i know its all personal everyones different. but im coming back from tour and want to get into hunting. im buying a weatherby vanguard sub moa in .308 for sure. i want to spend about 1200 max on this sight. im sorry im sure you guys get this a lot. what have you used to get some deer with 308? whats a quality easy to use sight? if you recommend one please dont leave out any downfalls it may have just because you own it. thanks
picking an optic help
- Thread starter derk22
- Start date
You have a pretty good budget for that scope if I'm reading this right. For $1,200 you should have a very wide selection available. To make an educated selection we need to know more about the type of area you plan to hunt, range of distances you'd need to cover. You don't want too much magnification if you may be shooting at close distances in the woods. Personally, I find a 3-9x40 covers my needs in a wide variety of situations. Bushnell's elite 6500 2.5-16 range scope looks very interesting though.
i figuerd that i could get something pretty nice for that price. my buddy told me a 3-9x40 is best but he doesnt hunt he just target shoots. ill be hunting in alberta. im rom edmonton and might be oin around wainwright. my friends that hunt around there say from 100-200 is what shoot at most of the time
Best Bang for the buck in a 3-9x 40mm is the Burris Fullfield II with ballistic plex. Then we go to the Leupold VXIII, and the Zeiss Conquest. Up still Swarvoski, Zeiss, Night force, Smidt and Bender etc.
I'd probably go with the Zeiss Conquest or depending on the cost, the Swarovksi for hunting. Swarovski if the price was right.
That being said if you're talking about an accurate .308 and plan on doing some target shooting I'd consider a bit of a compromise with a 4-14x scope. Same players as above.
Pretty much Swarovski for hunting if you can afford the price. After that Zeiss Conquest or Leupold.
I'd probably go with the Zeiss Conquest or depending on the cost, the Swarovksi for hunting. Swarovski if the price was right.
That being said if you're talking about an accurate .308 and plan on doing some target shooting I'd consider a bit of a compromise with a 4-14x scope. Same players as above.
Pretty much Swarovski for hunting if you can afford the price. After that Zeiss Conquest or Leupold.
Don't forget about the 6500 line from Bushnell, in my opinion it is a clearer, more versatile scope than the Leopold and Zeiss in the same price range.
Seems every thread like this eventually turns in to a pi$$ing match over what is better, but the key word here is hunting, there is no scope on the market that is more versatile in the field than the 6500 line up. Bench shooting? couldn't tell ya, not my cup of tea.
Nobody can tell you what your eyes are going to see, you need to look through them for yourself, preferably in a place where you can set one down and move on to the next, outside if you can. I looked through almost every scope listed in this thread so far and chose the 6500 Elite to take in to the bush with me. The swav in the zoom level I wanted was simply not in my budget, it was an amazing scope though.
Your eyes, your decision, make it count.
Seems every thread like this eventually turns in to a pi$$ing match over what is better, but the key word here is hunting, there is no scope on the market that is more versatile in the field than the 6500 line up. Bench shooting? couldn't tell ya, not my cup of tea.
Nobody can tell you what your eyes are going to see, you need to look through them for yourself, preferably in a place where you can set one down and move on to the next, outside if you can. I looked through almost every scope listed in this thread so far and chose the 6500 Elite to take in to the bush with me. The swav in the zoom level I wanted was simply not in my budget, it was an amazing scope though.
Your eyes, your decision, make it count.
3.5-10X44 zeiss Conquest on my 7mm is perfect. Discovered one thing the other day at the range, low rising sun inline with and just above the line of sight - The Zeiss beat my Elite 4200 all to hell - glare was so bad with the Bushnell I couldn't see a standard target at 100 yds - load testing was done. The Conquest was actually pretty good, and easy to tolerate the limited amount of sun-flare. Nothing, however, like my Schmidt & Bender which literally seemed to enjoy the challenge. It was so clear and bright I was stunned. But to compare a Zeiss to any Bushnell......well, no comparison IMO. And you'll have enough leftover to mount it with the finest mount/rings you can find. That's a pretty healthy budget for a scope setup - look for a used S&B or Zeiss Diavari, Swarovski, Kahles. You won't regret it. Try "spurly" - he had a Diavari or two for sale in your price range with plenty of change, 3-9's I believe.
The Zeiss (more than one) I looked through must have been defective, it was similar to a 4200 but no where near a 6500. I have had no issues with glare from my Bushnell, even in the most challenging of situations.
The Zeiss (Conquest) I looked through were more comparable to a Bushnell Banner than a 6500. The 4200 from Bushnell didn't do much for me either.
The 4200 is not by any stretch of the imagination a 6500.
The Zeiss (Conquest) I looked through were more comparable to a Bushnell Banner than a 6500. The 4200 from Bushnell didn't do much for me either.
The 4200 is not by any stretch of the imagination a 6500.
I have 5 Zeiss Conquest, all of them are the 6.5-20x 50mm models with varying reticles. All of them have much better glass than the 4200. I checked every scope I could get my hands on before making the decision to go with the Zeiss Conquest. The 4200 wasn't even a consideration. My Burris Fullfield II was even better than the 4200. Interestingly enough if we go back to the threads on the 4200 before the 6500 you'd think the 4200 was the Cat's A@@. Now that the 6500 is out and well known, the flaws of the 4200 are finally being posted. Just something I've noticed.
The 6500 was a consideration. I just found that I preferred the Conquest. The glass on the 6500 was very good. It may be slightly better than my Conquest glass, I'd have to do tests. Where it falls down is the crappy reticle choice. Plus the Bushnell name doesn't inspire much confidence. As an overall package I preferred the Conquest. It really came down to Leupold and the Conquest for the price range with the 6500 in third place. For rimfires it came down to Leupold EFR.
Although some of my other guns are now getting Falcon Menace on them as a much less expensive option.
Another scope to consider is the upper end Nikon line. I've never owned one but I have heard postive things about them.
Last edited:
Leupold FX-III 6X42mm
Sight it in 1.5" high at 100M and you'll be good to 300M easy.
Set it, forget it, I love fixed scopes.
http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/scopes/fx-iii-riflescopes/fx-iii-6x42mm/
