I had an axis with a factory Bushnell scope on it that shot MOA out to 200 yards just fine. We're not all scope snobs, everyone else in this thread has chimed in with suggestions or tips. Versus your 2 useless posts ####ting on a simple question I asked. Thanks for your time. Habe a nice day.
Opinion On An Optic For My New Rifle
- Thread starter Ceej371
- Start date
I had an axis with a factory Bushnell scope on it that shot MOA out to 200 yards just fine. We're not all scope snobs, everyone else in this thread has chimed in with suggestions or tips. Versus your 2 useless posts ####ting on a simple question I asked. Thanks for your time. Habe a nice day.
Hand Skills
CGN Regular
- Location
- In the 'heartland', southern SK
That does not sound abnormal to me. In my experience accuracy with factory ammo is more about finding bullets that your barrel likes to spin than buying premium stuff. As far as the optics go, if inexpensive optics decreased shooter precision by an order of magnitude, I think we would see a lot more people using open sights.
That being said, I've seen some pretty good groups shot with irons. Sometimes it's the Indian, not the arrow.
Everything works until it doesn't, even a broken clock is right twice a day. There is no snobbery here just common sense and the aggravation of having similar experiences with low end optics in the past. If cheap optics were just as reliable and consistent as high dollar optics then I would gladly use them. I don't need to prove anything to anyone and I surely don't care what people think of my gear choices. The fact still remains that cheap gear will let you down. It's not a matter of IF but WHEN.
You asked for opinions and you're getting mine. Your budget is pathetically low and will yield nothing but low end optics that will fail to perform. Of the listed optics you're looking at I would take the Nikon every time. My experience with low cost Nikon scopes is limited to their use on rimfire guns but I was not disappointed, they held zero, had tactile clicks, good colour resolution and didn't fog.
Picked up a Nikon prostaff3-9x40mm from sail today. Couple dollars over 200 bucks all in. Awesome service there. Held it up to other Nikon, Bushnell and Redfield scopes. No difference to my eye from some of the scopes that were 400+ bucks clarity wise, and has resetable turrets that are very tactile and audible. If I need to upgrade later I'll slap it on my 10/22 and buy something with higher magnification. But this should do me just fine til I decide to go out to further distances. Cleared the bolt handle with medium Leopold rings just fine.
Will post up how it does when I get to shoot.
Will post up how it does when I get to shoot.
- Location
- British Columbia
Everyone should get the best optic the can for what they can afford. We shouldn't judge others for their budget, and I think you are crossing the line calling his budget “pathetic”.
Damn... I have Kidd on ignore but since you quoted him his posts show up. He is actually quite right. Generally I can't stand his internet persona, but he is correct. I've been regularly disappointed by optics under $300. Under $400 if they are on a heavy recoiling rifle.
He and his internet persona can go wave their expensive optics and short #### elsewhere.
And yes I understand, spend more on an optic and get better quality. But for my use right now, a sub 300 dollar Nikon should be just fine, and when I get good enough that I need better glass, this one can go on a 22 that won't be shot past 50 yards for the most part. The Bushnell legend I looked at in the store was over $400, the turrets were mushy and if anything, the Nikon is clearer. Just my opinion.
And yes I understand, spend more on an optic and get better quality. But for my use right now, a sub 300 dollar Nikon should be just fine, and when I get good enough that I need better glass, this one can go on a 22 that won't be shot past 50 yards for the most part. The Bushnell legend I looked at in the store was over $400, the turrets were mushy and if anything, the Nikon is clearer. Just my opinion.
Your choice should do alright, but don't be surprised if it doesn't track true for very long or simply sh*ts the bed.
And yet here you are starting a thread asking for the OPINIONS OF OTHERS. I think what you wanted from others here was for them to role play and validate the decision you had already made.
And yet again I will explain budget. Budget is a set amount of money over a set amount of time. Increase the amount you save or the amount of time you save for and your budget increases. In addition people need to prioritize their life expenses. If optics and shooting are a priority then cut out smoking, drinking, eating out, stupid sh*t for your car etc etc. It's all about priorities and when I see a "budget" of $300 it tells me the user has assigned low to no priority in having a quality capable piece of equipment. If the users budget is only $300 and all other superfluous expenses have been cut, then the user simply doesn't have the finances to engage in precision shooting on an appreciable level. This doesn't mean the user can't still give it a go. It simply means the user needs to be realistic about the level of performance they will achieve.
You're just an optics snob..
Here's the problem with your formula. You won't get better with an optic/rifle/ammo setup that is on the shallow end of quality. You can't polish a turd and you can't improve if you're fighting your gear. The only ones getting butt hurt over your poor chocie is you as I really couldn't care less what you end up with but figured a few keystrokes might offer some perspective on the rabbit hole you're heading down. You seem set on learning the hard and long way that you get what you pay for and you never skimp on optics.
Your choice should do alright, but don't be surprised if it doesn't track true for very long or simply sh*ts the bed.
And yet here you are starting a thread asking for the OPINIONS OF OTHERS. I think what you wanted from others here was for them to role play and validate the decision you had already made.
And yet again I will explain budget. Budget is a set amount of money over a set amount of time. Increase the amount you save or the amount of time you save for and your budget increases. In addition people need to prioritize their life expenses. If optics and shooting are a priority then cut out smoking, drinking, eating out, stupid sh*t for your car etc etc. It's all about priorities and when I see a "budget" of $300 it tells me the user has assigned low to no priority in having a quality capable piece of equipment. If the users budget is only $300 and all other superfluous expenses have been cut, then the user simply doesn't have the finances to engage in precision shooting on an appreciable level. This doesn't mean the user can't still give it a go. It simply means the user needs to be realistic about the level of performance they will achieve.
You're just an optics snob..
Here's the problem with your formula. You won't get better with an optic/rifle/ammo setup that is on the shallow end of quality. You can't polish a turd and you can't improve if you're fighting your gear. The only ones getting butt hurt over your poor chocie is you as I really couldn't care less what you end up with but figured a few keystrokes might offer some perspective on the rabbit hole you're heading down. You seem set on learning the hard and long way that you get what you pay for and you never skimp on optics.
Yes, the opinion on which of the 2 options were better, I.e. "don't buy the vortex I had one they're trash" or "try this other one that's in you're price range that's better than both". Not "you're budget is pathetic buy more expensive crap".
Obviously more expensive optics will be better than the 2 I asked between. That was never a question. So stop pointing out the obvious and either offer an opinion on which is better, state if you think there's a better pick in the price range, or stick your opinion where the sun don't shine.
I'm not competing in long range competitions. As stated, I shoot for fun, and one day the gun might go hunting (though now that I have handled it, it may be too heavy if I have to trek a lot with it on my back).
Being a condescending turd doesn't help, doesn't answer any questions, and doesn't give an opinion relative to the question I asked. Your statement about Nikon being better than vortex was appreciated. Stick to that next time.
Ok I will role play for you. Between the two low end garbage optics you were deciding between, the less smelly turd is the Nikon. I'm sure that post would have tickled your fancy and not triggered you at all.. Oh and I have no doubt the rifle you bought is in fact far too heavy for slinging through the woods all day, but you weren't asking about that so I didn't think you wanted my educated opinion on the matter.
Best of luck.
Made it to the range today. Took a while to sight in (scope was supposed to be bore sighted but was way off). Once i got it dialed in at50, then 100 yards, I put 3 shots inside 1" @100yards, and 4 shots in 2" @200 yards. This was using 168gr Hornady a max bullets. Those were my best groups, I had a couple groups that were pretty crappy at first.
Prostaff was super clear and turret adjustments were right on, I only wish that I had a little more magnification. I also definitely need more practice, my 200 yard groups were low left, no doubt once I get better I'll tighten those groups right up (it's been almost a year since I shot a rifle).
Prostaff was super clear and turret adjustments were right on, I only wish that I had a little more magnification. I also definitely need more practice, my 200 yard groups were low left, no doubt once I get better I'll tighten those groups right up (it's been almost a year since I shot a rifle).
Very few rifles are too heavy for field use on a hunt... It comes down to what is one willing to carry over the distances that one will hunt. Heavier rifles have less felt recoil and less muzzle jump but the weight gets noticeable over a long day if one is spot and stock hunting. Most times the accuracy of heavier rifle can be better then a sporter - but they can also be seen as two different options of a given caliber. In my younger days the weight of a rifle was never a concern - but I don't mind using a lighter rifle for hunts today.
Now the OP was interested in two possible scopes where he expressed an interest in using one of two options for his rifle. It comes down to what the eye sees through both optics... Over time I have moved away from the budget scopes to scopes that are more robust and show better clarity and hold zero more reliably.
This is something that long term shooters discover over time. So glass quality becomes more relevant over time.
I was with a friend yesterday who was having difficulties sighting in a budget scope. It was a variable and the power range was stuck on one power and we didn't know what power level it was stuck at. And the adjustments for elevation and windage were dicy at best. After a great deal of shooting and attempting to dial it in... He got it close enough on his point of aim. We did not know if it would hold the settings so he said that he would replace it today.
Sometimes one can only afford a budget scope and this is ok. But through personal experience I have found that coughing up more $ for a scope will be more rewarding and less frustrating. Hope you enjoy the choice that was made.
Now the OP was interested in two possible scopes where he expressed an interest in using one of two options for his rifle. It comes down to what the eye sees through both optics... Over time I have moved away from the budget scopes to scopes that are more robust and show better clarity and hold zero more reliably.
This is something that long term shooters discover over time. So glass quality becomes more relevant over time.
I was with a friend yesterday who was having difficulties sighting in a budget scope. It was a variable and the power range was stuck on one power and we didn't know what power level it was stuck at. And the adjustments for elevation and windage were dicy at best. After a great deal of shooting and attempting to dial it in... He got it close enough on his point of aim. We did not know if it would hold the settings so he said that he would replace it today.
Sometimes one can only afford a budget scope and this is ok. But through personal experience I have found that coughing up more $ for a scope will be more rewarding and less frustrating. Hope you enjoy the choice that was made.
Will have to see about hunting when the time comes. And I think I will be getting something with at least 14-16x magnification, probably as a late Christmas present to myself
and keep the prostaff either for hunting or for my 22Will have to see about hunting when the time comes. And I think I will be getting something with at least 14-16x magnification, probably as a late Christmas present to myself
So you've already realized your optic isn't what you ned/want and are looking for another optic. So buying two optics is somehow more productive and efficient than buying one good scope... See where this is going??
Everything you said about it was bull#### so why are you coming back in here waving your d### around? Optic was super clear, adjustments were right on, doesn't matter if it was a swarovski 3-9, I learned for punching paper I'm gonna want more magnification. If I find a prostaff 4-16 I'd confidently buy it.
The optic I bought will be great for hunting as i said. And shot MOA to 200 yards, which is as far as the range had. And I'm sure in someone with more experiences hands it would've been much better.
You gave your opinion. It was worthless. Now piss off and have a nice day.
