Opinions on a few brands
- Thread starter Kelly Timoffee
- Start date
I use Bushnell Elite Tactical on all my rifles.
I use 6-24x50 FFP on my M700 5R and Match M14. Both are Mildot and Milli radian external knobs. They have about 78MOA of elevation and 45MOa of Windage. Clarity and durability is excellent.
On my XCR-L I have the new 1-6.5 FFP scope. I find that Bushnell give great value for money.
I considered the Conquest but found its internal elevation to be limited. The optics were good but not significantly above the Bushnell to my eyes. I like the the rapid-z 1000 reticule but not in SFP if it was in FFP i would have bought the scope as this would have made the limited elevation moot.
As it is I'm very happy with the scopes, my next scope will probably be the same 6-24 but with the G2 reticule.
I use 6-24x50 FFP on my M700 5R and Match M14. Both are Mildot and Milli radian external knobs. They have about 78MOA of elevation and 45MOa of Windage. Clarity and durability is excellent.
On my XCR-L I have the new 1-6.5 FFP scope. I find that Bushnell give great value for money.
I considered the Conquest but found its internal elevation to be limited. The optics were good but not significantly above the Bushnell to my eyes. I like the the rapid-z 1000 reticule but not in SFP if it was in FFP i would have bought the scope as this would have made the limited elevation moot.
As it is I'm very happy with the scopes, my next scope will probably be the same 6-24 but with the G2 reticule.
I have a Burris Sig Select with Safari Ret on my .375 H&H Mag. In addition to that it has a scope mount that instantly "sheds" the scope and mounts(meaning the scope falls to the ground)so you can get to your express sights in a hurry.
So on top of the beating of a .375 H&H Mag gives the Burris and the fact I've had to shed the scope a few times, I wouldn't worry about Burris.
I literaly have "Stood Behind" Burris' reliability and quality when it mattered..
not just read about it somewhere and posted.
Nothing wrong with Bushnell, good quality for the money.
I don't find the Bushnell tactical line have that issue maybe because they are only a 4 times multiplier instead of the 6 times multiplier that are on the 6500 line.
I haven't seen that problem out of my 1-6.5 but I honestly haven't had it in very dynamic conditions yet.
I haven't seen that problem out of my 1-6.5 but I honestly haven't had it in very dynamic conditions yet.
If you don't know anyone who can restrain themself from taking "opportunities" like that, Hello.
Not sure I have the right interpretation here, but it looks like the writer is ridiculing offhand shots at running game.
If that is so, then he is completely unfamiliar with the method many of us cut our teeth on, hunting whitetail deer and even elk, by sneakinng through the scrub bush.
Many a whitetail quickly ended up being butchered, because it jumped up in front of a hunter with an iron sighted 30-30 Winchester, and tried to bound way.
Was at the range on Monday and a elderly (83) gentleman had a Minox along with the guns with Leupolds. Considering he paid $1,000.00 many years ago for the Leupolds and recently purchased the Minox for $500.00 it was difficult to see any difference in clarity.
I have a good Vortex and think the Minox blows it out of the water for clarity.
I have a good Vortex and think the Minox blows it out of the water for clarity.
Could be. I note you aren't referring to people taking shots with optics that are unsuitable. That was my point. There is no equipment that is perfect for all situations. I know you well enough from the things you say here that y with your open sights and .30-30 you didn't take very long shots for which the cartridge or the sights weren't enough, and if you had reason to set up a rifle with a scope that had no less than 6x magnification, you know not to use that for the wrong shots either.
Last edited:
I guess you have also noted that I am not a fan of high magnification on a big game hunting scope.
For general purpose, all around hunting, I think a good fixed 4X, like the Lyman All American which I have on my 30-06, is pretty good.
A much better choice, particularilly if one was going to encounter fast moving close shots at animals, would be a good variable of about 1 or 1.5 to 4 or 4.5.
Of all the hunting stories I have heard in my life, I have never heard of a single case, where a hunter could honestly state that he missed getting a big game animal, because the magnification of his scope was too low.
But oh, how many times I have heard, or read, "All I could see im my scope was trees." Or, "All I could see in my scope was fur and I had no idea what part of the animal I was looking at." This last is common in a defence situation.
In this thread Burris has come up quite often.
What do you guys think of the Burris which were manufactured in the USA?
I have recently acquired a Burris Signature Model, made in the USA, 2 to 6 power variable.
It looks like it just came out of the box and appears to be a good scope. An objection for a hunting scope may be it's weight, it is sure heavy for a smaller scope!
Has anyone had experience with one like it?
Bruce
What do you guys think of the Burris which were manufactured in the USA?
I have recently acquired a Burris Signature Model, made in the USA, 2 to 6 power variable.
It looks like it just came out of the box and appears to be a good scope. An objection for a hunting scope may be it's weight, it is sure heavy for a smaller scope!
Has anyone had experience with one like it?
Bruce
Yes. The highest magnification I've had was a 3-9x and I got rid of it for a fixed 6x. I've had a couple variables that topped out at 6x, still have one of them but it's not mounted on anything at present. Most of my scopes are <6x and I haven't shot at anything with a higher powered scope that I couldn't have taken with a 4x, and most shots I take with a 4x I could do with one of my fixed 2.5X. In fact the two longest shots I've taken at big game were around 200 m. one with a 2.5x on a .303 and the other with a variable set at 6x on a .308.
But some people want more magnification and say they are taking longer shots than I think I should.
Fot 20 years I've had a leupold 1.5x5 on my deer rifle and always liked it until last fall when all of a sudden I seemed to want/need more magnification. As you age your eyes can change over a short period of time. I'm 58 and seem to like more power now. Weird.
- Location
- Prince Albert, Sk
Over the years I have become accustomed to using the highest setting possible when using my scopes.For some reason it makes me feel better being able to see as much detail as possible.If I see a twig or small tree, I don't shoot, on lower magnification I doubt I would be able to see the small shrubbery and little sticks in the way and I am a firm believer in having a perfectly clear shot with ZERO obstructions, I don't go for this "a heavier bullet to go through bush" theory.At this point my eyes are perfect and I still like higher magnification.
When it boils down to it it is 100% based on what your eyes can handle and have learned to do.
If I am going to be hunting in cover or know shots will be under 100-150 yards, then it is open sights.I Try to use the right tool for the job.
When it boils down to it it is 100% based on what your eyes can handle and have learned to do.
If I am going to be hunting in cover or know shots will be under 100-150 yards, then it is open sights.I Try to use the right tool for the job.
Zeiss' Conquest is kinda their mid line of scopes. Don't care for them.
I prefer the Diavari models. I think they have recently changed their line-up and not sure if they manufacture the top Diavari models anymore.
Of your list, I would have gone with the Vortex.
I prefer the Diavari models. I think they have recently changed their line-up and not sure if they manufacture the top Diavari models anymore.
Of your list, I would have gone with the Vortex.
