optics on an XCR

tjhaile said:
The objective size isn't a quality indicator. A 50mm objective is only beneficial for improving light gathering at higher magnifications compared with a smaller objective. Assuming that a 7mm exit pupil is all that anyone's eye can use, a 50mm objective will provide that at 7.1x magnification compared with 5.7x for a 40mm or 4.6x for a 32mm objective.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that the larger diameter objective isn't an indicator of quality. I was assuming it was the 3-9 model and that he will occasionally use it at above 5.7x.

That said, a 3200 Elite scope on a $2000 rifle is silly. A high end rifle deserves more than a bare minimum optic. Keep in mind that when you buy a more expensive scope, you are generally paying for more than just optical quality. I would consider things like mechanical durability and repeatability of adjustments to be more important than glass quality.
Click to expand...

In general I agree, but don't dismiss the importance of good, clear glass. (I don't think you are, but I'm just making sure). ;)
 
The downsides of a scope with a 50mm objective are that it has to be mounted higher, weighs more, and is bulkier than one with a smaller objective. Whether this is an acceptable tradeoff depends on the intended end use; a 50mm objective might make sense for varmint or long range shooting, but I think anything bigger than 40mm is overkill for big game.

For a black rifle, I would choose some sort of low magnification variable.

I'm certainly not discounting the value of good glass, but I think that this is something that is overhyped in an age when cheap scopes often have better glass in them than the some of the quality scopes of past years. A scope that can't hold zero is worthless regardless of optical quality.
 
Here is my XCR which I use for coyotes/deer/bear with 6.8 and 5.56 barrels (the 6.8 is fluted, I still have to get the 5.56 done).

I use a bushnell elite 4200 2.5-10 x 40. I have had this scope on a 204 ruger bolt action, my savage 10ml muzzle loader and a horton crossbow (for 1 season). It has the firefly reticle and is not too heavy for weight. I have a few of these, and have sold my leupold scopes (vxIIs). I think they are great scopes. Check one out in person if you get a chance.


100_0216.jpg
 
Who did the fluting I am looking to get both my 223 & 6.8spc done and did it affect accuracy at all?

Here is a pic of my XCR-L with a Leupold VX111 4.5-14 30mm tube side focus LR Varmint reticle.

img_9298.jpg
 
Ar180shooter said:
Please say that the Elite 3200 on your $2000 rifle has at least the 50mm objective...

If not... f:P:

But my question is, if you can afford a $2000 rifle, can't you at least put a good scope on it? It doesn't have to be a $2000 one, but maybe a Swarovski Z3 or at least a Zeiss Conquest (and something better than the $500 3-9x40 model, the 50mm objective makes a huge difference).

Even moving up to an Elite 4200 makes a big difference (especially when you go from the 40mm to 50mm objective).

Anyways, I digress, so to sum everything up, if you only have $2300 to spend on a rifle and scope, it's better to get a $1000 Tikka T3 lite and a $1300 Swarovski Z3 than a $2000 rifle and a $300 Bushnell.

All IMO, of course.

Ar180shooter
Click to expand...

Well, we won't tell the countless big Saskatchewan whitetails or mulies that I have shot that I was usuing a cheap Burris fullfield or Elite 3200, our secret ;)
Or the 70 plus coyotes I shoot every winter. I know you probably do better then most with your high end glass but Im a happy camper.

Cheers!!
 
tjhaile said:
The downsides of a scope with a 50mm objective are that it has to be mounted higher, weighs more, and is bulkier than one with a smaller objective. Whether this is an acceptable tradeoff depends on the intended end use; a 50mm objective might make sense for varmint or long range shooting, but I think anything bigger than 40mm is overkill for big game.

For a black rifle, I would choose some sort of low magnification variable.

I'm certainly not discounting the value of good glass, but I think that this is something that is overhyped in an age when cheap scopes often have better glass in them than the some of the quality scopes of past years. A scope that can't hold zero is worthless regardless of optical quality.
Click to expand...

Good point, and I definitely agree that a scope could have the best glass in the world, but it's not worth anything if it can't hold a zero.
 
scott_r said:
Well, we won't tell the countless big Saskatchewan whitetails or mulies that I have shot that I was usuing a cheap Burris fullfield or Elite 3200, our secret ;)
Or the 70 plus coyotes I shoot every winter. I know you probably do better then most with your high end glass but Im a happy camper.

Cheers!!
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that you can't use an Elite 3200 to great results, or even that the 3200 isn't a decent scope, but IMO mounting one on a $2000 rifle is silly. If you're happy, then that's great (and after all, that's what's important). I'm just saying I would have done things differently.
 
That's cool. At the moment I don't have have $ for a S&B or Nforce. More then Likely a Fullfield II will be going on it or the Millet DMS. I won't be keepen up with Joneses but I'm sure it will do the trick.

Cheers!!

Ar180shooter said:
I'm not saying that you can't use an Elite 3200 to great results, or even that the 3200 isn't a decent scope, but IMO mounting one on a $2000 rifle is silly. If you're happy, then that's great (and after all, that's what's important). I'm just saying I would have done things differently.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom