Scope for Hunting Rifle

kporebski

kporebski

Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Location
Alberta
Hi guys,

My father is getting into hunting and just picked up his first centerfire rifle (Ruger American Gen 2 in .308).
His birthday is coming up so I figured why not complete his setup with an optic.
I'm trying to stay under the $1000 mark.

I've never hunted before so I'm not sure what features/magnification range I should be looking for.
For context, we are located in Alberta.

Currently considering the following:
  1. Athlon Helos BTR Gen 2, 2-12x42 ($700)
  2. Leupold VX-3HD 3.5-10X40 ($840) / 4.5-14x40 (980$)
  3. Riton Conquer X7 (no-illumination) 3-18x50 ($750)
  4. Primary Arms Slx 3-18x50 ($730)
  5. Element Helix 4-16x44 ($650) Titan 3-18x50 ($1100 :/ )
  6. Burris Signature HD 3-15x44 ($770)
  7. Swarovski Z3 3-10x42
  8. Trijicon Credo/Accupoint 3-9x
I have scoured reddit, YouTube and other forums but still hitting a blank, there's a lot of options + different budgets.
A lot of people recommend Leupold but looking at their offerings they really only seem to win regarding weight, maybe glass.
I think out of the list so far I am leaning towards the Athlon, the magnification range seems pretty versatile, its FPP, and I've read/heard good things about it.
Is there better options out there that I've missed or anything you guys would recommend?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
It all depends on the type of hunting he does. Would his shots be across open country or shooting in the bush within 100 yards. If the latter I would suggest keeping it light with a Leupold 3-9. I have a vanguard with a VX3 and its like nothing at all on it.
 
Last edited:
3-18x50 scopes are gonna be pretty bulky/ heavy for a hunting rifle. A lot of your options appear to be more geared towards the tactical/ competition world rather than hunting, full of features that you just don't really need in a hunting scope.

Of those options listed I'd go with the Leupold 3.5-10x.
 
Last edited:
John_B said:
It's hard to beat that Leupold on a hunting rifle.
Click to expand...
IanC said:
It all depends on the type of hunting he does. Would his shots be across open country or shooting in the bush within 100 yards. If the latter I would suggest keeping it light with a Leupold 3-9. I have a vanguard with a VX3 and its like nothing at all on it.
Click to expand...
Suther said:
3-18x50 scopes are gonna be pretty bulky/ heavy for a hunting rifle. A lot of your options appear to be more geared towards the tactical/ competition world rather than hunting, full of features that you just don't really need in a hunting scope.

Of those options listed I'd go with the Leupold 3.5-10x.
Click to expand...
hawk-i said:
Out of those choices, I'd go with either of the Leupolds.
Click to expand...

So a lot recommendations for the Leupold but maybe I am missing something as on paper it doesn't really stand out to me.
I can't argue with the weight, its really light coming in at 13.1oz (at least for that specific model), but I feel like it comes short when comparing the specs, see below vs Athlon:

Leupold VX-3HD 3.5-10X40 ($840)Athlon Helos BTR Gen 2, 2-12x42 ($700)
Focal PlaneSFPFFP
ReticleDuplexAHMR2
Illumination?NoYes
FOV (100yd, min-max magnification) 29-11ft

100yd: 55.7-9.6ft​

ParallaxFixed (150yd)Adjustable (10yd)
Weight13.1oz25.4oz

It seems to me the Leupold weighs only so little because its missing features. Maybe I'm overvaluing them?
Is FFP and a more detailed reticle not useful? If there's ever a situation where you need to hold I think I would be greatful for being able to do so even at the cost of like 3/4lb. Now even if I go for a Leupold model with a better reticle, its still SFP so I'd need to be at max magnification for the reticle to be accurate, right? (not mentioning the cost of just a reticle upgrade) Same story with parallax, wouldn't having fixed parallax be detrimental if you aren't shooting at that distance?

I'm not a hunter so this is an unknown area for me, and the Leupold is probably a great optic, but I do want to understand why. Does it come down to 3/4lb or less in weight difference? Maybe simpler is just better, less things to worry about but I've always been told hunting is about shot placement, and it seems having "extra" tools to land a better shot doesn't seem like a bad thing.
 
My vote is for the Leupold 3.5-10. I would also look at the Swarovski Z3 that is mentioned in either 3-10 or even 3-9x36. Very clear glass, nice trim scopes.
 
Weight is a HUGE feature in a hunting scope you're gonna carry all day. If you're gonna be sitting in a tree stand all day that's only 1km from the truck then it's less of an issue.

Ffp isn't necessary, or even an advantage IMO - the reticle changes sizes with ffp, so you have the problem of a tiny reticle that's harder to see at low magnification.

The more detailed reticle isn't a big factor either. The Leupold uses their CDS (custom dial system), you give them info about a given load and they send you a custom dial for elevation, once set up you just range your target and dial to the listed distance - the dial numbers are distance to the target rather than mils or moa. This is more precise than a BDS reticle, and the first custom dial is free with purchase IIRC. The downside to this is the dial is custom for a specific load so changing loads will throw off the calculations and will no longer be "range, dial, and shoot" unless you get a new custom dial.

I've never really put much thought into illumination on a hunting scope.

You get what you pay for. If you've got two scopes for the same price and one has way more features chances are the one with fewer features has better glass. In hunting low light performance is critical, so glass quality beats out most other features.
 
Last edited:
I am not saying a high magnification scope with paralax adjustment is a bad thing. Heck I shoot a cz452 with a boyds stock and Hawke 24x with paralax adjustment. I can make very small groups on paper and am very happy with it. If he will sit at a distance and make his shots he will be very happy with any of those choices especially the Athlon. I just find with such a large magnification even at 14 power at 50 yards If I am not already lined up on my target I have to find it if you know what I mean. I set up a friends rifle recently with a burris full field and found it quite nice too. I just suggested a 3-9 since thats what I have and find am very satisfied with it as it points quickly.
 
Last edited:
for the love of heck, consider weight on all of these. I wouldnt use anything over 15oz. 10 is more my style.

3-10 is plenty. Keep in mind, you can SEE game at 300y without any zoom. I run 2-7's now to keep it lighter weight and I'd be super surprised to ever be presented with a shot over 250y in Nova scotia (let alone one where I couldn't also sneak up to 100y).
 
I can only attest to the quality of Leupold from your list. 3.5-10 is plenty for hunting with a .308 and I'd probably prefer their 2.5-8 on a .308 hunting rifle. Plenty of magnification for hunting and parallax adjustment is not needed for close to mid range shots. Lighter scopes make the whole package more pleasant to carry and less top-heavy.
 
Leupold for sure! If it was me I would go for less magnification like a classic 3-9 but most likely a 2-7 or 2.5-8 they are my favorite variable. I tend to go more towards the fix now, 4x and 6x are my go too scope these days
 
For hunting, I think the simpler, the better. And since it's for a .308, I'd think your dad's max distance will be under 300 yards. The 3.5-10 Leupold would fit that rifle pretty nicely... the good magnification range and it's simple duplex reticle are about right. The Athlon reticle looks like a calculator and the finer details in the center might be a PITA in the field.

Cheers,
Neil
 
Suther said:
Weight is a HUGE feature in a hunting scope you're gonna carry all day. If you're gonna be sitting in a tree stand all day that's only 1km from the truck then it's less of an issue.

Ffp isn't necessary, or even an advantage IMO - the reticle changes sizes with ffp, so you have the problem of a tiny reticle that's harder to see at low magnification.

The more detailed reticle isn't a big factor either. The Leupold uses their CDS (custom dial system), you give them info about a given load and they send you a custom dial for elevation, once set up you just range your target and dial to the listed distance - the dial numbers are distance to the target rather than mils or moa. This is more precise than a BDS reticle, and the first custom dial is free with purchase IIRC. The downside to this is the dial is custom for a specific load so changing loads will throw off the calculations and will no longer be "range, dial, and shoot" unless you get a new custom dial.

I've never really put much thought into illumination on a hunting scope.

You get what you pay for. If you've got two scopes for the same price and one has way more features chances are the one with fewer features has better glass. In hunting low light performance is critical, so glass quality beats out most other features.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it seems like weight really is its own feature. The Ruger is 16" barrel, its already like 6lb so I'd consider it already pretty lightweight. I think even the 25oz Athlon isn't really a deal breaker, but maybe I will lean towards something lighter.

Regarding the Athlon FFP, it actually has a pretty usable reticle at all magnifications, albeit its a little weird compared to the standard Christmas tree reticles.

I did see the Leupold CDS, it does seem pretty neat to just be able to range and dial. Does suck kind of being locked into a certain ammo though.

IanC said:
I am not saying a high magnification scope with paralax adjustment is a bad thing. Heck I shoot a cz452 with a boyds stock and Hawke 24x with paralax adjustment. I can make very small groups on paper and am very happy with it. If he will sit at a distance and make his shots he will be very happy with any of those choices especially the Athlon. I just find with such a large magnification even at 14 power at 50 yards If I am not already lined up on my target I have to find it if you know what I mean. I set up a friends rifle recently with a burris full field and found it quite nice too. I just suggested a 3-9 since thats what I have and find am very satisfied with it as it points quickly.
Click to expand...

Honestly I think 3-9x or even 2-7x is probably enough. After doing more research I think my list honestly isn't the best for hunting, at least not at closer distances.

Jahnj0584 said:
for the love of heck, consider weight on all of these. I wouldnt use anything over 15oz. 10 is more my style.

3-10 is plenty. Keep in mind, you can SEE game at 300y without any zoom. I run 2-7's now to keep it lighter weight and I'd be super surprised to ever be presented with a shot over 250y in Nova scotia (let alone one where I couldn't also sneak up to 100y).
Click to expand...

I did some more digging and there really isn't that many scopes that are sub 15oz, let alone 10oz, it's really just the Leupold and the Swarovski z3. Are 10oz scopes actually reliable or even sort of durable ?
 
I was doing some more digging and apparently a lot of people report the Leupold VX-3HD to have issues holding zero..

Also did some more research on other scopes and now I am also considering the Trijicon Credo 3-9x40 and the Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x, both are pretty lightweight and seem to still be in my budget.
Anyone have any experience with Trijicon and want to weigh in ?
 
I think youre way over thinking this - a 308 hunting rifle is an excellent choice for an all round rifle and wont vary much out to 300 with different ammo. A nice compact rifle needs a nice compact scope, as recommended above the Leupold fits all the criteria and some. They are reliable, and have excellent back up and warranty, which is rarely needed in my experience. 3X to about 10 or 12X is more than adequate for 300 metre shots, and definitely not a FFP in that range for a hunting rifle - the reticule on a SFP scope will be much more usable at lower power and more user friendly for hunting in the bush. Both the Swaro and the Leupold are renowned for their quality and endurance. No need to look any further unless youre looking at Kahles.
 
kporebski said:
I was doing some more digging and apparently a lot of people report the Leupold VX-3HD to have issues holding zero..

Also did some more research on other scopes and now I am also considering the Trijicon Credo 3-9x40 and the Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x, both are pretty lightweight and seem to still be in my budget.
Anyone have any experience with Trijicon and want to weigh in ?
Click to expand...
Personally I wouldn't be concerned about a Leupold holding zero. Chances are very low, and in the small chance it does happen to you warranty is top notch.
 
kporebski said:
I did some more digging and there really isn't that many scopes that are sub 15oz, let alone 10oz, it's really just the Leupold and the Swarovski z3. Are 10oz scopes actually reliable or even sort of durable ?
Click to expand...

Huh? Like every Leupold Freedom is, as well as many bushnells. Im sure the Burris line up is also in that range. Are you looking at hunting scopes or tactical/target ones?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom