What to put on my T3Lite.243

Philthy1

Philthy1

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Location
Winnipeg
Wanting to upgrade my cheap 3-9x40. Used mostly for deer midrange, but may want to do some targets out to 600yd or so. Was thinking of something 4-12x42 perhaps a Bushnell yardage, redfield revenge or a Minox. Would really like to stay sub 500$. Any ideas?
 
I've found the best value in the sub $500 range to be the Nikon Monarchs. Optically pretty darn good for the money. Easy, forgiving eyebox with good eye relief. Mechanically they work fine and the are rugged. I have had a couple and never had an issue.

Redfield are good for the money, but suffer from edge of field distortion. Leupold has some good scopes in that range, but you can generally get more bang for the buck with a Nikon. The Nikon monarchs have superior optics to the budget friendly Leupolds. Never tried a Minox. I find the Bushnell Elites to be inferior optically to the Nikon, but the two Elites I had worked very well mechanically and were reliable.

If you care to stretch the budget I strongly believe the Zeiss Conquest to be the best scope for the money going.
 
I'm always curious why someone would buy a lightweight rifle and them top it with a large, heavy scope? The rifle you have is a great little hunting rig and would be well paired with a light 2-7x Leupold. To top it with something in the 4-12x40mm range, to me, is like putting a trailer hitch on a motorcycle...it takes something and tries (poorly) to make it into something else.
 
BigUglyMan said:
I'm always curious why someone would buy a lightweight rifle and them top it with a large, heavy scope? The rifle you have is a great little hunting rig and would be well paired with a light 2-7x Leupold. To top it with something in the 4-12x40mm range, to me, is like putting a trailer hitch on a motorcycle...it takes something and tries (poorly) to make it into something else.
Click to expand...

Excellent wording of my thoughts!
 
Leupold VX-3 2.5-8 X 36 from the EE

I have two that I got from the EE, one matte, one gloss, and they were almost exactly $500. They are light, clear, and mount low.

If you're buying new, VX-2 2-7, as has been mentioned.
 
BigUglyMan said:
I'm always curious why someone would buy a lightweight rifle and them top it with a large, heavy scope? The rifle you have is a great little hunting rig and would be well paired with a light 2-7x Leupold. To top it with something in the 4-12x40mm range, to me, is like putting a trailer hitch on a motorcycle...it takes something and tries (poorly) to make it into something else.
Click to expand...

You might think I went the opposite way, but back in the 1970s my pet rifle for coyote hunting in the Prairie winter was a little featherweight Sako 243 with a Leupold M-7 4X scope.
It accounted for a lot of fur and had no problem dropping coyotes out to 400 yds.
Sure wish I could remember the model of Sako that was, I'd look for another..
 
cam1936 said:
I've found the best value in the sub $500 range to be the Nikon Monarchs. Optically pretty darn good for the money. Easy, forgiving eyebox with good eye relief. Mechanically they work fine and the are rugged. I have had a couple and never had an issue.

Redfield are good for the money, but suffer from edge of field distortion. Leupold has some good scopes in that range, but you can generally get more bang for the buck with a Nikon. The Nikon monarchs have superior optics to the budget friendly Leupolds. Never tried a Minox. I find the Bushnell Elites to be inferior optically to the Nikon, but the two Elites I had worked very well mechanically and were reliable.

If you care to stretch the budget I strongly believe the Zeiss Conquest to be the best scope for the money going.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with cam1936 about the quality of Nikon optics, for the money they are a very good deal. Or, If you can find an older "Made in Japan" Bushnell Elite, they usually have
nice clear optics; I can't speak for the newer Bushnell products as I haven't used any. I have an older 2-7x32 Bushnell Elite 3200, "Made In Japan" naturally and I still make use of the
old girl. But definitely take a look at the Nikon lineup, definitely good value for your dollar.
 
X3 on the Monarchs, purchased a 2.5x10x42 a few months back and love it. Love it so much I just ordered a 3X12X42 from Cabela's (On Sale for $369.99 + free shipping BTW)
I have a Kimber Montana which I placed a Leupold VX-2 3-9x40 on, with a light rifle I do find it a better fit than a 18.7 oz Monarch.
 
The Nikons are not overly light.

If it's going to be a pack rifle than I think a FX-II 6x36mm is the ultimate in lightweight optics. Mine is 9.3 oz and is far better optically than the Leupold ultralights. The 2.5-8×36 VX3 bothers me because of its huge change in eye relief from low to high power.

Although the Tikka is light I disagree about it needing a ultra light light scope to pair with it. Unless of course it's going to be a mountain rifle where 6-8 oz makes a big difference. If it's your deer rifle don't worry about scope weight IMO (unless you start looking at 20 oz + honkers then balance may be thrown off.) Worry about price, features, durability and optical quality.
 
Well I have to vote against wisdom here. Normally I fully agree that big scopes on small rifles are an abomination and a sin against nature, and if the rifle was chambered for anything larger than a .243, that would be my opinion here as well. But if the rifle is to be put to use as a walking varminter, in addition to being a deer rifle, one can see that a bit more magnification would be advantageous for seeing small targets. I don't know if you'd find one for $500, but it's pretty hard to fault the Leupold Vari-X II 4-12X40. If purchased used, it would save you some cash, and sending it to Korth for a check up costs only the postage. Perhaps a pair of scopes, one a varmint scope, say a fixed 10X or 12X, and the other a low powered variable big game scope, say a 1.5-5X mounted in good quality QD rings that have repeatable zeros, is something worth considering, even if budgetary constraints take you a while to get there. If that makes sense to you, start with the scope you'll use the most.
 
Kevan said:
You might think I went the opposite way, but back in the 1970s my pet rifle for coyote hunting in the Prairie winter was a little featherweight Sako 243 with a Leupold M-7 4X scope.
It accounted for a lot of fur and had no problem dropping coyotes out to 400 yds.
Sure wish I could remember the model of Sako that was, I'd look for another..
Click to expand...

Those are still dandy little scopes. When I worked at Wholesale a guy brought in a little full stock Sako in 243. I should have grabbed it up. As it turned out, another guy on the counter beat me to it.
 
I understand the sentiment of matching scope to gun, but this rifle outshoots the scope in my opinion, even at 9x so I am very reluctant to go to anything less than 9x. Although even 4x is fine for deer out to 250 yds, I want to do some targets at longer ranges. Maybe I should upgrade the stock too! ;)
 
Burris 6.5x20 with some nice varmint or ballistic reticle can be bought for half price of the gun.
That is usually some money range i am looking when matching new rifle/scope.
 
I have a vortex viper 3-9x40 on my hmr really nice scope and right around $350.
I would also suggest a vx-2 3-9x40. I have one on my supergrade 7mm-08 and it is very clear also was right around $400
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom