Budget (but not cheap) Scopes?

[flmason]

Hi All,
    Have been debating scopes in other threads... now for the cost vrs. quality thing.

Was considering some of the following, any opinions on whether I'm going to cheap? Ruger M77 All Weather in 30-06 is the intended home for now.

In no particular order, trying to keep objective below 42mm otherwise I'd have to order another scope mount from Ruger.  You'll notice I'm leaning heavily toward reticles that permit some holdover and range estimation... because I know I'm a lousy judge of such things... in my handgun days I stayed within the point blank range for about a 4" circle for all shots.... so I can't estimate range worth diddly. Also have no idea what my final load choices will be. Rifles are where I have the least experience.

And to be honest... all the extra issues... bedding, scopes, free floating... etc. etc. have me wondering why not just use a .454 Casull for larger game? LOL! Never had to worry about any of that with a good ol' .44 revolver.

1) Redfield Battlezone - Has a Tactical Milling style reticle and external windage and elevation. One of the few in my price range that has those features. Of course, since I definitely won't be shooting the 223 or 308 that the BDC turrets are designed for, I'd have to get a set and put my own markings on them, to use as designed. Of course a 30-06 loading of 168 gr. at 2650 fps should match the .308 turrets.

Since Sierra Match Kings at 168 grains are standard with 06 and 308... if I were to use a loading like that, then all's well I guess. But I'm planning a diet of cast as well.

2) RedfieldŽ Revenge 3x-9x- POWER: 3-9X42M ABS Hunter - The range finding feature paired with hash marks below the center... nice feature. If you know the drop of your load... excellent.

3) Nikon 4.5-14X40SF Buckmaster - Lowest priced Nikon with Mil Dot, which is what I think I really want. But lacks exposed turrets. Perhaps not all that important with the mil dot, anyway. Useless if not a repeatable scope, of course.  4.5 seems a little strong for close use.  Though not too much since 4x fixed was the hunting standard back in the day.

4) Nikon - Any of the Prostaff or Buckmaster 3x9-40's with BDC for the most part. I just want some sort of range finding / compensation for the money. (I mean heck any old milsurp has a tangent sight.)

I'm more attracted to the "tactical" stuff, although I hate to say it. Because that word is so over used by the mall ninja set. I really just like military hardware better. It's generally tougher equipment, when it comes to the rifles themselves anyway. Would rather press mil std stuff into hunting duty than the other way around. That said... I mean now ancient mil spec stuff like 98 Mausers and Springfields, not AR/AK platforms stuff... though I have old buds in Fla. that hunt hogs with AK platform, for better or worse.

Anyway, am I scraping too low in the barrel? Any thoughts on the particular makes/models/features above?

[Larry L]

I own one of the Nikons Buckmaster scopes in 4.5-16 x40 scopes. Short of a tent stake, it's about the most worthless scope I own. It sucks at focus and low light conditions. I can give you a direct comparison to a $60.00 Millet Buck Silver scope from Natchez. The Millet is eons ahead of the Nikon. Great light transmission, clear as any four figured costing scope I've got, holds point of impact good enough for an AR15 competition 6x45 rifle to shoot numerous one hole groups. The Nikon won't get near that....any of that. The Nikon sits on a Remington Varminter 223. The rifle/scope combo shoots about 1" groups but if I change to a 50 year old Weaver 4-12 V12 scope, the rifle shoots tiny cloverleafs. For what I use the Varminter for, the Nikon is close enough as yardages never get more than 100 yds. I will never buy another Nikon crapola scope again.
I also have a Redfield 4-12x40 scope that's a Leupold made scope but I'm not sure what model it is. It's also eons ahead of the Nikon and I didn't pay near as much for it as I did the Nikon. It's clear, decent low light, and holds POI. That one sits on a 6.5x06 Springfield custom. Frankly I like it better than the newer, more costly Leupold scopes. It's a clearer scope but it's not near as bright as the Millett.
My brother and I have collected rifles since the 70's. Obviously we bought, played with, and sold hundreds over the years. Like most folks if the scope didn't cost a lot, it was junk. My experience with the Millett scopes which I now have several of, and his used 300 Winchester Mag that came to him with a junk Simmons scope on it but the rifle shoots a little over an inch at 300 yds, tells me that there's a lot of good scopes out there for not a lot of money. He even has an NStar on an AR that shoots tiny cloverleafs and that scope wasn't 50 bucks. Yeah, maybe they don't have all of the latest coatings on the lens but those coatings weren't even available 50 years ago when I started shooting. I guess I'm too stupid to know the difference but as long as the bullet goes where the crosshairs are pointing, I don't see how that can be improved.
YMMV

[thumper113]

I'm really partial to the Prostaff.  I've got several and its my favorite.  I like it better than all my Luepolds.  You can not beat them.

[FPH]

I don't think budget and scope belong in the same sentence.. I usually spend twice the money for a scope as what I paid for the rifle.

[hunt-m-up]

Of those you mentioned Buckmaster 3-9X40, but I'm not fond of the Nikon BDC so I'd opt for a Burris Fullfield II with their BDC reticle.

[flmason]

I own one of the Nikons Buckmaster scopes in 4.5-16 x40 scopes. Short of a tent stake, it's about the most worthless scope I own. It sucks at focus and low light conditions. I can give you a direct comparison to a $60.00 Millet Buck Silver scope from Natchez. The Millet is eons ahead of the Nikon. Great light transmission, clear as any four figured costing scope I've got, holds point of impact good enough for an AR15 competition 6x45 rifle to shoot numerous one hole groups. The Nikon won't get near that....any of that. The Nikon sits on a Remington Varminter 223. The rifle/scope combo shoots about 1" groups but if I change to a 50 year old Weaver 4-12 V12 scope, the rifle shoots tiny cloverleafs. For what I use the Varminter for, the Nikon is close enough as yardages never get more than 100 yds. I will never buy another Nikon crapola scope again.
I also have a Redfield 4-12x40 scope that's a Leupold made scope but I'm not sure what model it is. It's also eons ahead of the Nikon and I didn't pay near as much for it as I did the Nikon. It's clear, decent low light, and holds POI. That one sits on a 6.5x06 Springfield custom. Frankly I like it better than the newer, more costly Leupold scopes. It's a clearer scope but it's not near as bright as the Millett.
My brother and I have collected rifles since the 70's. Obviously we bought, played with, and sold hundreds over the years. Like most folks if the scope didn't cost a lot, it was junk. My experience with the Millett scopes which I now have several of, and his used 300 Winchester Mag that came to him with a junk Simmons scope on it but the rifle shoots a little over an inch at 300 yds, tells me that there's a lot of good scopes out there for not a lot of money. He even has an NStar on an AR that shoots tiny cloverleafs and that scope wasn't 50 bucks. Yeah, maybe they don't have all of the latest coatings on the lens but those coatings weren't even available 50 years ago when I started shooting. I guess I'm too stupid to know the difference but as long as the bullet goes where the crosshairs are pointing, I don't see how that can be improved.
YMMV

Yes, I'm very, very inexperienced with scopes. No real background on makers other than to know, decades gone by "the Gold Ring" was a big deal, and Bushnells were supposedly no good. All just what I heard.

Had a Weaver 4x my father put on a gun for me as a kid. Was about my only experience with any scope.

It seems to be a deep study.

I was attracted to Nikon because of their reputation in the photo world.. thinking.. "OK these guys know optics... first choice of many photographers."

So I found out Redfield had been resurected as the low priced Leupold line and thought, "Well let's take a look."

Though to be honest... if I were going to limit myself to say 2700 fps 30-06 loadings zeroed at 200 yrds... maybe a 4x would be just fine? I mean what there's maybe 2" of rise over the whole 200 yards at those velocities?

Now, if I go with plans to fuss around with cast bullet loads, etc... then... well maybe I'd like a way to compensate a little bit. This is what baffles me... any old milsurp has a tangent site on it... but scopes often just have cross hairs or duplex. That's almost like a step back once you get away from the ideal situation for the scope. I don't get why they would design things like that.

Seems to me, sport oriented rifles in general are like race specific sports cars or something. At least that's the impression that's slowly forming. This also first "sporter" type rifle for me.

At the moment, I'm beginning to have buyer's remorse. I look at any old fake Mosin sniper with a PU scope and mount... and you can use the scope or irons at any time... yet on a Weatherby Mark V.. you can't? (I didn't get a Weatherby, just a Ruger M77... but same deal.)

Seems crazy to me. A gun should be a *gun* first in my mind. Meaning it *can* handle battle type stress, even if never use it for that. This type of weapon is so optimized for one thing... apparently deer hunting, well I dunno what to think of my decision now. You thoughts?

[flmason]

I don't think budget and scope belong in the same sentence.. I usually spend twice the money for a scope as what I paid for the rifle.

Yes, I've heard for years. And I tend to agree. But a top end scope is just out of budget for the moment.

Personally, I don't think any rifle should come without iron sights standard, and mounts should allow the use of both scope and irons at any time without tools or setup changes. Look at any fake Mosin sniper with PU scope.

But apparently sporters are "the thing"... how many Mausers and Springfields were cut decades gone by to make sporters? Untold numbers.

[flmason]

I'm really partial to the Prostaff.  I've got several and its my favorite.  I like it better than all my Luepolds.  You can not beat them.

This is my conundrum... Nikon is first choice among many photographers. Have to believe they know optics. Photographers can be a picky lot.

And the Savage package I didn't buy had the Nikon on it. Thought BDC was pretty neat myself... but have now starting thinking mil dot or tactical milling for the range finding and hold over advantages... but you get into the mid $300's for that on a Nikon. Might be worth it. I don't think the new Redfield brand has many years on it and the "Battlezone" (geez I hate that name.. has mall ninja tacticool written all over it) is new this year. So that could be a big gamble.

Perhaps the best compromise would be to go top shelf and fixed power maybe?

[flmason]

Of those you mentioned Buckmaster 3-9X40, but I'm not fond of the Nikon BDC so I'd opt for a Burris Fullfield II with their BDC reticle.

So where does Burris fit into the market?

Looks like the Fullfields are definitely in budget, If I can find one with mil dot or tactical milling reticle or similar that may work for me.

The hardest part seems to be survey the market. The market is *cluttered* with scopes.

[Lloyd Smale]

heres my take on it. A factory 06 isnt going to be a 1000 yard group shooting machine no matter what you do. Its a hunting rifle plain and simple. If it were me and i had the money to consider a 4.5x14 buckmaster id go another route. For about the same money you can get  a standard monarch 2.5x10. Much better optics, much better low light performance, just missing the gimiky crap that your going to find out you dont use anyway. Ive got mildot scopes and bdc scopes and to be honest when im out hunting i still use good old fashion hold over and ignore those extra lines and marks. Another good choise would be a 3x9 vx2 leupold thats easily found in the 300 dollar range. theyll even sell you one of them with a bdc reticle. Again I have one and dont  use it. If you truely are trying to make a long range setup your looking at spending big bucks on a rifle capable and scope choises for long range guns start in the 1000 dollar ballpark. Be realistic about what you expect out of that gun and buy whats appropriate and youll never regret what you bought.

[flmason]

heres my take on it. A factory 06 isnt going to be a 1000 yard group shooting machine no matter what you do. Its a hunting rifle plain and simple. If it were me and i had the money to consider a 4.5x14 buckmaster id go another route. For about the same money you can get  a standard monarch 2.5x10. Much better optics, much better low light performance, just missing the gimiky crap that your going to find out you dont use anyway. Ive got mildot scopes and bdc scopes and to be honest when im out hunting i still use good old fashion hold over and ignore those extra lines and marks. Another good choise would be a 3x9 vx2 leupold thats easily found in the 300 dollar range. theyll even sell you one of them with a bdc reticle. Again I have one and dont  use it. If you truely are trying to make a long range setup your looking at spending big bucks on a rifle capable and scope choises for long range guns start in the 1000 dollar ballpark. Be realistic about what you expect out of that gun and buy whats appropriate and youll never regret what you bought.

It's really much less about playing "sniper" that being able to use different handloads, and have the extra aiming points that just standard tangent, iron sights have. And an added bonus of being able to do some basic range finding. I don't find the idea of having a graduated reticle "gimicky". Especially if you shoot more than one. OK.. granted. if you are going to set the rifle up for one specific loading... it's a jacketed hi vel. load... sure... a fixed crosshair, fixed power scope... 100% practical given the trajectories at 2600 fps and above. Point blank range is 200-250 yards, I'd guess, if you're sighted in at 200.

But the minute you say... "geez, I'd like to be able to switch among loadings with differing bullet weights and velocities... now you have a problem that a tradition tangent sight covers nicely.

I think I'd be perfectly happy with the tactical milling type reticle, even without all the external dials and such. I'm looking for more than one cross hair mark, basically.

The more I think about exposed dials in the field, the more I caps. But finding a tactical milling or mil dot reticle in an otherwise solid field scope seems difficult or unlikely. After all, as soon as you say *mil* dot... the tactical crowd is being marketed to.

But I'll admit it. I prefer the older military rifles (if you could only get one factory new) over sporters any day of the week. Sporters are lightened, single purpose, whippy barrels, etc. All of which strikes me as odd. A hunting rifle generally goes out in the coldest, nastiest season of the year. While I can see why someone would want to own a Weatherby... way to "glitzy" for actual use, for someone in my income bracket, anyway.

So yeah, I'm caught in the usual dilemma of someone that wants features from both camps. Which compromise to take. Throw in limited budget, and it's that much more difficult.

One thing is certain. This will be the *last* sporter style rifle I ever buy. (Famous last word, I suppose, LOL!)

Oh well, this is another one of those things that manufacturers have failed to come up with broader solutions for, and instead create 1000 niches.

[Empty Quiver]

Have you checked out the Nikon P223 3-9 X 40? $200 BDC reticle, turrets . Use the Nikon Spot On calculator to get the extra reticles dialed in for your load. What's not to like?


It would seem to meet most of your criteria.

[Bugflipper]

I've been stuck on minox for awhile now. American made with German glass. Most of the big names have went to Philippine made with Japanese glass. Doug at Camera Land NY has the best prices I've seen on them. The ZA line is pretty cheap for what you get. Many reviews have put it as the clearest scope under $800. I think the 3-9x40 is around $200 when in stock.

[45-70.gov]

#4

[flmason]

Have you checked out the Nikon P223 3-9 X 40? $200 BDC reticle, turrets . Use the Nikon Spot On calculator to get the extra reticles dialed in for your load. What's not to like?


It would seem to meet most of your criteria.

I was all up on BDC when I first found out about it... problem is... unlike mil dot or tactical milling scale... you can't use it as a range finder.

I passed over that one specifically because the name makes me think it's for an AR. I'm scoping a Ruger M77 All Weather in 30-06. So figured a .223 type might hold up to the recoil.

Here's what I see as the desired traits... which as I browse the 100's of scopes at Midway, don't seem to come together in less than seriously priced scopes:

1) Scaling Reticle - Mil Dot / Tactical Milling / MOA Scale reticle

2) Parallax Adjustment - Side Focus or AO (parallax adjustment)

3) Focal Plane - Front Focal Plane Reticle.

4) Turrets - Was thinking external, but not so sure now... perhaps capped but finger adjustable is best for a field gun.

Basic idea is to be able to use the scope with different loads at various ranges... same way you would a tangent or ladder iron sight.

Doesn't seem to be too much to ask, considering iron sights on most milsurps cover it. Granted no magnification and often no windage adjustment on the fly.

But there you have it. I'm on page 16 out 62 listed on Midway.. sorted by price, going up... (in the $199.00 range at this point)... Only brands I'd simply *expect* trouble from have all of the first 3 features... (Barska, BSA and such).

Looks like you have to get into the $500+ range for that. (I think, not sure yet.)

So I guess it's same ol' same ol'... choose a cheap fake and regret it, pony up the $$$ for the real deal... or pick a compromise available on one's budget.

What amazes me is... with the general disfavor of firearms sales up until this "frenzy" thing... is how many 100's of scopes are out there. As though there's just bazillions of people wanting dozens of scopes.  It is amazing.

Don't know about you folks, but I find it hard to pay more for the scope than a whole other rifle! LOL!

[Savage_99]

Most of my new scopes are by Leupold and Zeiss.   

The Zeiss Conquest is excellent for it's optics but is just a little large.

Leupolds are neat and small, handsome as well.

[charles p]

Consider how long you are going to keep this scope, and that you will depend on it for clarity, focus, fog proof, and accurate performance.  Consider that sooner or later it will get dropped or bumped very hard, and that if broken you want it fixed quickly and for free.  Consider that you will depend on it being accurate each and every time you use it.  Consider the time, effort and expense that go into sighting in a scope over and over.

Now go buy the best scope you can afford. 
The post ahead of this suggest Leupold.  So do I, but there are some that may be as good or better.  Don't go backward on the list.

[flmason]

Consider how long you are going to keep this scope, and that you will depend on it for clarity, focus, fog proof, and accurate performance.  Consider that sooner or later it will get dropped or bumped very hard, and that if broken you want it fixed quickly and for free.  Consider that you will depend on it being accurate each and every time you use it.  Consider the time, effort and expense that go into sighting in a scope over and over.

Now go buy the best scope you can afford. 
The post ahead of this suggest Leupold.  So do I, but there are some that may be as good or better.  Don't go backward on the list.

No doubt. I agree in theory., But am on a budget at present, So value shopping is of the essence. Problem is... the more educated I get... the features I want... even though I realize a 30-06 sighted in at 200 is probably good for point blank out to say 250...

Where I get knotted up, aside from wanting all the "correct features" is basically wanting a reticle that will allow me to use several loads.

So effectively I'm 90% sure a fixed power scope at even 4x... but with MOA or Mil Dot reticle would be fine. But only seem to see those in the junk brands like NcStar and TruGlo, etc.

Just want to be able to switch between jacketed and cast without a lot of hassle. Ideally on the spot.

But once I get away from the real requirements... I start wanting... FFP, MOA or Mil Dot, Side Focus... etc. etc. etc.  LOL!

Scopes are interesting devices just in and of themselves.

So trying to find the best feature set for, sadly, the $250-350 range.

Like I was saying above... if one of the Leupold 4x-ish scopes just had a graduted reticle in it, that would be just fine.

Have to admit, this has been one of the most difficult comparison shopping situations I can remember.

[Bigeasy]

Honestly, you are over thinking this.  There is a reason 90% of shooters using a 30-06 sporter settle on a basic 3x9 scope - Because they work.  You talk about wanting to use a variety of full and reduced power loads - That's fine, but you will have to sight in for each load, no matter what scope you use.  In practical use, a 30-06 can be sighted in a couple inches high at 100 yards, and stay on target (big game) out to about 250 yards or so.  If your shot is farther, aim a couple inches higher, depending on range.  For any real long range work, you will need a laser range finder, and accurate knowledge of the drop on the load you are using.
 
For hunting use, if you insist, I think a BDC type reticule is a better choice then having to twist knobs - its quicker and just as accurate as long as you know the trajectory of the load you are using, and how they match up to the "dots" in your scope.
 
Parallax adjustment is a rare option on, and not usually needed in a 3x9 power scope.
 
For your budget, and use, the Leupold VX 1 series is good, as is the Burris 3x9 Full-field, and the Nikon Buckmasters series and the Bushnell Elite 3200 series. - All are good serviceable and reliable glass in the $200 range.
 
Larry

[flmason]

Honestly, you are over thinking this.  There is a reason 90% of shooters using a 30-06 sporter settle on a basic 3x9 scope - Because they work.  You talk about wanting to use a variety of full and reduced power loads - That's fine, but you will have to sight in for each load, no matter what scope you use.  In practical use, a 30-06 can be sighted in a couple inches high at 100 yards, and stay on target (big game) out to about 250 yards or so.  If your shot is farther, aim a couple inches higher, depending on range.  For any real long range work, you will need a laser range finder, and accurate knowledge of the drop on the load you are using.
 
For hunting use, if you insist, I think a BDC type reticule is a better choice then having to twist knobs - its quicker and just as accurate as long as you know the trajectory of the load you are using, and how they match up to the "dots" in your scope.
 
Parallax adjustment is a rare option on, and not usually needed in a 3x9 power scope.
 
For your budget, and use, the Leupold VX 1 series is good, as is the Burris 3x9 Full-field, and the Nikon Buckmasters series and the Bushnell Elite 3200 series. - All are good serviceable and reliable glass in the $200 range.
 
Larry

Yes, perhaps over thinking. But in reality, just trying to find out as much as I can before I spend the cash, then find out I made a mistake.

Given the trajectory of standard ammo...sure, no need for any twisting of dials.

But when I compare the trajectories of say 2650 fps. to 1600 fps (jacketed vrs. cast) I see as much as a 10" difference in practical ranges. So having some equivalent of a military tangent sight's ability to "move it up a few clicks" seems a fair idea.

When you start to study graduated reticles you quickly realise you can use them as range finders... then you find out about FFP vrs. SFP... and how some scopes have Mil Dot reticles but MOA clicks, and on and on.

To be honest, it all seems royal PITA. Never considered any of it with magnum handguns... Sighted dead on at 100... expected to use 6 o'clock hold for mid range... didn't take long shots.

I find myself asking, "Why is any rifle sold without iron sights?"

That said. if you really want precision. No doubt glass is a good way, if not the only way to go.

Doing it on a budget is the bigger PITA, LOL!

I mean it's easy to list the traits you want, once you know what they are... not always wallet friendly, LOL!

So yes, If I knew I was going to craft one particular load, for all uses... I'd say, "Heck, don't really need more than the tradition 4x scope for hunting, if that."

Just grappling with, "Which of the compromises in my price bracket are the correct one's to make?" Which of course is somewhat personal. Seemingly has a lot to do with what sort of math you want to keep in your head.

Perhaps causing a little of the over thinking is, I don't have much practical experience with glass. So I have to beat it to death to have some feeling I know I've not missed something important.

Because really... last thing I want to do is assemble this combination and the realize... "Ah crap this ain't right... now I have to start over... I can't call it 'settled'".

But like always... if one had unlimited funds... "settled" is a lot easier. Learn what the best is... then just go get it.

[45-70.gov]

 ANY $50   wallmart special.,,,, on your 30-06


will out perfom you   revolver


just my  guess  ..with a duplex  X-hair
sight in  for jacketed  for  100  or 200 yds


then determine  at what range you cast  are zeroed
and at what range the cast  hit  using the transition from thick to fine hairs


on  my  357 handi.....357 mags are dead on at 100 yds....dead on at 50 yds  with 38