Need help deciding on a scope

B

blueoval56

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
46   0   0
Location
Calgary
Hey everybody,
I'm about to pick up a Savage 110 HS 338 Lapua and I'm having a hell of a time deciding what scope to put on this beast. I currently shoot 308 out to 800 yards and decided to jump to the 338 for an even longer reach and skip the 300WM. The rifle will be used for paper and steel from 1000 to as far as I can stretch it.

I was wondering what you guys would pick for a scope with a budget of $1500.
I see a lot of guys on here use the nightforce 5.5-22 on their rigs, is 22 power enough(or ideal) past 1000 to let's say 1800? Or should I look at the 8-32 power range.

I have read many good reviews on the Sightron SIII 8-32 but I have never looked through one. This scope is what I was thinking but I thought I ask here to see if anyone has advice on something better in this price range. Or if I should stick with the 6-24 power range.

I appreciate any help here, and unfortunately I'm not made of money and if I was I would just buy Premier and be done with it. I saved quite awhile for this package and I am a huge fan of "bang for your buck", and I think the savage fits that bill very well.
 
Either of the Sightron SIII 6-24 or 8-32 will put a huge smile on your face.

We use the 6-24 without issue beyond a mile. That 338 bullet is going to kick up a wee bit of dirt when it arrives.

I can spot a 80gr 22cal Amax landing at 1500yds with my 6-24.

Optical resolution, contrast and definition will trump high mag using moderate glass anyday.

I think you will find the Side focus Sightrons to be every bit as good, if not better then the NXS scopes of comparable mag.

Jerry
 
I have personally shot 1200 yards with my NXS 250 5.5-22x50 and it is pleanty. I have looked through it at 2000 and it will still be pleanty. Weather you go to stronger power or stick with the 22 power. For me there is no other choice but an NXS. Huge Fan !!!!

Happy shooting !
 
Thanks guys, I appreciate the replies.

Jerry, I really appreciate the input from someone who has looked through both sightrons. The reason I was curious if the 6-24 was plenty because I read that it has more elevation than the 8-32, which can't hurt.
 
I have 2 6-24"s from Jerry. One is on a 338 Edge that I have shot to 1835 yards. No problem spotting the hits in dirt.
 
I have a Sightron SIII 6-24x50 and 8-32x56, both are LRMOA. From what I can see, the glass is very clear. I'm able to make out the chain holding up my steel targets out to 600 yards. The tracking seems to be repeatable.

If you want to shoot long range you will want to pick up the 6-24. It has more elevation adjustment.(70 compared to 100) And the hash marks on the reticle on the 8-32 are accurate at 24 power. So if you needed an extra 20MOA of elevation you would have to back off to 24 power. The 6-24 reticle is accurate at 24 power.

I like my Sightrons a lot but I think my next scope will be a Nightforce. Just to try one.
 
I have had 8-32 night force and sightron at the same time. I found that the parallax adjustment on the sightron was a bit "sticky" and I felt that the Nightforce let me see targets in the color that were. The sightron kind of made the color appear off a bit. If that makes any sense to you. Resetting the turrets after zeroing on the sightron sometimes took a couple tries to tighten down the turret without moving it a click or so. The Nightforce (nxs) definitely was more robust and better overall quality but I had that sightron on a 223 that I shot at longer ranges and the adjustments never missed a beat. For the price of a sightron I don't think you'll find better value. I would buy another one.
 
With your budget, the Sightron is the way to go.
If you can swing a bit more the NF will last you a lifetime. If you can can handle the scopes side by side you will see where the extra $$ goes.
Another option that's worth checking out is the new Bushnell Elite Tactical models.
 
You can easily get a 12-42 BR Nightforce. They blow away the sightron and I own both. Sightron are really nothing more than a Bushnell with a (slightly) better reticle in my opinion... and I'm not trying to sell you anything.
 
Colquhoun said:
With your budget, the Sightron is the way to go.
If you can swing a bit more the NF will last you a lifetime. If you can can handle the scopes side by side you will see where the extra $$ goes.
Another option that's worth checking out is the new Bushnell Elite Tactical models.
Click to expand...

I cant stand anything that say's bushnell on it ... Although i will admit that there are a good value for the money. My dad bought a new Elite Tactical and it works really well for him.

I just have a taste for the higher end stuff.

I would take a Sightron over the Bushnell just because it says Sightron instead of Bushnell lol.
 
Last edited:
The Br model has cover turrets and a front ocular focus, and are a bit more "light duty" the nxs are exposed turrets , side focus and a lot more robust and ment to be used in the bush not just the range like the BR
 
Have you considered a Zeiss? I asked the same question earlier this year, that you are asking now. As to comparisons: I've used Leupold mk4 which was only 3.5-10x which proved very good but I didn't shoot beyond 1000m. I am very pleased with the quality of my Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20. I bought a Vortex PST 2.5-10x for shorter distance shooting with 222, just because I wanted to try one: Having bought it only a couple weeks ago, I haven't had time to try the CST system on it, or tracking consistency - The glass is incomparably clearer than all hunting scopes I've used to date aside from a Swarovski, but still comparable.

I was faced with the "how can I explain 3100.00 for a telescope?" So forgoing on some of the perks, I saved myself +1500.00 buying the Zeiss: My experience with it during the last few months has been pleasant as would be expected from German made optics - glass is great, side parallax knob is smooth as are the exposed turrets. Numbers are clearly visible, knob is wide and easy to use. If First Focal plane and fancy reticle is your thing, the Zeiss does not fit the bill: Second Focal plane with simple #4 reticle is what floats my boat - no confusion or busyness from a fancy reticle; adjust point of impact by elevation knob. Something that confused me was the "limited" elevation range: Zeiss has what they call "square" adjustment where they measure the range of adjustment to the maximum point where it will make a square(consider that a scope tube is round): Comparing this to the others with claims of 100moa, so adjusted to maximum 100moa elevation, windage adjustment available will be far less than what is claimed. Shooting long distance anyway, a 20moa rail centers the reticle for long distance so the square adjustment of the Zeiss or windage limitation because of round tube will be a non issue. This issue is kind of like beating a dead horse: I don't see it as an issue, nor am I selling one brand over another, just sharing what I understand and have used. Buying a scope or a gun can be like poking the pig: Makes it exciting, but reading others experiences tends to make it a sure thing.

Having said that, I still lust after a Schmidt and Bender PMII. There is a sticky thread by Tomochan I think on this sub-forum, or optics sub-forum that compared many optics, many of which have been mentioned in this thread: I encourage you to read that.
 
I'll do a little more research on the Bushnell 3.5-21.

I had considered a Ziess conquest a little while ago, but since I plan on stretching this rifle out as far as I can go I figured it would be smarter to go with something that had more elevation. Are you saying that these scopes have much more elevation than what is printed in their "box test"? I have looked through a couple Ziess and I am aware of how nice their glass is.
 
ultimate_monkey said:
The Br model has cover turrets and a front ocular focus, and are a bit more "light duty" the nxs are exposed turrets , side focus and a lot more robust and ment to be used in the bush not just the range like the BR
Click to expand...

Don't forget the elevation adjustment. The 8-36 BR only has 50 MOA.
 
32 power is way too much for field shooting. The shake and mirage will drive you nuts and totally negate the extra power. Personally I wouldn't go anything over 20 power in the field. I have done all my really long range shooting with a fixed 16x scope. I had no problem spotting dust plumes at 2000 yds. Long range shooting is a team sport and you should be utilizing a spotter with a high powered optic anyway.

This is a picture taken through my Tasco Super Sniper 16x at a 1700 yd target. Those fence posts are at about 1800+ yds and are clearly visible. Keep in mind the average fence post is only 4 inches wide.

1700ydScope.jpg



This is the target as seen by the naked eye.

1700ydTarget.jpg



I have used a 32x scope at 1800+ yds and found it to be extremely difficult to use. The power ring sucks you in but the extra magnification causes more problems than it is worth. I never saw the target as anything more than a muddled blur because of the excessive mirage and the inability to stop the scope shaking. It is just not possible to hold the thing steady at that kind of magnification.
 
Last edited:
I just purchased a Leopold VX 3L 6.5 19.3 x 56mm Side Focus Extreme Varminter for a Browning X - Bolt White Gold 30-06. I simply went with general suggestions by my friend, who will help me mount the scope & all. He tells me I bought a 'lot of scope' for the gun, and I will be very pleased. It listed for $1500 and change.

Personally, it was right at my budget cut off. In about $2600 for my 30-06 set up is plenty, given how little I will shoot the gun.

The front bottom of the scope is carved out, that makes for up to a 30% lower mount.

Here it is, as seen on Al Flaherty's Outdoor Store.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom