Author Topic: Scope choices for new rifle . . . (Read 892 times)

Ranger413 · « **on:** February 01, 2006, 06:18:40 PM »

I'm in the process of assembling the pieces I need for a custom gun project. This will be a 338-06 based on a Savage action and will sport a Boyd Boys JRS laminated stock. Should shoot well and be pleasing to look at when she's all assembled.

The last piece to my puzzle is the scope. I've become a big fan of the Bushnell Elite scopes as of late. I have an Encore 209X50 which wears a Elite 3200 3-9X40 and an Encore .223 that is topped with an Elite 4200 4-16X40. Both scopes are mounted using Warne Maxima bases and rings. I'll use the same for this custom project.

I'm starting to lean toward the Elite 4200 2.5-10X40 for this rig. I'm anticipating shooting no further than about 250 yards. My quary to start with will be mid-sized whitetails. Ultimately this rig will be used for larger game such as Mule Deer, Elk, Moose, and maybe even bears.

I'd like some input on the best scope for this particular set-up. I was also considering Leupold scopes as my other option outside fo the Bushnell line. Any comments on makes, models, power ranges, and objective diameters would be greatly appreciated. I think the scope I'm leaning toward would do quite nicely, but there may be a compelling argument for something different. Price is a limiting factor, I'd like to stay under the $400 mark.

Thanks,

Ranger413

longwinters · « **Reply #1 on:** February 02, 2006, 10:42:25 AM »

My only concern with the Bushnell scopes (and I have a 3200 and just traded a 4200) is eye relief. It is the only thing I don't like about them for anything 30 cal and over.

Long

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #2 on:** February 03, 2006, 12:55:11 AM »

I would also recommend you take a look at the Nikon Monarch 3-9x40. This scope would be all the scope you need for big game hunting out to 250 yards. They are very clear and bright. The price is well under your $400 price limit.

Ranger413 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 03, 2006, 02:34:17 AM »

Considering I stay under the $400 mark, which scope brand has a 3-9X that would offer me the most for my money? Also, eye relief is my only real concern so that has me shying away from the Bushnell Elite line just a little.

These are the brands that I'm considering right now in no particular order: Leupold, Bushnell, Nikon.

Ranger413

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #4 on:** February 03, 2006, 03:10:06 AM »

In my opinion, for the money, the Nikon Monarch is the best buy. The Leupold is a great scope also, but when you look at the price, the Nikon is a better buy. The one disadvantage with the Bushnell is the shorter eye relief, which is too bad because they are very nice scopes also.

poncaguy · « **Reply #5 on:** February 03, 2006, 04:01:39 AM »

I think the new Buckmasters are the best buy , or Burris Fullfield II's

marylandeer · « **Reply #6 on:** February 03, 2006, 07:13:36 AM »

If I had $400.00 to play with I would be looking at at these scopes.

Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10x40
Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40
Burris Signature select 3-10x40
Weaver Grand Slam 3-10x40 or 3.5-10x50
Nikon Monarch 3-9x40
Any one of these would give you great low light performance. There all very clear and sharp. All of them have a lifetime warranty.
It all comes down to personal preferance.
Personaly I would lean toward the Conquest because it has a 4" constant eye relief.

Some of these scopes may go over $400.00 but not by too much maybe $50.00 expecially the Zeiss.
Good Luck

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2006, 08:13:29 AM »

I have to agree that the Zeiss Conquest is an excellent scope and a top notch one at that.

Ranger413 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2006, 05:30:17 PM »

I forget where I heard it, probably in a magazine article, but someone said that it is funny how people go out and spend all kinds of money on a rifle and then top it with a $50 scope. If that scope fails while in the field, or in competition, then the high dollar gun becmoes useless.

I guess that I fit into the category, or at least I was brought up with that thinking. I remember that my first rifle was an old Winchester 88 in .308. Dad took me to the local gunshop and we purchased a Bushnell Sportview 3-9X38mm scope for it. It cost about $50 if I remember correctly. The gun was purchased for for over $300.

Not too long after installing the scope and firing it at the range, it failed. One of the interior lenses came loose. We shipped it to the factory and they replaced it free. The replacement failed with the same problem not too long after that. Again, the factory replaced the optic. To date the gun still has the 3rd Sportview on top, but it hasn't seen a round through it in quite awhile. Proof positive, I think, that you get what you pay for.

I've begun to reverse my thinking. I still think that spending more than $200 on a scope is a significant investment, but I'm also starting to realize how much good optics means. With my earlier post you can tell that my price horizion has expanded. I'm considering expanding it even futher. Maybe toward the $500 mark. I just wander if there is a point where spending more does not really get you more. Diminishing returns if you will.

I've never owned, or looked through for that matter, any scope more high class than my Bushnell Elite 4200. Seems pretty good to me. But, I'm willing to try something else, or stick with what works, depending on whether or not my money will be well spent.

My question becomes, if the Nikon Monarch is pretty good, is the Bushnell Elite 4200 worth x amount of money more? Is the Leupold VX-III worth that much more than the Elite? Where does the Zeiss Conquest fit in here. Is it worth $450?

I know that only I could be the true judge, on my rifle, with my eyes, and with my prior experiences with other scopes to compare against. I don't mind waiting a couple of more months, saving more dough, for something that will not be a waste of money.

With all that being said, if you were purchasing something in the 3-9X realm, which would you go with, and why? I figure the more opinions I get the better informed, and more confident in my purchase, I will be.

Thanks again,

Ranger413

NimrodRx · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2006, 08:17:53 PM »

Ranger, we seem to be on the same page. I too am willing to spend the $ for quality, but it gets to a point of diminishing returns. I'm sure a $1500 Leica is superior to my $500 Pentax, but will I ever see it? And if I do, is it significant?

Often times I justify my high dollar purchases by their resale value. Take the VXIII for example. GREAT glasss that holds its value. However, I honestly believe I can spend less without giving up much.

FWIW, here is my limited experience with glass.

3200 Elite. Nice, but save your money and get into a 4200.

4200 Elite. Bright. Clear to the edges. Solid. Did I mention that it was bright?

VXIII. My ole farm boy eyes really can't tell the difference between this and the 4200. Actually that's not entirely true. While out calling a couple nights ago my partner had a VXIII on his .223. I have a 4200 on my .223. I honestly believe that the 4200 gathered more light. That being said, it wasn't enough really to make a difference in the field.

Weaver Grand Slam. IMHO, this scope is often overlooked. QUALITY! The FOV isn't what some of the others are, but that is the only limitation. I ignored them for a long time. No more. I first became aware of them while shooting woodchucks. I could no longer see through my VXIII and my partner killed another two chucks. He had a GS on his .22-250.

Zeiss Conquest. Slightly more than the Grand Slam. I'm not sure I can really tell the difference between it and the GS, but there's just something about having a Zeiss perched atop your rifle...

Given the eye relief, I might lean toward the Conquest for a larger bore.

marylandeer · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2006, 05:48:22 AM »

I went through the same thing a few years ago when I bought my Tikka t3 in .30-06.
I looked through everyone one of these scopes I could find in the stores around town. I read all the Specifications on the internet; I read the opinions of several forum members. Then I started weighing the price versus the likes and I started getting to the point of diminishing returns that Ranger spoke of. I ended up getting the Weaver Grand Slam 3-10x40 and I'm very pleased with this scope. I have no complaints and at $270.00 I think I did well. Yes I think the Zeiss may have been a TAD bit brighter but not $180.00 brighter. Is rain guard worth $130.00 to you? Maybe it is but to me at the time I figured for $120.00 I could afford to strategically place my left hand over the lenses of my Weaver on the few rainy days I hunt. I dont go to the range on rainy days so the Weaver is just as good to me as the Zeiss. Eye relief is the only thing I would like to change on my Weaver but I havent been hit yet.
The main things that closed the deal on the Grand Slam for me were.
#1 The Micro Trac 4 Point adjustment system.
#2 Limited lifetime warranty
#3 Great reviews all over the net
#4 The price, of coarse

marylandeer · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2006, 05:58:47 AM »

Another thing I forgot to mention is that I just felt better buying Weavers top of the line scope (Grand Slam) rather than the bottom of the line from Zeiss (Conquest). I dont really know why but I guess I just expect more from the top than I do the bottom. The Elite is Bushnells top to so it really came down to these two for me......

Takla · « **Reply #12 on:** February 09, 2006, 03:36:50 PM »

Not sure how useful this info is because it is well under your limit and you could buy more scope for $400 but...

There is a relatively new Bushnell 3200 model that is 3-10x40, with eye relief of 3.7" (compared with 3.3" for the 3-9x40) and 85" of adjustment at 100 yds (compared with 50 for the 3-9x40). It's a shorter scope than the 3-9x40 (mounting length 5.4" compared with 6") and I have no idea whether that would be a problem on your rifle. It sits just fine on my .223!

I had it delivered very quickly and for a great price from The Optic Zone.