Newbie needs some advice

[BuckTrucker]

OK folks,

I do a lot of lurking primarily because I know hardly anything yet but I'm trying to absorb all this knowledge like a big sponge. I need your advice on a scope for my new rifle :lol: ...yippie! I just bought a new Tikka T3 SS 7mm Rem Mag and now I need to scope it.

I will primarily (90%) hunt deer and only rarely plan to hunt anything bigger out west. I know I could have bought a different caliber but that's a moot point now and I won't bore you with the details of why I wanted the 7 RM.  I am strongly leaning towards the Leupold VX-III lineup primarily because of what I have read here and a good friend's personal experience with the Full Lifetime Warranty. So, I'm looking for what VX-III you would personally choose for this kind of hunting? I would consider other brands but only if they came with Lifetime Warranty.

Thanks for your help.....
LSC

[EsoxLucius]

The 2.5-8x36mm is about as good as it gets, and would still be good if you ever do make it out west.  The VX-II 2-7x33mm is a little smaller, cheaper and makes for a dandy deer rifle scope.

[Dave in WV]

The 2.5x8 or 1.5x6 VX III or 2x7 or 3x9 VX II. I'd save the $$$ and get a VX II. I'd also buy the scope from Premier Reticle with a #4 reticle installed. The Standard Leupold Duplex reticle is too narrow for me. I normally buy from Jon at The Optic Zone but you save 1/2 the cost on the custom reticles at Premier if you order the scope from them.

[Jimi]

I second what EsoxLucius recommends. You cannot go wrong with the Leupold Vari-X III. I would stay away from the Vari-X II because even though they have a great lifetime guaranty, they are also far more likely to require you to exercise the guaranty, which means you're looking at down time, resighting, and just plain old hassle. If you can afford the LPS, go for it.

On the broad stroke, I strongly recommend that you get the absolute best scope you can afford, and when it comes to quality in scopes (and as much as many people don't want to believe it), you get what you pay for. We Americans tend to down play the value of quality optics, but once you experience them in the field you will recognize that superior optics are worth every ¢. I'm partial to Swarovski myself, but I hunt a broader range of country and game than it sounds like you are right now. And in any event, the Vari-X III or LPS will not leave you feeling short-sighted ;-)

[Dave in WV]

Jimi, what are you basing the VX II is going to have problems more readily than the VX III? If it's because the VX II doesn't have a one piece tube I'm sure Redhawk1 probably personally knows someone that built a house using a VX II as a hammer and the scope never lost it's zero or fogged for the next 20 years. ( sorry Redhawk, I couldn't resist)

[Grubbs]

This wont make you Leupold guys very happy, but just my opinions after personal field use and observation here is what I would do (by the way I have the exact rifle you do, plus a Tikka T-3 7-08, and a Tikka Whitetail in 7mag...all stainless/synthetic):

1. Bushnell elite 4200-better optically and less money than VXIII with just as good of a warranty.

2.  Nikon Monarch- same as above

3.  Burris Signature- at least equal optically with just as good of a warrantly.

4.  Zeiss Conquest- Superior scope all the way around, maybe can find it priced about the same or slightly less than VXIII if you look hard enough.  This would be my #1 choice right now in this class.

You can spend less money and get equal to or superior optics/warranty than Leupold.  I have nothing against Leupold (I have some), there are just better choices in my opinion.
Grubbs

[Jimi]

Hi Dave. My comment about the Vari-X II is just personal observation... I have no inside information from Leupold or anything like that. But I spend a fair amount of time at the range and in a good year spend even more time in the field... so it comes from talking to guys about their experience with scopes. Now, as I think about it, most of these guys were tending to shoot heavier calibers and the main problem tends to be the axis' getting whacked. Perhaps with lighter calibers it is not an issue.

I expect a lot from my equipment and if it doesn't perform in the field then I wouldn't piss hard for it. As a result, I am a stickler for quality and I get frustrated when people skimp on what I consider to be important factors. In truth, it's none of my business what people do... but part of the fun of these boards is to expound on things and basically be a blowhard ;-) I love that part! Optics are something that I just think can really enhance one's hunting experience and I think most people tend to look for the cheapest scope with acceptable quality instead of the best scope period. And I'm not wealthy... But I am willing to wait longer to save the money up to get products that maximize my time in the field.

[BuckTrucker]

I appreciate your opinions and the discussion. I agree with Jimi in that I want to buy the best equipment I can afford with a focus on value/features. I really hate buying things twice which is why I tend to do alot of research before hand. I would love a Swarovski but that's a little out of range right now. I fully plan to spend as much or a little more on the scope as the rifle, don't want to scimp.

Grubbs, thanks for the suggestions but everywhere I've looked including the Bushnell site, the warranty for a 4200 is only a year. I'd certainly consider a Zeiss but I've never seen any close in price/features to the VX-III. I might be looking in the wrong places though.

If I buy a Leupold, it will be a VX-III over a VX-II because of what I've read here and other places about the clarity of the optics being better on the III. Brightness and clarity are a big deal here in SC where we can hunt until 1 hour after dusk.

In fact, I was leaning more towards the 50mm objectives because of that need for brightness. Am I all wet on this thinking?

Thanks again for ya'lls help on this.

LSC

[Jimi]

You can hunt an hour past dusk? Wow, that's epic! I have a better appreciation of why this is an important choice for you. The Swarovskis and Zeiss can be prohibitively expensive and again, I think the Leupold Vari-X III or LPS is your top choice. I would definitely take it over the Zeiss Conquest. As for the 50mm Objective Lense... it makes for a pretty big and heavy scope. If you're cool with that, then by all means. However, I think you'll be more than well-served with a 42mm OL and 30mm tube. I am always dubious about new fads and I figured the 30mm product was just another way to sucker guys that want the latest and greatest into buying a new scope. Kind of like all the WSMs and RUMs and what not.. until I really checked it out. The larger tubes definitely make a difference.

[Dave in WV]

Jimi, thanks for the reply. I haven't heard of too many VX II scopes going south but them that's me. I also expect  a lot of my equipment. As a fellow blowhard I can say "pleased to meet you".    From what I've been able to find out about 30mm tubes is there are two trains of thought. One is IF the internal optics are sized in proportion to the 30mm tube the scope will be brighter. If 1" internal optics are used there is no gain other than more adjustment. The second is a scope doesn't "gather" light and only transmits it to the shooter's eye so there is no gain. Which is truely correct I can't say. Most 30mm tube scopes are heavier than 1" tubes. Objective lens over 42mm usually require high rings and that usually places you cheek off of the stock comb. The pupil of a middle age adult normally opens somewhere around 5mm max. An 8x scope with a 40mm objective lens is right there.

[Jimi]

Pleased to make your acquaintance as well Dave. I'd say you're more on top of the technical aspects of scopes than I, and what you say makes good sense. I've only shot with Swarovski, Zeiss, and Leupold scopes for the past several years and have been pleased with all of them, but I can understand that if a manufacturer doesn't do a complete job in its design and production it could be a problem. And your comments about requiring higher mounts are right on.

I do have a comment on "light gathering" optics... and of course you are correct in saying that a scope cannot literally gather light. And again, I am no expert, but the way I have perceived it... and been amazed by... is that what these optics do is effectively give you an image that is consistent with the light around your target. For instance, and I know my terminology is off but bear with me here... Let's say that 10 lumens is a measure of sunlight on a bright day and 1 lumen is just this side of pitch black... If at the end of the day you are in a woodline and can see with about 3 lumens in your immediate vicinity and you can tell that in the adjacent field there is probably 4 lumens, but 100 yards away the field looks like 1 lumen from where you're at. What a good scope or binocular does is bring that image in to you at 4 lumens, or whatever the light quality is in the area you are glassing. Likewise, if you were standing in the field and glassing into the woods, you would see the image at about 3 lumens. Whatever the light quality is around your target, that's what you're seeing. So the scope brings you right up there. Doesn't add anything, though it seems like it in comparison to the naked eye. Does that make sense?

[Dave in WV]

As I understand it the "twilight factor" you normally see listed from Euro optics companies increasess with more magnification as long as the overall quality of the optics will support the amount of magnification. As you stated, optics transmit the available light to our eyes so I guess the magnification increases the clarity of the image by magnifying it. Low magnification optics do seem to make things much brighter too. Graybeard has a good handle on all of it. He worked on optics for the government IIRC.

[BuckTrucker]

The thing that confuses me is all the different choices that people make on objective size. If a 50mm objective is the brighest possibility in the magnification you want, why do people choose smaller objectives. Is it strictly a monetary decision?

I saw in some other posts where Zachary chose some smaller scopes for weight but it seemed like the weight savings was only 5 or 6 ounces. That doesn't seem like a lot of savings for the loss of brightness if I understand this aspect correctly. Now having read these posts entirely, I know theses folks know what their doing so there must be something less simple about all these choices.

Anybody what to help me figure this out?

[Dave in WV]

Many folks want a scope mounted as low as possible and a scope with a 50mm objective lens has to be mounted higher on most all rifles. The rifle Zachary is mounting the lighter weight scope on is a light rifle so he doesn't want to weigh it down more than he has to. Money isn't usually a deciding factor on scope objective lens size.

[Grubbs]

jimi......the Leup LPS can be prohibitively expensive too.   The scopes I mentioned in my last post have equal to or better than warranty than the Leupold.  The 30mm tubes are useless also, in my opinion for the hunting situations.  If you don't mind spending a few extra bucks look hard at the Swaro A-line 3-10x42.....awesome glass.  Probably price competive with the LPS and a heck of alot better scope w/out the 30mm tube.

[moontroll]

I recently took a leupold vx11 3-9 off a gun and replaced it with a vx111 3.5-10 and the groups the gun shot got much tighter from about an inch to under half an inch( this was done while changing powers while grouping).I'v got one of those conquest,and after dark with a full moon you can hunt with it,it is better than all the rest mentioned in low light conditions.But using the same test it cant hold the same groups as the vx111.BUT for the money the Bushnell Elites cant be beat,I'v done the same test with my 3200 elite and it performed flawlessly(4-12x40)like the vx111.Maybe I just got lucky.P.S I had to send the first conquest I got back they sent me another and its ok but not a home run

[Jimi]

Grubbs, My eldest brother, whom I respect, shared your opinion about 30mm tubes but I went ahead and bought one anyway and I have to say, I am extremely happy I did. Except for a Kahles scope that I still have on my .375 H&H I own nothing but Swarovskis, having sampled Leupold and Zeiss as well. I think it is different for different people, but the ease with which my eye takes to the Swaro is noticeable, as is the clarity. My favorite set up includes a Swarovski PV 2.5-10x42 with an illuminated reticle on a highly customized M70 in .300 Wby Magnum. I'd thought the illuminated reticle was a gimmick, just like the 30mm tubes, but again, I am extremely happy with the product. Shooting in shadows at either end of the day, it sure is nice to know exactly where my crosshair is instead of losing it in the shadow and I have taken quite a bit of game with it.

[BuckTrucker]

Thanks for the help guys. For this first rifle/scope combination, I think I'm going to play it safe and go with the Leupold because of reputation and lifetime warranty. I have a friend whose rifle/scope was stolen and discovered in some bushes 4 years later with a fogged scope and Leupold replaced it so I know they back up the warranty. I may try the Elite's on the next rifle I buy.

Right now I'm leaning towards the 3.5-10 X 50 or the 4.5-14 X 50.

Cheers,

LSC

[Handwerk]

I have the exact same gun and I topped it off with a vxii 3x9x40. I am very happy with it. Last year I did a float hunt in Ak, rained almost the whole week, the gun and scope saw a lot of ugly weather, no problems. Aren't those tikkas great!

[BuckTrucker]

Handwerk,

Your posts are some of the ones I counted on to buy the Tikka. I hope you're right about those Tikkas since I've never shot one and I don't know anyone who owns one. I pick it up next week and then I just have to decide on the scope and have it mounted....so damn exciting I just can't wait. Anyone remember your first rifle...the one you made the decision to buy all on your own? Yep, I feel like a kid right now.

Handwerk, dod you ever regret not having a bigger objective for brightness?

[Zachary]

This wont make you Leupold guys very happy, but just my opinions after personal field use and observation here is what I would do (by the way I have the exact rifle you do, plus a Tikka T-3 7-08, and a Tikka Whitetail in 7mag...all stainless/synthetic):

1. Bushnell elite 4200-better optically and less money than VXIII with just as good of a warranty.

2.  Nikon Monarch- same as above

3.  Burris Signature- at least equal optically with just as good of a warrantly.

4.  Zeiss Conquest- Superior scope all the way around, maybe can find it priced about the same or slightly less than VXIII if you look hard enough.  This would be my #1 choice right now in this class.

You can spend less money and get equal to or superior optics/warranty than Leupold.  I have nothing against Leupold (I have some), there are just better choices in my opinion.
Grubbs

I agree with Grubbs, except for the Burris Signature - not because it's not a good scope, but just because I have 2 Burris Black Diamonds (which are more expensive than the Signatues) but I'm not impressed with them.

The Elite 4200s and Nikon Monarchs, are my two favorite scopes and top more of my rifles than any other brand.  I also own Nightforce, Leupold Vari-X IIIs and the new VX-III, and Elite 3200 and Zeiss Conquest.

I have a Tikka T3 stainless in .300WSM.  In fact, it's sitting in my room right now.  I mounted a Zeiss Conquest 3x-9x-40mm on it because such a light gun in a powerful cartridge should have more eye relief.  With 4" of constant eye relief, the Zeiss was my choice.

If the guns I have are relatively light(er) kickers, then I buy Elite 4200s and Monarchs (because they have mid to low eye relief).  If I buy guns that are heavy(ier) kickers, then I get either Leupolds or Zeiss Conquest.  Between the Zeiss and the Leupold, if weight is a factor (meaning that I want a lighter scope) then I get the Leupold.  If weight is not a big factor, then I get the Zeiss.  Easy rule of thumb for me. :grin:

On my Kimber Montana in .300WSM, I needed a scope that had lots of eye relief.  The Leupold Vari-X III 3.5x-10x-40mm has 3.6 to 4.6 and the zeiss 3x-9x-40mm a constant 4".  However, since I wanted a shorter, lighter scope, I got the Leupold.  The optics on the Zeiss are about the same, but for that particular rifle, the Leupold was really my only choice.

Zachary

[BuckTrucker]

Thanks Zachary, you have a great way of clarifying your choices/decisions. It looks like I have a couple of choices here based on my situation and strong desire for a lifetime warranty. I should also say that I have about $10,000+ in Nikon cameras and lenses so I like Nikon a lot but have always heard Leups, Zeiss and Swars were better scopes.

First is do I get something in the 3.5-10X or 4.5-14X range? For the type of hunting I will be doing, I know anything over 9X is not necessary but I've heard that the higher magnification makes it easier to get more accuracy at the range.

If I do go with the 3.5-10X my choices are Leupold 3.5-10X50mm (max eyerelief=4.4in) for $550 or Zeiss 3.5-10X44mm (max eye relief 3.5in) for $560. Being that I will be mounting it on 7MM Mag, eye relief seems important along with the brightest scope for low light hunting which is usual around here.

Since they're both about the same money, which one would you choose given those facts?

[Graybeard]

First is do I get something in the 3.5-10X or 4.5-14X range?

NO...NO....NO. This is a hunting rifle NOT a varmint rifle. Get a big game hunting scope for it.

If you're dead set on a VX-III then get the 2.5-8x36. If you're only dead set on a Leupold but not on a VX-III then get the VX-II 3-9x40. Both are HUNTING SCOPES. Folks who actually get out there and use their rifles in the real world of hunting most often use and recommend such scopes not the use of varmint scopes on big game rifles.

[Jimi]

I'm with the Graybeard on this... of the scopes and price range mentioned 2.5-8.0x is ideal for the broadest range of conditions under which you might hunt. Believe me, there will be times when you will be VERY happy with the lower power, and the benefit of a 10x over an 8x really isn't that great in the field. And I speak as someone who does most of their hunting with a 2.5-10.0x variable... I am more often at the lower end of the magification range than the upper end.

And someone mentioned some manufacturer having a better guaranty than Leupold. I have no idea how that could be, unless someone will replace your scope AND pay you money. Leupold is great. And again, I speak as a Swarovski guy. I have had to utilize the lifetime guaranty and it has worked fine, except that it takes longer to get your scope back in your hands than it would have with a Leupold.

My only caveat is that if indeed you intend to do mostly range/competition shooting, get the 50mm. Otherwise, use the 40mm range of product.

[goose7856]

Last year I bought a Nikon Buckmaster 4-12x50 AO for my 30-06. I thought I had to have all the power in the world. Now I wish I had gotten a 2.5-10 or 3-9, preferrably the 2.5-10.

In actuallity, I shot 5 deer this year. On all of those deer, the highest magnification I used was 6x. The ONLY time I used the 12x was while watching a Doe and yearling about 500 yards away.

I now realize that there really was no reason for me to get a high powered scope (over 10x).

Greybeard and a couple other people on the board tried to explaint his to me, but Im young, and thought I was right. I just couldnt see how having ore power hurt anything. Well it indirectly hurts, b/c that means you have more power on the low end of the spectrum also. Sometimes a 2x-3x would be much better than a 4x on the low end power and could make the difference in a kill.

Thats my opinion, and after using the scope in the field, I now understand what the moderators were trying to tell me. The only reason to use that high powered of a scope is because you are varmit hunting (not so in this case) or you hunt in the wide open plains, where shots are realllllyyyyyyyy long.

Sry its long.

   

[ryback770]

this is the parameter that tells you everything about the quality of the lenses in the scope..
problem is the manufacturers don't want to talk about it..

try to find this entry in their "specifications"..LOL!!!!

we;re stupid I guess,  would you buy a car based on "outstanding" MPG". or would you want a NUMBER?

[victorcharlie]

would you buy a car based on "outstanding" MPG". or would you want a NUMBER?

I've never bought a car that lived up the MPG rating.  The best way to buy a scope it to look through it in both bright and low light conditions and see which one you prefer.

[Graybeard]

this is the parameter that tells you everything about the quality of the lenses in the scope..
problem is the manufacturers don't want to talk about it..

Actually it tells you pretty much nothing about the QUALITY of the lenses but rather more about the type of coatings on them. It is a function of how many lenses there are in the scope, how many air to glass surfaces there are and what types of coatings are on each.

In the old days before coatings you'd generally lose about 10% of the light striking each air to glass surface. Glass to glass doesn't count in this equation. Initially they began to coat only the objective and eyelens outer surfaces and only with a single layer of magnesium flouride. Then in time they learned it was wise to coat all air to glass surfaces and still later learned that multiple layers of coatings with different compounds helped even more.

Not everyone measures the light transmission the same and some times when the numbers are given it's a single lens average figure not the total light transmission thru the insturment that is given. Since there is no industry standard measurement methods and no industry agreement on how to measure it's the old case of the first liar doesn't stand a chance. So most just don't bother.

To be honest it's really not nearly as relevant as most seem to think it is. Any quality lens that is multi coated will pass all the light any possible legal use of the scope requires. Even those not multi coated on the inside but only on the outside surfaces and then coated on all air to glass surfaces will do fine even in low light and under tree cover IF and (here is the BIG IF) IF the quality of the glass and the smoothness of the grinding operation is up to par. It never is on the cheap stuff and isn't always on the more expensive stuff.

There are a lot of secrets in the industry and only those who truly understand optical theory and how optical instruments work can truly grasp it anyway. I spent several years of my life working on optical instruments 8 hours a day. Doing that will sure open your eyes.

[ryback770]

As usual he hit the nail on the head. The problem with there being "no industry standard". And I'll add there probably never will be...

Disgusting isn't it!

Oh well, back to my search for "a pig-in-a poke", (aka a new scope).