Author Topic: Scope Recommendations (Read 1278 times)

curiousgb · « **on:** September 13, 2007, 02:23:21 PM »

I just bought a 15" 308 barrel. It came with a TC 2x7 scope. I took it out for a hunt after sighting it in. I was not impressed with the low light capabilities of the scope. This is my first pistol barrel. All my rifles wear Leupolds and I don't have problems in low light conditions. Is it just that it is a pistol scope or is it the quality of scope. Recommendations? This pistol stuff is fun, wonder why I waited so long?

George

blhof · « **Reply #1 on:** September 13, 2007, 05:27:43 PM »

I've got a Leupold on my DW 357max, it's just a fixed 2x and it isn't as good as my 7-15 Tasco on my 30/30 rifle. I believe the long eye relief takes out some of the light gathering ability The Tasco is a 50mm lens as opposed to the 20 mm of the Leupold a lot more light to gather, but on a pistol it would be a bear to handle, if they even made 50mm EER scopes. I recently got back into pistol shooting; last year was my first pistol hunting in several years and I took 2 deer and a turkey. It's habit forming...

barber · « **Reply #2 on:** September 13, 2007, 06:10:26 PM »

I have a T/C 21/2x7 'scope, and at 6 or7 power I can hardly get a sight picture. I'm sure disappointed with it.

Graybeard · « **Reply #3 on:** September 14, 2007, 12:41:00 AM »

Handgun scopes are not rifle scopes and just are not as bright in low light as rifle scopes of similar quality. That's just a fact of life. Even when using scopes of identical quality say the Leupold 2X vs. Leupold 4X the smaller objective of the 2X makes it less bright.

Most handgun scopes have smaller objectives than rifle scopes of same power range as well and that costs you brightness in low light.

The Burris 2-7 and the Bushnell 2-6 scopes are about as bright as it gets in handgun scopes really the Bushnell in my opinion has the edge tho and is my first choice.

Hopalong7 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 14, 2007, 01:59:40 AM »

I have no experience with it yet, but several friends have told me that the Nikon 2X is the brightest, clearest pistol scope going. I have looked thru one at a gun show and it did look good but that's not much of a test. I agree with Bill...pistol scopes are pistol scopes and rifle scopes are rifle scopes...and there is no comparison. I've still got a couple of old Bushnell Lobo's that we started with back in the sixtys. Trust me...what we have now is great!!! GOOD SHOOTIN', Walt

oneshotonekill · « **Reply #5 on:** September 14, 2007, 03:41:22 AM »

I've used leupold, burris, nc star, redfield, and bushnell pistol scopes and I feel the bushnell trophy 2-6 has the best light gathering ability of them all. It's also an inexpensive scope compared to the leupold and burris.

Grumulkin · « **Reply #6 on:** September 14, 2007, 04:16:34 AM »

I have T/C 2-7X scopes and a T/C 3-9X scope and they've served me well.

A T/C 1-4 X scope (actually 2 since one broke and was replaced with a new one which broke again) didn't hold up well to 460 & 500 S&W recoil. T/C made it right though.

I broke a Bushnell Trophy scope with my 460 S&W and Bushnell wouldn't make good on their so called warranty saying it had been "abused."

I've pretty much gone to Leupold 2.5-8X scopes both in the VX and in the VX III versions. The VX III is very nice and bright but you'll likely fork out close to $500 for a new one. For heavy recoiling handguns, a Leupold scope and SSK's T'SOB 4 ring 6 screw scope base is worth it unless you are OK with recurrent scope breakage, loosening and accuracy problems.

Graybeard · « **Reply #7 on:** September 14, 2007, 04:22:21 AM »

How you mount a scope has more to do with breakage than what brand it is. I've used and abused the Bushnell's for years and not broken one yet. I've subjected them to as much recoil as the .460 does and even dropped my S&W 629 CLassic DX with 8-3/8" barrel and let it drop right on the scope from about 4'-5' onto the wood floor on a stand and no damage done. It's all in how you mount them.

Grumulkin · « **Reply #8 on:** September 14, 2007, 05:20:37 AM »

Well, Graybeard, I agree that how you mount a scope can have a lot to do with how it holds up. On the other hand, I've mounted a lot of scopes so know how to mount a scope properly by now. Also, what is marketed as a handgun scope should be able to tolerate handgun recoil when installed in a scope mount made for handguns.

My gripe with Bushnell isn't so much that their scope broke but that they weaseled out of their warranty obligations. Maybe my scope was the only one out a hundred that broke. Maybe it's wonderful for most other people. The bottom line for me is, it's the first Bushnell handgun scope I tried, it broke and Bushnell wouldn't honor their warranty.

Heavy C · « **Reply #9 on:** September 14, 2007, 05:36:42 AM »

Quote from: Graybeard on September 14, 2007, 12:41:00 AM

The Burris 2-7 and the Bushnell 2-6 scopes are about as bright as it gets in handgun scopes really the Bushnell in my opinion has the edge tho and is my first choice.

I have to go with GB on this one. All of my Contenders wear Bushnell scopes (2-6x), but when I bought my Encore in 308 I thought I would "upgrade" to a Burris. It's a good scope, but it wasn't worth the extra cost. There was no discernible difference in it's light gathering capability or clarity. Just my 2 pennies worth.

irold · « **Reply #10 on:** September 15, 2007, 04:31:50 AM »

At the present time I have 3 different scopes, along with a Trophy reddot : Leopold on a 460 Encore, Burris on a 357 Max Contender, a Bushnell 2-6 on a 22 Contender........The Bushnell lived on the 460 Encore for a few hundred rounds, it worked well, still works well. But without a doubt... the Leopold is by far the brightest.....not the best buy, I'd put my money on another Bushnell. For the money, I believe its the best buy. Unless you want a Reddot, mine is on a 44 Encore.....works well for what its intended for. My son has a T/C 2-7 on his .308 Encore....he loves it. Its bright enough for him, and it shots inch or less at 100 yds. For the cost , the Burris isn't what its cracked up to be. Only my opinion....everyone has one....hope this helps

Tom W. · « **Reply #11 on:** September 15, 2007, 06:17:48 PM »

I've got a Burris 2X-7X on my 30-06 encore pistol. I had a Leupold 2X on it, but put it back on my .480. They work just fine for me, as long as I don't pretend that they are rifle scopes.

44joe · « **Reply #12 on:** September 16, 2007, 04:56:56 PM »

I've got a T/C 2x7 recoil proof on one Encore barrel and a Leopold 2x on the other, both 15", not that it matters. Anyway, there is no comparison, the Leopold is hands down brighter and easier to pick up. That is when the T/C is on the lowest setting too. When you crank up the T/C to 7X, good luck on picking up the sight picture. I to am disappointed with the T/C. For me it's only Leopold.

44Joe.

Ladobe · « **Reply #13 on:** September 17, 2007, 07:44:33 PM »

I personally didn't like the Leupold pistol scopes I've owned, even though a bunch of my rifles wear their glass. Burris is what I buy these days for the handguns (not rifles), although I've heard nothing but good about Bushnell's Elite pistol scopes. Wish Nikon would get with the pistol scopes - their Monarch series has been my 1st choice for rifle scopes for years having the best glass IMO. Unfortunately some of the pistol scopes that seemed to hold up the best on the heavy handcannons for many years have been long discontinued (Tasco Pro Class, Simmons Gold Medal, etc). Glad I kept a bunch of them.

But as GB said, it's really in the mounting no matter what brand of scope is used. I became a serious handgun hunter in the early 70's, have had a truckload of handcannons and shot 10's of thousands of rounds in them over the years without ever breaking any scope, not even a cheap one. I think few people take the time to lap the rings properly, or to use enough rings to do the job. Handcannons require an especially good mounting job, a lighter mount is better and don't be afraid to use 3 or 4 rings. A handgun scope by default needs more support than a rifle's scope does.

I have many Pro Class scopes that are still going strong after 3+ decades on stout barrels. And 2 of my Burris 2-7 scopes have spent all their time on heavy hitters for over 15 years without a mishap even though they are not necessarily known as being strong scopes. Many of my cannons wear Burris 3-12's now, and so far they are holding up. None of my 375JDJ's or even the 416 Rigby Encore could hurt any of them, IMO because I take the time to mount them right AND use as many rings as experience has taught me to use.

In comparison, the 308 is a pussy cat that with proper mounting will never hurt a scope.

curiousgb · « **Reply #14 on:** September 20, 2007, 09:30:35 AM »

Quote from: Graybeard on September 14, 2007, 12:41:00 AM

The Burris 2-7 and the Bushnell 2-6 scopes are about as bright as it gets in handgun scopes really the Bushnell in my opinion has the edge tho and is my first choice.

Ok I have narrowed it down to the Bushnell 3200. Now to choose firefly or no firefly.

Graybeard · « **Reply #15 on:** September 20, 2007, 10:45:05 AM »

no firefly.

BobT · « **Reply #16 on:** September 20, 2007, 08:16:20 PM »

I just got the Bushnell 3200 2-6 it's a nice looking scope and the optics seem very clear. I have not had a chance to shoot it yet but the only thing I can see so far that I am concerned about is the fact that I can't use 3 rings due to a combination of the scope design and the base/ring set up. (Weaver 92A with vertical split rings). I mounted it on my 10" .30 Herrett barrel and I hope to get some shooting in this weekend. This barrel tends to be something of a "scope eater" so we will see how it holds up! As for the firefly reticule I'll side with Graybeard on that one, just something else that could go wrong. IMHO simpler is better, in truth I would be using a fixed power 2X if I wasn't getting so danged old I can't half see any more!

Bob

Graybeard · « **Reply #17 on:** September 21, 2007, 03:30:07 AM »

If that barrel is a "scope eater" it's ONLY because they are mounted incorrectly. There is no reason why a mild round like that should ever harm a properly mounted scope. Folks must either learn to lap the rings properly or use Burris Signature rings if they want to save their scopes it's really that simple.

curiousgb · « **Reply #18 on:** September 22, 2007, 08:39:39 AM »

Busnell 3200, rings mounts and alignment/lapping tool on order. Now to make some loads, 150 Nosler Accubond.

Ken ONeill · « **Reply #19 on:** September 23, 2007, 03:18:03 AM »

I hope you followed GB's advice and went with no firefly. I'm late in seeing this and therefore late in posting, but a T'SOB base will allow use of 3 or even 4 rings ( either SSK or Leupold vertically split) when mounting a Bushnell 3200. The 3200 is an excellent scope.
Multiple rings help prevent scope flex, which is probably the most important killer of scopes.

curiousgb · « **Reply #20 on:** September 23, 2007, 08:42:01 AM »

Yes I went wo firefily. I have a friend with it on a rifle scope. It is ok but the reticle is so thick that at 200 yards it almost covers a deer.

EdK · « **Reply #21 on:** September 28, 2007, 01:43:35 PM »

Quote from: Grumulkin on September 14, 2007, 04:16:34 AM

I broke a Bushnell Trophy scope with my 460 S&W and Bushnell wouldn't make good on their so called warranty saying it had been "abused."

Your problem is an obvious one... looking on the package of my Bushy 2-6 I see it says "made for 454 recoil". You pushed it one notch too far!

curiousgb · « **Reply #22 on:** September 29, 2007, 08:36:38 AM »

Took out the new rig today to test loads and sight it in. I could not be more happy. I was getting one ragged hole at 75 yards, with 150gr Nosler Accubonds. I have been scouting a large deer for a couple of weeks. I think he is going to be surprised.