Author Topic: Suggestions on a scope for around $250 for a new .308 (Read 1412 times)

Carroll B · « **on:** February 20, 2005, 07:54:07 AM »

Going to treat myself to a .308, probably in a Ruger M77. Don't need one but just want one. Already looked at the reloading dies and bullets this weekend. I'd like a Rem 700 BDL but they stopped making them in .308 and the used ones are out of my price range. I'll use it for mostly targets, maybe some ground hogs, and hopefully when I retire a deer trip in the mid-west. The local BassPro carries a Bushnell Banner 4x12x40 for $100. They have a Leupold Rifleman 4x12 for $250, and a Leupold VX-I for $250. I will open this can of worms for suggestions. I'm not against mail-ordering a Simmons, or Burris, or any other brand as long as I stay within my price range.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2005, 08:19:20 AM »

I'd recommend you check out The Optic Zone for scopes in your price range, lots to choose from and the best prices you'll find. The Nikon Buckmasters or Bushnell Elite 3200 are good choices to look at.

http://theopticzone.com/searchresult.aspx?CategoryID=55

http://theopticzone.com/searchresult.aspx?CategoryID=41

Dave in WV · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2005, 09:48:34 AM »

Nikon Monarch is a good choice. Check the price at The Optic Zone.

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2005, 03:30:07 PM »

I personally would recommend the Nikon Monarch like others, but if you would not like to spend that much, I would go with a Nikon Buckmaster or the Bushnell Elite 3200.

Zachary · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2005, 03:45:26 PM »

I have purchases quite a few scopes from the optic zone, mainly Nikon Monarchs and Elite 4200s - just ask Jon.

As such, I would STRONGLY recommend the Nikon Monarch 3x-9x-40mm which should be around the $250 range you are looking at. Jon is right, if money is an issue, then take a look at the Elite 3200, but keep in mind that the Monarch is a better scope and hence well worth the little extra money!

Zachary

Graybeard · « **Reply #5 on:** February 20, 2005, 05:46:12 PM »

Personally I'd strongly recommend against ANY scope with a top end magnification of 12X and no means to adjust for parallax error. By doing you you limit yourself to using it at about 9X or below where you need it most at higher powers due to the aiming error parallax will introduce. Any manufacturer who makes such a scope is betting the prospective buyers are too stupid to know the difference and are hoping by making it cheaper they'll sell more.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2005, 01:14:03 AM »

Quote from: Graybeard

Personally I'd strongly recommend against ANY scope with a top end magnification of 12X and no means to adjust for parallax error. By doing you you limit yourself to using it at about 9X or below where you need it most at higher powers due to the aiming error parallax will introduce. Any manufacturer who makes such a scope is betting the prospective buyers are too stupid to know the difference and are hoping by making it cheaper they'll sell more.

GB, tell us how you really feel.

Carroll B · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2005, 02:11:17 AM »

I appreciate the replies. I'm leaning towards the Nikon Buckmaster 4-12x50. The optics zone sells it for $265. It does have parallax adjustment on it. I agree with Graybeard that over 9x you need to adjust for parallax.

Graybeard · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2005, 05:14:31 AM »

Quote

GB, tell us how you really feel.

Can't really do that Redhawk cuz I'm real shy and reticent about speaking out. :-D

Dave in WV · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2005, 07:09:39 AM »

"reticent" Thanks GB. Now I've got t get the Websters out! :-D

Zachary · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2005, 01:46:22 PM »

Carroll,

I'd think twice about your choice - although it's not a bad one. Ask Jon about the Nikon Monarch 3x-9x-40mm - I own a few and I love them. They have much better optics than the Buckmaster and it's about the same price.

Again, ask Jon. I'm sure he'll agree.

Zachary

Carroll B · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2005, 03:02:25 PM »

I finally settled on a Bushnell Elite 3200 4-12x40. It has paralex adjustment. The Nikon 50 mm looked like the Hubble telescope. There was a customer there are the same time who had several of the Elite scopes and liked them, plus he "claimed" several of the guides he books with uses them. Time will tell if I made the right choice.

The manager of the gun dept at BassPro gave me detailed instructions on how to bore site the scope. He invited me behind the counter and had me make the adjustments while I looked through the scope, then he cheked my work. He was not only very friendy but gave me several pointers about how to set up and adjust a scope. He walked me out of the store with the gun then stood outside talking about hunting and trap shooting with me for another 10 minutes. I was surprised at this level of great service.

Nontypical · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2005, 06:24:54 PM »

that nikon 3-9 is great optics for the $

the burris fullfield II is a heck of the scope for the money, perhaps a very small step down optically from the nikon-, you'd save $50, and Jon's got the sticky here about the binos that come along

they'd probably be decent "truck binoculars" to have around

the ballistic plex on the fullfield II is great for a longer shot

mrlizzzard · « **Reply #13 on:** February 24, 2005, 12:41:42 AM »

New and dumb here but Mueller 4x16x50 is less money and bright and made for life.
lizzzard

High Brass · « **Reply #14 on:** March 08, 2005, 02:31:33 AM »

As a proud owner of a Nikon Monarch 3-9 I'll vote for it as well. I like it so much that I will probably buy another one for my 243. I know that this will make a stink, but I find it clearer and brighter than my Leupold VariX-III 2.5-8. In addition, I like the recticle size on the Nikon better than the Leupold.

Grubbs · « **Reply #15 on:** March 08, 2005, 05:18:39 AM »

I"d have to agree with Zachary on this one.....Monarch 3-9, and my next personal choice would be the Burris FFII, although the Elilte 3200 would probably almost as good as the Burris.

kenjs1 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 03, 2005, 03:08:58 AM »

my brother is asking the identical question and looking for a variable up to 12x or so. We ended pairing choices down to the Bushnell 3200 4x12x40 and the Weaver V16 - 4x16x42. The Weaver is getting the nod because, even though I think 12x is preferred, it has a 42mm objective instead of a 40 and it is FULLY multi-coated, the Bushnell is not. Low light performance was one of the biggest factors in the decision. I told him the 'perfect' scope for his needs was, in my opinion, a Burris Fullfield II 4x12x42. Best price I found was $299. That is the trouble with scopes - if you are on a budget it seems you can get 80% of what you inside your spending limit. To close that gap to 100% it takes bumping up past your budget in monetary steps. Seems these guys know how to dangle fruit just past your outstretched finger tips. For example, I found the Bushnell for $249, the V16 for something like $270. I mentioned the Burris because it was still under $300 - once you leap past the $300 mark a lot of choices open up - and many seem,more or less, EXACTLY what you want. I don't want to come across as knocking the 3200's because folks do swear by them. Just telling you how our mnids dissected the exact same question you have.

kudzu · « **Reply #17 on:** June 03, 2005, 03:35:16 PM »

I guess that I will be the odd ball on this one. for a cheap scope ( when I say cheap I mean in price, not quality) I will have to go with the simmions whitetail expedition, if you can still find one. Have compared with scopes having 2 to 3 times the price tag and hav't come close to seeing 2 to 3 times the scope. This scope will come in well below the 250 mark. Found some on clearance for around 90 bucks apiece. wish i hada boughta few more. Normally around 165.00