Which Scope to Use?

Dogleg said:
My luck has been the opposite. The floater thing is interesting; if I were to thrown one in the lake like I've wanted to, it would float to piss me off even more?
Click to expand...

I also have many fine rifles and shoot with Leupolds, Shepherds and Redfields among others and I find that the 3200 Bushnell is fabulous here around the house because it's just the right length to prop the screen door open in the summertime. :p
 
I don't like big cumbersome scopes on hunting rifles, and big game is not hard to see at normal hunting ranges, so I don't see the need for big magnification. At short range in heavy cover, those big power variables don't turn down low enough to be much use to you either.

Leupold has a new scope on the horizon that I am very interested in seeing. It's not on their website yet, but I saw it advertised in the American Rifleman; a 1.1-8X with a 30 mm tube with what appear to be MK-2 turrets. It won't be very cheap, but I might have to get one.
 
Got a Nikon Monarch 6x on my 308 and glass is crystal clear. I have a VXIII 2.5-8 on my Ruger 77mk II 3006 but I think the Nikon is much better glass. Better pricing too. Wish I had known about them earlier. Got 3 now.
 
Code: 
[QUOTE="bogie, post: 4123353, member: 26648"]Got a Nikon Monarch 6x on my 308 and glass is crystal clear. I have a VXIII 2.5-8 on my Ruger 77mk II 3006 but I think the Nikon is much better glass. Better pricing too. Wish I had known about them earlier. Got 3 now.[/QUOTE]


Fixed power scopes always "punch above their weight" compared to variables. Try a 6X FX111 out sometime and you'll see what I mean.:)
 
One of the others is a Prostaff 6-16 and that still holds up. Had a Bushnell 4200 Elite in the same range. Besides that, anyone that has ever been into photography knows that Nikon is well known for their optics. As well I have a Pentax spotting scope that follows that too. Half the price of a Leupold and as good or better optics. I would put them one on one any day. Aside from the value the glass is excellent. My old eyes really like that.
 
Of the 2 you have, the 3-10x40 without question. The other is more magnification than you need, and personally, I really dislike the out of proportion look and cumbersome size of the 50 mm scopes on a big game rifle. Several of my rifles now carry scopes in the 2-7x32/2.5-8x36 range. They provide all the magnification and light I can use, sit a bit lower on the rifle, and help to keep the whole package trim, light, and a little more convenient to handle. Your 3200 is one of the best quality scopes for dollars spent. .
 
I'm hearing some negative input on the Bushnell 3200 scopes. Are they no good?
I have an older B&L 4200 6-24 x 40. Would this be in the same class? Just wondering because I have had no issues with it.
 
Twisted Canuck said:
Who woulda thunk I'd get so much feedback, and here at GN of all places?:D

Some good advice here for sure. I will put the 3-10 on it and save the B&L for a varmint rig (thats a really nice scope BTW!).

I'll live with the Bushnell for now, actually originally got it to throw on my .22LR Remington, it may end up there some day.

When the budget permits, I'll upgrade my glass....Leupold as suggested, or maybe look at the Zeiss conquest, heard they're really fine.

I'll post pics up when I get some taken, thanks for all the positive input. Particularily glad I picked up this rig in that calibre. Should be a fine shooter.
Click to expand...

in my humble opinion and to my subjective eyes a Zeiss conquest will beat any of the mentioned scopes in quality and clarity. I would say a good Nikon is would be second. The two rifles I use for hunting have Conquests 3-9X40 and a 3.5-10X44. My preferred scope for the money unless you have the money for Swaro, Leica ...
 
bogie said:
Got a Nikon Monarch 6x on my 308 and glass is crystal clear. I have a VXIII 2.5-8 on my Ruger 77mk II 3006 but I think the Nikon is much better glass. Better pricing too. Wish I had known about them earlier. Got 3 now.
Click to expand...

You ain't kidding here man. I've compared Nikon glass to all the others, and it's always been better. I find it easier to look through than a Zeiss even. Only S+B looks clearer to me. I have the 1200 Nikon rangefinder, and even it's glass is better than the other rangefinders out there... (not to mention thier computers are faster at getting a range as well. One clicks out to 800 for me without dicking around trying to keep the finder steady). I actually got put onto Nikon glass when a Cabelas salesman told me to look at em because the glass was better and the computers faster than a Leica. I tried em side by side and the Nikon destroyed the Leica.... It's not even close.

Nikon is my first choice now.
 
sako6br said:
I'm hearing some negative input on the Bushnell 3200 scopes. Are they no good?
I have an older B&L 4200 6-24 x 40. Would this be in the same class? Just wondering because I have had no issues with it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Your 4200 is twice the scope of the 3200s. I had 3 of them die on me though, a 2.5-10 and 2 6-24 x 40s. Things like that tend to influence future buying plans.
 
It is a beautiful rifle, had one just like it :)
Put the Elite 3200 on it, think it will look good
on the gun and 9 power will be enough for most
situations. I agree with those that say the 50mm's
are a little too much.
 
Update

Well gentleman, it looks like I've got a 3 way deal going that will solve this problem of what to do: Looks like I have a gent that is going to buy my B&L 4200, and with that and just a very little bit of pocket change :D I've got another gent who is selling me a Leupold VX-3 3.5-10 x 40, with the Boone & Crockett ret....when this has all washed out, and I get the scope mounted I will post up some pics of the new critter gitter.....TC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom