Rifle scope

[the_big_mike]

FYI the Bushnell's subjective lens bell (the piece close to your eye) is quite large and will cause you to mount the scope fairly high on the Kimber. Something like a Leupold compact or the Weaver K or V series have much smaller subjective bell dimensions. Just a thought.

Cheers

uh..... no?

My 3200 sits damn low on my tikka.

 

[Spitzer]

If the 4200 is now available in 3x9x40 it isn't on their site.

The 3-9x40 4200 has been out since last fall I believe. They are not listed on their site yet. They are being sold in Canada for around $332-350, go to the SWFA forum there are many Leupold cult converts that'll admit the 4200 Elite is a superior scope optically and mechanically to the VXII/III. Plus it's $100 less than the VXII.

 

[dupa]

X4 Leupold VXIII 2.5-8 is a great scope.

 

[stubblejumper]

there are many Leupold cult converts that'll admit the 4200 Elite is a superior scope optically and mechanically to the VXII/III. Plus it's $100 less than the VXII.

I also believe that the elite 4200 is optically superior to the vxIII and at a lower price as well.

 

[gitrdun]

A Leupold VXIII 2.5-8 gets my vote.

 

[martinbns]

I have a Nikon 6x42 in my Kimber 84m in 308. It only weighs 13 oz. I hunted deer with it last fall and didn't have any trouble with close up shots. I can't love the Leupold Duplex, not thick enough for me.

The one thing I would do is get Talley lightweight one peice mounts for it, they are way superior to the Leupold mounts Kimber sells.

 

[daniellybbert]

the biggest diffrence that i have found over the elites and the leupolds is the easy of a cheek weld and being able to see clear through the scope
and the leupold wins hands down

 

[Pudelpointer]

I'm sure your scope does sit low on your Tikka Big Mike, but it is a Tikka and has a 65 degree bolt lift. The Kimber bolt comes way up! To keep scope hieght to a minimum you need a slimmer scope.

Cheers

 

[Dustin]

Pudelpointer, there's no such thing as a subjective bell. There is an ocular bell and an objective bell.

 

[beretta boy]

Another VXII 2x-7x fan !

 

[Pudelpointer]

Pudelpointer, there's no such thing as a subjective bell. There is an ocular bell and an objective bell.

Dogleg already called me on that one, keep up.

 

[Dustin]

Dogleg already called me on that one, keep up.

so you got called on it twice...considering the amount people screw up on scope terminology, count yourself lucky that it was only twice!

 

[BIGREDD]

I am resisting the urge to interject with my usual massive dose of sarcasm... scope experts ya know.
I will stay on topic... I believe that a really good scope for a 7 pound Kimber in .270 is something with long eye relief... a Leupold VXII or VXIII.
Magnification is a personal issue I like the higher power variables... might be a good for prairie shooting.

 

[stubblejumper]

Before I would spend the money on a VXIII,I would buy a ziess conquest.

 

[Dustin]

Z-E-I-S-S! For the love of God...

 

[BIGREDD]

Lets Compare the Zeiss conquest to the VXIII although it is quite unfair as it is more comparable to the VXII in reality.
The Conquest uses lens to air coating one side only ... the VXIII coats all lenses both sides.The VXII also coats all lenses.
The Conquest advertises thier light transmission as "over 90%" The VXIII is almost 98%!
Comparing 2.5-8 power scopes the Conquest is 3 ounces heavier and has a larger diameter eye piece than the lighter and slimmer VXIII.
The continual 4 inch eye relief is a nice touch on the Conquest whereas the Leupold has slightly more eye relief on 8X and a little less on 2.5X. 3.5 inches is lots for hard recoilers with a properly mounted scope so I wouldn't consider this an important factor in most circumstances.
I think the Zeiss Conquest are great scopes but I certainly don't consider them better than the VXIII.
The Conquest is more comparable to the VXII in price and light tansmission.... but I still think the VXII is a better buy. JBRO

 

[Dogleg]

Before I would spend the money on a VXIII,I would buy a ziess conquest.

This coming from a guy that can't even spell Zeiss.

 

[SuperCub]

This coming from a guy that can't even spell Zeiss.

"I" before "E", except after "Z".




.

 

[stubblejumper]

"I" before "E", except after "Z".

Yes that is exactly what I did when I spelled it.

 

[stubblejumper]

The Conquest advertises thier light transmission as "over 90%" The VXIII is almost 98%!

Of course you failed to mention that while zeiss quotes light transmission through the entire scope,like most other scope manufacturers,leupold quotes light transmission per lens surface as in the quote from the Leupold site for the LPS scope which is an even higher priced scope than the vxIII.

Incredibly high (up to 99.65%) light transmission per lens surface.

So if you have 6 lenses the total number of lens surfaces is 12.The total light transmission through the scope will be .9965 x .9965 x .9965 x .9965(12 times) for a total of 95.8%.That is for leupolds best scope the LPS.For the VXIII the number will be lower.However for those people that don't see the "per lens surface" and assume that the number quoted is through the entire scope,it certainly does sound impressive.

I currently own a VXIII and have compared it and other VXIIIs to conquests owned by myself and others in actual hunting conditions.To my eyes ,and to several people that I hunt and shoot with,the conquest is brighter than the VXIII in a scope with similar magnification and lens size.