What's your main hunting scope? And why?

[Covenantor]

Hello Everyone,

I'm looking for your imput and rationale behind your choice for hunting scopes for big game.

"Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety."


Almost all the hunting I do is either at the edge of a field, at a cutline, in the bush, or truck hunting at night kidding...

My top wants for a hunting scope are the following:

1. Locking turrets or capped turrets
2. Excellent lowlight clarity
3. 3-18 magnification range (or 4x20)
4. FFP with illumination
5. Good clean reticle that remains visible and usable at 4x or 3x without illumination
6. Good and forgiving eyebox

Lowlight is a big one, and I'm leaning towards 50mm though I want to hear your opinions on going with a 56mm bell. Also like to hear your thoughts on 30mm vs 34mm main tube in regards to lowlight and a good eyebox. I know that a larger objective, and a larger tube do not necessarily allow more light in, if the glass isn't good quality.

I would also like to hear your opinions on whether a "good eyebox" or easy to attain eyebox is actually worse for accuracy. My thoughts are that a easy to optain eyebox is "loose" and though you can see the sight picture easier, you're not as honed in as you would be with a tighter eyebox. I imagine a harder to obtain sight picture would actually result in a better and more true shot. But I'm not sure this is true, and the fact the best scopes have good and forgiving eyeboxes challenges my theory. But regardless, I'd like to hear your opinions.


I'm ultimately leaning towards the Meopta Meopro r6 3-18 x 50mm FFP as it ticks all the boxes at a lower price, but the warranty is lacking to say the least. I've taken some big spills in the bush and slammed my scopes into the ground pretty good. I try hard not to, but it happens walking through nasty alberta bush.

My other choice is the Vortex Viper HD 5-25x50mm FFP. The warranty I love, but I'm not too keen on starting my magnification at 5x, because I walk through the bush a lot and would like a low power, fast acquisition, large field of view sight picture.

I'm curious what you all recommend. I have a family that comes first, so my price range is limited (1000 to 1500 range).

 

[hawk-i]

I recommend a 3-9×40 or something close to this as general purpose hunting scope.
If you're talking long range hunting then higher power and the extras are worth while.
Lots of quality brands out there with reliable warranties too

 

[ivobb]

Weaver Kaspa 2-7x32
it's all you need

 

[Beeron]

I have both the 4-16 and 5-25x viper HD and they are truly excellent scopes.
I also have a razor LHT 3-15.

I think u cant go wrong with the 4-16 viper HD but avoid the bdc reticle at all costs.

 

[Covenantor]

I have both the 4-16 and 5-25x viper HD and they are truly excellent scopes.
I also have a razor LHT 3-15.

I think u cant go wrong with the 4-16 viper HD but avoid the bdc reticle at all costs.

How do you like your Razor LHT 3-15 compared to the Viper HD's? You think it's worth the increase in price?

I was also looking at that Razor, but I'd have to save for quite a while

I'm curious how it is in lowlight compared to the Viper lineup. I have the old Viper HS LR 4-16x44 and it is pretty underwhelming. I've heard the new HD Vipers are much better.

 

[Covenantor]

Weaver Kaspa 2-7x32
it's all you need

that's definitely within my budget!

 

[remyltr]

my deer rifle has 8x56
my elk/moose rifle has 3-12x56
yote rifles 3-12x50

 

[legi0n]

FFP is not the best for hunting, at low magnification the reticle is very small
that's why some manufacturers are now making dual focal plane reticles

 

[kamlooky]

Leupold.
Pick one above the Freedom line.

 

[Beeron]

How do you like your Razor LHT 3-15 compared to the Viper HD's? You think it's worth the increase in price?

I was also looking at that Razor, but I'd have to save for quite a while

I'm curious how it is in lowlight compared to the Viper lineup. I have the old Viper HS LR 4-16x44 and it is pretty underwhelming. I've heard the new HD Vipers are much better.

The razor is noticeably lighter and for hunting, the reticle is awesome. Also quote bright.

But, imo, the viper hd’s punch well above weight. They are as bright as any loopy save maybe the VX6 and they have superior reticle options imo.

If i had it to do over again, i wud get the ViperHD and spend any surplus on components.

 

[gallen270]

I live in the woods, in the east, 2-7 Leupold vxR is my main big game rifle. Most shooting is well under 100 yards

 

[270AB]

Scopes are a very personal choice. As much so or moreso than the rifle and many spend as much or MORE than the rifle. I wouldn't own a Vortex scope if it was free but thats just me. Wouldnt even put one on one of my rimfires. Swarovski makes an excellent scope imo and can be be found at decent prices used and like new. 100% you won't find better low light glass.
The older version Zeiss conquests are also very nice glass and both the 3-9 and 4 -14x versions would be well under the $1k mark used and in vg condition.

 

[156821]

I use a swaro z5. I like the 1” tube. Is it any better than the competition in that price range… I doubt it. It’s been solid and seen some tough backpack hunts.

 

[iron cat]

My main rifle has a 1.5-5x FSR Leupold with a luminated dot.
I have used it from inside 12 yards to over 370 on my single shot Ruger.
It's in .303 Brit
My other Ruger is in .280 and has a 2-12 Swarovski on it.
I use it mostly for hunting on the river where longer shots can present themselves.
Neither has exposed turrets, the Swarovski has three cross reticles, the Leupold is a standard plex that I zero at 200 and use the fat part of the reticle for a 300 yard plus shot.
I use a range finder and know exactly where the reticles need to be.

Cat

 

[Redneck Hippy]

Most people have way too much scope on their hunting rifle. 3-9 is a classic for a reason, I’d start with that and did when I was new. Turned out I’m mostly in the bush and field edges so now I run a Razor 1-6 and feel the red dot helps a lot in brush and low light
Capped turrets for the bush is preferred. Easy to find the target at 1x.
3x at the bottom is the most I think I’d go. If you find you’ve got a good stand with long shots then get a big telescope but if you are a “dynamic” hunter a tough low powered scope is the way. 2-7 great for saving weight too. And then sometimes I use a vintage fixed 4x

 

[Hand Skills]

Hello Everyone,

I'm looking for your imput and rationale behind your choice for hunting scopes for big game.

"Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety."

Almost all the hunting I do is either at the edge of a field, at a cutline, in the bush, or truck hunting at night kidding...

My top wants for a hunting scope are the following:

1. Locking turrets or capped turrets

This is sensible

2. Excellent lowlight clarity

Everyone wants low light clarity, but be honest, how much magnification do you really need at dusk?

Excepting very poor eyesight, 6x is plenty inside 300yd - a 6x42 scope will give you more light than you can ever use (7mm exit pupil).

A large field of view helps me see the targets reaction to the shot, so I like to use lower rather than higher magnification.

People *think* they want magnification, but what they really want is GLASS QUALITY.

I feel strongly that a SHARP image is more valuable than a LARGE image, but my eyes are still good. Totally understandable that old and tired eyes might NEED a big image, so no judgement there!

3. 3-18 magnification range (or 4x20)

In my experience, 10x is plenty for big game past 500yd

4. FFP with illumination

I appreciate the advantages of a reticle in the FFP, but hunting friendly reticles are few and far between, so I remain split on the issue

5. Good clean reticle that remains visible and usable at 4x or 3x without illumination

Now you are getting into Unicorn territory

6. Good and forgiving eyebox

Step down you magnification requirements to 3-15x and this will be a lot easier (read: affordable) to find.

Lowlight is a big one, and I'm leaning towards 50mm though I want to hear your opinions on going with a 56mm bell.

Honestly, I find 44mm adequate 97% of the time.

Also like to hear your thoughts on 30mm vs 34mm main tube in regards to lowlight and a good eyebox. I know that a larger objective, and a larger tube do not necessarily allow more light in, if the glass isn't good quality.

34mm tubes allow for more adjustment in the erector. That is all. If you don't plan on shooting beyond 1000yd, 30mm tube is adequate. Light transmission is unaffected

I would also like to hear your opinions on whether a "good eyebox" or easy to attain eyebox is actually worse for accuracy. My thoughts are that a easy to optain eyebox is "loose" and though you can see the sight picture easier, you're not as honed in as you would be with a tighter eyebox.

Most eyeboxes get tighter as you go up in magnification.

Keep magnification low and you won't have to worry.

If I'm above 10x, I've got a really good rest. At that point, the eyebox is less critical.

I imagine a harder to obtain sight picture would actually result in a better and more true shot. But I'm not sure this is true, and the fact the best scopes have good and forgiving eyeboxes challenges my theory. But regardless, I'd like to hear your opinions.

A comfortable eyebox improves the user experience. I don't mean to sound like a robot, but it's as simple as that...

I'm ultimately leaning towards the Meopta Meopro r6 3-18 x 50mm FFP as it ticks all the boxes at a lower price, but the warranty is lacking to say the least. I've taken some big spills in the bush and slammed my scopes into the ground pretty good. I try hard not to, but it happens walking through nasty alberta bush.

Word up. Durability is a thing. If you are serious about this, look at Trijicon.

My other choice is the Vortex Viper HD 5-25x50mm FFP. The warranty I love, but I'm not too keen on starting my magnification at 5x, because I walk through the bush a lot and would like a low power, fast acquisition, large field of view sight picture.

I'm curious what you all recommend. I have a family that comes first, so my price range is limited (1000 to 1500 range).

That's a fair budget, but you are asking for champagne on a beer budget. We are back to

I know this because I have been looking for the scope you describe for almost a decade.

Best I've done is a Used Bushnell LRHS (or LRTS) on the EE, and that's at the low end of your budget.

It becomes a lot simpler if you can drop the FFP requirement

 

[murph83]

I use a Bushnell Trophy XLT 3x9x40 nothing crazy, $200. Works well enough for me in all my hunting situations. The whitetail i have harvested the last few years havent complained.

 

[Big bore dinosaur]

I have both the 4-16 and 5-25x viper HD and they are truly excellent scopes.
I also have a razor LHT 3-15.

I think u cant go wrong with the 4-16 viper HD but avoid the bdc reticle at all costs.

I also love my razor LHT 3 BY 15.. excellent glass for the money
The new razor LHTis 4by 22 i think.. pricey

 

[islandhunter]

Another vote for the razor lht 3-15. Go for the G4i reticle, imo.

 

[Cosmo kramer]

I have been using a Leupold mark 4 4.5-18x52 pr2 mil reticle
Also really like my Bushnell match pro 3-18 glass is very clear and the eye box is almost as forgiving as the mark 4 and you can actually see the reticle on 3x with the illumination