Scope Manufacturers... Best bang for your buck...?

hutchster said:
they may be great scopes, but i will have a hard time dropping $1400 on a bushnell, don't get me wrong, i've got no problem with bushy, i've had great dealing with elite 3200's and 6500's over the years, it just seems a little odd for a bushnell to be in the nightforce/mk4 class.
Click to expand...

I went through all the scopes in the Bushnell booth at the SHOT Show. A real big pile of - meh. Sightron continues on with their medicore quality at a medicore price. Vorytex is trying to up sell but who would pay premium dollars and not go with a swaro or zeiss?
 
Vortex

dewberry said:
I went through all the scopes in the Bushnell booth at the SHOT Show. A real big pile of - meh. Sightron continues on with their medicore quality at a medicore price. Vorytex is trying to up sell but who would pay premium dollars and not go with a swaro or zeiss?
Click to expand...

Vortex has many lines to suit most any budget. I can't speak for their Razor line as I can't afford it-however, I have a Vortex Viper and its' fantastic. I also have a Leupold VX-3L and the Viper wins hands down for its features...plus is was half price ($500) as the Leupold and has a lifetime transferrable warranty.
 
Wally said:
I like the adjustment option... I do shoot out to 1000yds on occasion. Also, 30mm is better for light transmission.
Click to expand...

This has been stated previously, but it bears repeating: tube diameter has no bearing on light transmission (i.e. the brightness of the image, low light performance, etc...).

Light transmission is determined by the design of the optic system, the quality of the glass (composition, clarity, polishing...), and the effectiveness of the lens coatings. Similarly, light gathering/collection is a direct function of the diameter of the objective.

Tube diameter provides more room for adjustment (this is why top-end long range scopes use a 34mm or 35mm tube). Optically speaking, the only improvement a larger tube can offer over a smaller tube is if the larger tube actually has larger lenses installed, which will allow for a little more up-and-down or side-to-side head movement...but it will NOT improve the amount of light transmitted nor result in a larger exit pupil.

Basically it's like this: every optic throws a disc of light known as the exit pupil. The size of that exit pupil is the objective diameter (in millimeters) divided by the level of magnification you are at: 50mm objective at 10x = 5mm disc of light or exit pupil. If the size of the exit pupil/disc of light is equal to or larger than the current diameter of your pupil (typically 5mm), you are experiencing maximum exit pupil. Any exit pupil over the diameter of actual pupil will not result in a brighter image, but will provide more eye relief.

Now here is where light transmission and the quality of the optics system, glass and coatings are relevant: a higher quality scope will throw a clearer, brighter disc of light than a lower quality scope. Optimally, you want a rifle scope with a light transmission of 95% or better.

The "myth" of 30mm tubes collecting/gathering/transmitting more light that 1" tubes seems to have originated from the fact that back in the day, the better European scopes used 30mm tubes while North American scopes used 1 inch tubes. As the European scopes were, at that time, built to a higher standard, with better glass and technology, they were unquestionably brighter and clearer. Some figured this was at least partially due to the fact that Euro-scopes had a larger tube.

Hopefully that clarifies things.

Best bang for buck scope available at the moment?
Swarovski Z3 4-12x50 with ballistic turret: regularly $1,599, on for $1,155.
 
Hearing and reading rumblings won't tell you squat.

Go to a store and go and look through as many as you can, this is the only way that you will see what your eye prefers and what the members here are talking about.

What may work for me may nor work for you, but without looking through them yourself there is no solid way to base your decision.

If you are worried about adjustments or long range you can get a set of Burris Signature Zee rings with offset inserts which is the same and putting on a base with MOA correction built in, also keeps the scope aligned without tension and does not leave ring marks.


Wally said:
I'll look into the Zeiss but I don't like that they are only a 1" tube. Most of my rings are 30mm and I'd like to stick with 30mm

I have heard rumblings about the quality of the glass declining for the price.
Click to expand...
 
IMO spend a little more on the optics for the Rem and XCR, and skimp a little on the .17. If you have a top end of around $800/scope x3, that gives you $2400 total. I'd be looking at $1000 each for the Rem and XCR, and around $400 for the .17.

With this given, I'd suggest a Sightron SIII for the Remington (around $900 + tax), a Vortex Diamondback 4-12x40 AO for the .17 (around $350 + tax), and a suitable "tactical" scope for the XCR in the $1000 price range (ACOG, Vortex Viper HD, Aimpoint, etc. dependant on what you plan to do with the XCR).
 
dawbewry, many top FClass shooters, which I doubt that you are one of, disagree with your assesment of Sightron. Their glass is excellent and most consider them "best bang for buck".
 
dewberry said:
I went through all the scopes in the Bushnell booth at the SHOT Show. A real big pile of - meh. Sightron continues on with their medicore quality at a medicore price. Vorytex is trying to up sell but who would pay premium dollars and not go with a swaro or zeiss?
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in hearing more about this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom