OP. However, opinions are freely posted without the OP answering. Where is the OP?
I agree with Dogleg and The Kurgan ..
Leupold VX-2 3-9x40mm
Superb optics. Rugged construction. Lifetime warranty.
Light-weight. Elegant. Everything you need & nothing you don't.
And .. in my humble opinion .. under-priced!
What more can I say? .. I sold all my other scopes.
It looks like this:
http://www.leupold.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/VX2_3-9x40_web.png
Leupold VX-2 3-9x40mm
Superb optics. Rugged construction. Lifetime warranty.
Light-weight. Elegant. Everything you need & nothing you don't.
And .. in my humble opinion .. under-priced!
What more can I say? .. I sold all my other scopes.
It looks like this:
http://www.leupold.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/VX2_3-9x40_web.png
Travis Bickle
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Upper Lower Middle Alberta
Got a Redfield Revenge on my 700 in .308
It's 3-9x40 and has a bracketing range finder system built into the reticle. MOA hash marks and a 16" and 24" objective height hash marks for using the bracketing system on deer or average human torso size targets to acquire estimated range lol
Lifetime warranty, nice simple rugged scope with a lifetime warranty and comes with zero stop dials for drop compensation.
I ordered it direct from the factory through e-bay for around $180.
I have shot a 0.6" 5 rounder with it using match ammo in my bone stock 700 with a bedding job.
It's an awesome scope bang for buck. Very cool little scope.
It's 3-9x40 and has a bracketing range finder system built into the reticle. MOA hash marks and a 16" and 24" objective height hash marks for using the bracketing system on deer or average human torso size targets to acquire estimated range lol
Lifetime warranty, nice simple rugged scope with a lifetime warranty and comes with zero stop dials for drop compensation.
I ordered it direct from the factory through e-bay for around $180.
I have shot a 0.6" 5 rounder with it using match ammo in my bone stock 700 with a bedding job.
It's an awesome scope bang for buck. Very cool little scope.
What is "affordable" to you?
My go to brand quality wise is Zeiss and not the non european models.
I have some older Leupold scopes (late 80's early 90's) and their clarity is much better than the same scope today. I also have a IOR and a Meopta Meostar that I am happy with.
I tried Steiner and it was exchanged immediately because of lense fungus, the replacement is clear for now
My go to brand quality wise is Zeiss and not the non european models.
I have some older Leupold scopes (late 80's early 90's) and their clarity is much better than the same scope today. I also have a IOR and a Meopta Meostar that I am happy with.
I tried Steiner and it was exchanged immediately because of lense fungus, the replacement is clear for now
Tabacco Brook
Regular
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Leupold VX 2......clear, bright, lightweight, dependable, shock tested to equal 1000 rounds of 375 H&H Magnum, great looking, and the price is very good,....what more could you ask for.
Leupold VX 2
Leupold VX 2
Check out what is available at Hirsch for Sightron.
Burris had a $100 rebate on some of their FullField scopes.
Can't go wrong with Leupold.
Bushnell has just come out with the 3500 series.
Go to the rifle ranges in your area and take a look what others are using and most will let you take a look. Keep in mind there is a diopter setting and while their eye setting may differ from yours . . . they may not have it set properly. The internet is your best friend for research in a host of comparisons. Cost is relative. Pay attention to how others mount their scopes. I wonder why there are a number of 50 mm objectives on the EE. I got rid of mine when it would not fit into a gun boot but it may not have fit their cheek weld.
Burris had a $100 rebate on some of their FullField scopes.
Can't go wrong with Leupold.
Bushnell has just come out with the 3500 series.
Go to the rifle ranges in your area and take a look what others are using and most will let you take a look. Keep in mind there is a diopter setting and while their eye setting may differ from yours . . . they may not have it set properly. The internet is your best friend for research in a host of comparisons. Cost is relative. Pay attention to how others mount their scopes. I wonder why there are a number of 50 mm objectives on the EE. I got rid of mine when it would not fit into a gun boot but it may not have fit their cheek weld.
IMO the biggest bang for buck is the Leupold FX-II 4x33mm.
I had both the 3-9x40mm and the 4x33mm at one point. The 4x was much clearer and brighter than the variable. I think it is also simpler, more rugged, more compact and lighter. Not too much power for close range and not too little for farther out. You can also mount it a little lower.
I had both the 3-9x40mm and the 4x33mm at one point. The 4x was much clearer and brighter than the variable. I think it is also simpler, more rugged, more compact and lighter. Not too much power for close range and not too little for farther out. You can also mount it a little lower.
All that the VX-2 is missing in order to become a superb optic, is better clarity, better light transmission, and more consistent tracking. If you have any experience using higher end optics, this is very easy to see. However, if your experience is with lower end optics, you may never realize this.
Yes, there are some fantastic higher end optics .. particularly those manufactured in Europe .. but the OP asked for what is "affordable".
A Nikon camera might not have quite the optical excellence of a Leica, but will do quite nicely for 95% of all needs, including that of professional photographers.
Similarly, a Leupold VX-2 riflescope (which has Nikon lenses) will also fit the bill for 95% of a hunter's needs.
And at only $450-$500, I consider VX-2's to be a fine and affordable purchase.
Leupold may source lenses from a division of Nikon, but they are ground to Leupold specifications, and they have Leupold specified coatings, so they are not the same lenses used in Nikon products. Yes the VX 2 is a decent scope, but I would hardly refer to it as superb.
Tabacco Brook
Regular
- Location
- Nova Scotia
To the OP,..or anyone else for that matter,...don't get caught up in all the "Larger Objective is better" crap,..you are better off to spend your money on a higher quality optic with a 30 to 40mm objective than spending the same amount on a lower quality optic with a 50mm objective,..
Here is why,.....and alot of people don't know this...
The short answer:
In practical terms, the 50mm scope will be brighter than a 40mm scope only under a combination of the highest magnifications and the very darkest conditions. Otherwise, a 50mm scope is delivering more light than your eye can use. In addition, a 50mm scope will pull your head up off the stock and also be heavier as well as more expensive than a similar model in 40mm.
The big objective is a hard myth to bust because we have become so conditioned to bigger is better. On a riflescope a bigger objective does not always guarantee a brighter image. Here's why...
The long answer:
The scope:
The exit pupil on a riflescope is the actual width of the beam of light that leaves the eyepiece. If the beam of light that leaves the eyepiece is larger than the opening in your eye, the riflescope is delivering more light than your eye can use. You can calculate the width of this beam of light (exit pupil) in millimeters on your riflescope by dividing objective size by the magnification setting. A 3-9x50 set at 5x produces a 10mm exit pupil (50 divided by 5). A 3-9x50 set at 8x produces a 6.25mm exit pupil (50 divided by eight) . The higher the magnification setting, the smaller the exit pupil (beam of light) your scope produces.
Your eye:
In order for your eye to open to its maximum, you must be exposed to conditions of total darkenss for at least thirty minutes. Most people do not hunt under these situations, but for the sake of argument, let's say that they do. Under these conditions, the average widest a young persons eye can open is about 7mm (some individuals 8mm), but most folks who hit their forties will find their eyes can open no more than 5 or 6mm. By age 50, you're doing good at 5mm. It's part of the aging process.
According to the math, if your eyes can, and are, open to 7mm, a 3-9x50 delivers more light than your eye can use at magnifications below 7x. For eyes that are open to 6mm, magnifications below 8x waste light. For eyes that can only open to 5mm, magnifications below 10x waste light - in other words, all magnifications on a 3-9x50 when your eyes are only open to 5mm, deliver more light than your eye can use.
Since very few people hunt under total darkness, they will not be shooting with eyes that have opened to 7mm. Under typical low light situations, your eyes will be open to 4 - 6mm at best.
Once again, do the math. For eyes that are open to 5mm - typical for low light adapted eyes - a 40mm riflescope is still delivering more light than your eye can use at magnifications below 8x. Since most deer are shot at much lower magnifications than 8x, a 3-9x40 will do anything you need to do in terms of low light shooting. If you want to spend more money, you are dollars and performance ahead to invest in a better quality 3-9x40, rather than jump to a 3-9x50. Quality will have a greater impact on performance.
Here is why,.....and alot of people don't know this...
The short answer:
In practical terms, the 50mm scope will be brighter than a 40mm scope only under a combination of the highest magnifications and the very darkest conditions. Otherwise, a 50mm scope is delivering more light than your eye can use. In addition, a 50mm scope will pull your head up off the stock and also be heavier as well as more expensive than a similar model in 40mm.
The big objective is a hard myth to bust because we have become so conditioned to bigger is better. On a riflescope a bigger objective does not always guarantee a brighter image. Here's why...
The long answer:
The scope:
The exit pupil on a riflescope is the actual width of the beam of light that leaves the eyepiece. If the beam of light that leaves the eyepiece is larger than the opening in your eye, the riflescope is delivering more light than your eye can use. You can calculate the width of this beam of light (exit pupil) in millimeters on your riflescope by dividing objective size by the magnification setting. A 3-9x50 set at 5x produces a 10mm exit pupil (50 divided by 5). A 3-9x50 set at 8x produces a 6.25mm exit pupil (50 divided by eight) . The higher the magnification setting, the smaller the exit pupil (beam of light) your scope produces.
Your eye:
In order for your eye to open to its maximum, you must be exposed to conditions of total darkenss for at least thirty minutes. Most people do not hunt under these situations, but for the sake of argument, let's say that they do. Under these conditions, the average widest a young persons eye can open is about 7mm (some individuals 8mm), but most folks who hit their forties will find their eyes can open no more than 5 or 6mm. By age 50, you're doing good at 5mm. It's part of the aging process.
According to the math, if your eyes can, and are, open to 7mm, a 3-9x50 delivers more light than your eye can use at magnifications below 7x. For eyes that are open to 6mm, magnifications below 8x waste light. For eyes that can only open to 5mm, magnifications below 10x waste light - in other words, all magnifications on a 3-9x50 when your eyes are only open to 5mm, deliver more light than your eye can use.
Since very few people hunt under total darkness, they will not be shooting with eyes that have opened to 7mm. Under typical low light situations, your eyes will be open to 4 - 6mm at best.
Once again, do the math. For eyes that are open to 5mm - typical for low light adapted eyes - a 40mm riflescope is still delivering more light than your eye can use at magnifications below 8x. Since most deer are shot at much lower magnifications than 8x, a 3-9x40 will do anything you need to do in terms of low light shooting. If you want to spend more money, you are dollars and performance ahead to invest in a better quality 3-9x40, rather than jump to a 3-9x50. Quality will have a greater impact on performance.
Last edited:
