Recommend a Scope for my .308 VTR

[jvs]

I am just about ready to scope my .308 VTR.  I laid low on doing it until I had time to fiddle with it properly.

I have a real LOOOONG weekend this Labor Day, and I would like some input on what scope will do this rig justice.

I will be using the VTR primarily for Deer Hunting here in Pa, where a shot at more than 200 yds is mostly unheard of (with exceptions of course).  Personally, I have never had to shoot more than 75 yds at a deer, mostly because you can't see much farther than that where I hunt.  I would like to keep it in the 1.5x6 or 2x7x32 to 3x9x40 catagory.  With the smaller scope a preference.  I would like to keep it compact and deadly.  I would also like to hear your preference for Recticles... i.e. MilDots, Post etc.

I would like to think that money is no object, but I am not into Zeiss... mainly because of price.  I am familiar with Leupold, Nikon, Bushnell, older Redfields, Tasco and Simmons. 

Since this forum has its share of Varmint, Sniper and Competition shooters, give me an idea what to seek.

Also, what work did you do to your VTR to improve accuracy? 

[dw06]

I can share with you what I have on my 3 main deer rifles. The 2x7 Redfield Widefield,it works great for me and has become my favorite scope for big game rifles.Really like the wide field of view when woods hunting and close range shooting.

[Val]

The appropriate scope should be based on the type of terrain you will hunt. A 3X9 variable will work in most situations but if you hunt thick forest or heavy high brush, maybe a low power fixed is best. If long shots can occur in the area a 4X12 might be the choice.

[jvs]

Thanks dw & Val.

dw has a point with the Redfield Widefield.  I have a 3x9 Widefield and I like it, it sits atop my Marlin MR7 and is my most accurate rig. 

I stopped by my local gunshop yesterday and asked if he had any older Redfields floating around.  He didn't.  But he did say that Leupold has bought the rights to the Redfield name and will probably be producing scopes under that name shortly, if they aren't already doing so.   It's only a matter of time before those Redfields make another appearance I think.

And you are so correct also Val.  I sway towards the lower variable on most of my rifles because of the conditions in which I hunt.  I only have one 3x9 which is mentioned above.  A 4x12x40 is way more than I really need, especially if the chance of a 15 yd shot comes up.  As my closest shot was less than 20 feet, even a 4x would be all brown hair, with no physical features.   

Over the years I have gotten picky as to what I look for in a scope.  I am mostly concerned about finding a production model that has all internal parts blackened.  The least amount of light that reflects around the inside of the tube, the better the picture is on your eye.   A feature that is not too common today on most scopes, including some of the more pricey ones.   

I am convinced that if the interior of your tube is pitch black, and the amount of light that can reflect around the inside of tube is really limited, the better your optics picture will be.

Finding that scope is what I seek.  The real cheapo scopes have alot of interior reflection going on and some of the higher priced ones have more than is really expected, considering the prices. 

[beemanbeme]

I think you've answered you own question quite nicely.  Any of the three scopes you mentioned will work well.  With my vote going to the 1.5x6. For aestetic reasons. I just think it makes for a really serious looking rig. And it is, in the thick stuff.  I carried a .300Winnie elk hunting for years with a 1.5x5 on it and never felt handicapped.
The various mil-dots and other "stuff" only tend to confuse me.  I like a standard plex cross hairs.  Then I like to find out what power setting it takes for the skinny part of the plex to bracket 16" at 200 yards. Then if I'm in the thick stuff, I set the scope on the lowest power setting or if I'm in the open, I set it on the 200 yard setting.  If I see a deer at distance and he fills the skinny part of the plex, I know he is 200 yards or closer and I can aim dead in on him. This is with a 2" high sight-in or a dead on 200 yard sight-in.

[jvs]

With my vote going to the 1.5x6. For aestetic reasons. I just think it makes for a really serious looking rig. And it is, in the thick stuff.  I carried a .300Winnie elk hunting for years with a 1.5x5 on it and never felt handicapped.

What brand name scope do you usually go for beeman?  What other features do you usually look for?  Internal blackening is high on my list.  So is Field of View @ 100 yds. (just in case).

I know when I put my 673 together I wanted a 2x7x32 with a BDC.  The Vent Rib and Rear Sight on the 673 restricted what scope could be mounted.  It was back to the Rem 600 & 660 for info on what would work.  Luckily I found a NOS scope from that era sitting on a shelf, and it fit like a glove.

I learned early on that I really don't need high magnification or 50 mm lenses to be accurate out to the distances I hunt.  Although I do like that 3x9 Redfield Widefield that is on my MR-7.  I agree is it nice to have the light gathering characteristics from such large lenses, but it isn't practical in most places that I hunt.

I will take a close look at those 1.5x5, 1.5x6 and 2x7.  Fixed power is out at this point.

[Swampman]

Bushnell 3200 Elite 3-9X40 with duplex reticle.  You can't beat it for less than $1000.00.

[kyelkhunter3006]

Bushnell 3200 Elite 3-9X40 with duplex reticle.  You can't beat it for less than $1000.00.

+1

Or the Elite 2-7x32.  The Elites have blackened internals as well, in addition to the Rainguard feature.  Both have excellent fields of view too.

[jvs]

I will check out those Bushnell Elites. 

Thanks.

[sniperVLS]

I will check out those Bushnell Elites. 

Thanks.

You will Not be disappointed 

[jvs]

I stopped by the local Gunshop again yesterday and I asked if there was any Bushnell Elite 3200's sitting around.  At first he said 'no', but when he looked in another room, there was, a RainGuard 3200 3x9 for $160.  When I asked if he possibly had a 2x7 or a 1.5 x 6 packed in some other room...  There wasn't.  He is going to order in a 2x7 for me to handle before I make my decision. 

He said the old sticker price on that 3200 ($160) was probably somewhat lower than what they go for now, since just about everything has gone up.  When he looked up the new prices, all he could say is that Elite prices are POR, and not currently listed in the distributor books.   

The 3200 appears to be a well-made scope.  The only thing I didn't like was the Gold colored cross-hairs.  I am a big fan of total black parts inside the tube and Gold cross-hairs are a real negative for me.   I admit to being old-fashioned.

I could pick one up so I can judge it on performance and the recommendations of the fine folks here, and not the cosmetics.  I also have to say that the gunshop owner tried his hardest to talk me into a Leupold.  Leupold is King of the Hill of medium priced scopes in these parts. 

If the 3200 comes in substantually less than Leupold, my pick will be the Elite.
 

One last question...  I suppose that a 3x9x40 will take Medium Rings.  Generally speaking, Medium rings are 'up to 40',  But how big of a scope will Low rings go?  Does anyone know if a 1" 2x7x32 or 1.5x6 could possibly take Low Rings on the VTR?  I want the front of the scope to be as close to the barrel as possible without touching.  I may end up with a 3x9x40 for that reason alone... fit.

[Swampman]

"The only thing I didn't like was the Gold colored cross-hairs."

That sounds like the Fire Fly reticle.  The Multiplex looks black.  Have you looked around online?  You could save a lot of money.  Personally I'd get the 3-9X40.

[jvs]

I have indeed checked the prices on-line for the 3200.  Along with retail websites.  New MSRP's for that scope are well above the $160 that my local gunshop has it for.  I imagine that the 3200 I looked at has been on the shelf for well over a year.  On GunBroker there are some 3200's for $169 plus shipping, which would come in above what I could get it for even if I paid sales tax on a local sale.  Sometimes I like to keep my money local.

The scope I looked at was not a FireFly, it was a Multi.  The 3200 that I held had highly polished 'gold' colored or Brass cross-hairs that reflect black from the interior of the tube when you bring it up to your eye.  It's not a big thing, but I don't like the idea of any relflection of light for any reason between the two lenses.  In my opinion, it alters the view.  Even if it is ever so slightly. 

There are some scopes that are alot worse when it comes to bright, reflective parts in the tube.  Considering that there already is light bouncing around between the back of the lenses, adding more for unblackened parts is not particularly warranted, nor is it excusable for any optics maker to pass off as acceptable.  No matter what the price.

From what I've read, the newer 3200's advertise that the cross-hairs are now blackened.  Maybe they should go back to using Spider Webs.

[kyelkhunter3006]

Maybe you should check out some other Elites.  I've had ten of them, and not one has ever had the issue with x-hairs.  All of mine have been black as night.   

[jvs]

Based solely on the recomendations here, I bought that $160 RainGuard Elite 3200 3x9x40.  I will mount it tomorrow and check it out at the range shortly.

I also picked up a Nikon ProStaff 3x9x40 (my first choice)...  just in case. 

Oddly enough, the Nikon ProStaff has polished Brass colored crosshairs too.  Even though the crosshairs turn black when you move into eye-relief, it is still polished brass and not blackened.

I am anxious to be proven wrong about reflective crosshairs.  Maybe I am making something out of nothing.

[sniperVLS]

I'll add my experiences with the Elites I've owned/tried..

All 3 of the Elite 3200 10x fixed models I've sighted in for my own rifles and relatives had brass colored crosshairs, end of story.

The 4200 tactical(oops, there's that term again) in my Signature pic has brassy cross hairs but only when getting behind the scope and looking for perfect eye relief, but it's not as obvious as the 3200 by any means. I don't quite understand why and frankly don't care, they are all great scopes and it has never distracted me. If it does, I may change my tune....

[jmayton]

I have the Nikon 3-9X40 and it is my favorite scope.  I want to get one with the BDC.  I agree the reticle has a bit of shine to it, but I've never noticed while hunting or at the range, only indoors when some light can come in the eyepiece.  It doesn't seem that sunlight causes the same effect...but either way it's never bothered me.

[jvs]

This may be the wrong forum for this, but what is the advantage of having highly polished brass cross-hairs any way?

As far as I'm concerned, cross-hairs have been basic black for a loooooooong time.  Surely, brass can be blackened some how.  Or is that something that has to be super-charged for?

[Swampman]

They aren't brass.  It's an optical illusion caused by glare on the back side of the crosshairs from the objective lens end of the scope, they are black.

[wareagleguy]

Brass colored hairs are for low light.  If you have any Leupolds the hairs will appear black in normal light but change to a brass color as the light lowers.  You never lost the cross hairs in low light?

[jvs]

This may sound odd, but...

No, I never lost black cross-hairs in low light conditions.  If I was out that early, I waited until I could see.  And if I was still out past dusk, I went home when it was apparent that I couldn't see the cross-hairs or what I may be shooting at.

Whenever I was out after dark for those night critters, it was with a Shotgun.  The Bead on the barrel and a Flashlight was all I had.

Having highly polished Brass cross-hairs, that go black when you are within eye relief, is something I am not used to.  Having the cross-hairs reflect light from the back of the Objective lens only tells me that there is too much reflecting going on in there. 

But hey....that's progress I guess.  Unnecessary progress, but progress all the same.  Wait until the makers figure out they can probably charge another $20 if they blacken the cross-hairs, then it will be miraculous, all scopes will have black cross-hairs again.

In the mean time, I am happy with the Elite 3200 so far.  Having a different type of cross-hairs is not something that I can't use.  I just don't see much of an advantage by having polished cross-hairs.  I actually consider it laziness on Bushnell and Nikons part. (and whoever else does it)  What good does it do to have everything else flat black inside and then have cross-hairs that reflect more light than all other parts put together?

With all of the accolades that the 3200 got here, I am willing to learn something.  Even if my beliefs might be a figment of my imagination.