Author Topic: best scope for 300-400 dollars. (Read 3467 times)

poncaguy · « **Reply #30 on:** July 01, 2005, 03:33:55 AM »

I put my Burris Fullfield II with ballistic plex on my new H&R Ultra Varmit 223 with fluted barrel. I really like the stock, ordered one to replace the stock on the Survivor 308 that comes in next week..............

moontroll · « **Reply #31 on:** July 02, 2005, 10:26:49 AM »

Choosing between quality scopes can be a dawnting task. :shock:

moontroll · « **Reply #32 on:** July 02, 2005, 10:30:50 AM »

I have one of those Simmons Whitail Expeditions(4-12x42) damn its bright,a darn nice scope,its a shame you cant get them any more.I have 3 Leupolds a VX11 3-9x40 nice sight picture,and accurate at different power settings.A M8 6x42 a nice scope also just about like the VX11.A VX111 3.5-10x40 A hell of a scope,but to expensive,but a dead eye.I also have a Nikon Monarch 4-12x40,nice but I like the VX111 better.I also have a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x44 real clear and can see after dark with a moon(clearly the best optics).It just so happens I have a Bushnell Elite 3200 4-12x40 an awsome scope in its self.Out of all the scopes mentioned the one I would choose is the 3200,it has it all a well rounded scope.All the scopes have their strengths and weaknesses,but overall quality and performance its the 3200.The Vx111 would be 2nd,the Zeiss has point of impact issues that are small but are there.I sent my first Zeiss back because of this and when they sent me a new one(great warranty)it still wasnt as close as the 3200 or Vx111.The Nikon is nice but I like the sight picture of the leupolds better. whatever you choose in this realm youll like. http://theopticzone.com/detail.aspx?ID=3267

Lawdog · « **Reply #33 on:** July 02, 2005, 01:46:10 PM »

Quote from: tikkahunter03

Hey thanks for all the great advise. What kind of warranties do burris, nikon, and bushnell have?

The Burris guarantee is the same as Leupold's. Both are excellent scopes. Forget Bushnell!! They are getting a reputation for not honoring their warrantee's(did it to me TWICE and I know of others that have had this same problem with Bushnell products). Nikon I cant help you with but the last time I looked thru one of their scopes the clarity wasnt up to what I wanted. Fuzzy at the edges and the view was darker than I liked. Lawdog

sport · « **Reply #34 on:** July 04, 2005, 03:30:46 AM »

I own two 3200s a nikon gold and a zeiss conquest pefer the zeiss conquest over the others then the nikon gold, 3200s are nice for the money

poncaguy · « **Reply #35 on:** July 04, 2005, 07:16:05 AM »

After using my 223 with the Burris Full Field II last nite, all my scopes from now on will be Burris......unless the new Simmos I ordered changes my mind...

tikkahunter03 · « **Reply #36 on:** July 14, 2005, 01:38:08 PM »

I know its a bit under the 300-400 mark but which would you all prefer, a Burris fullfield 2 or Leupold rifleman? I am looking at a 4x12 for open country whitetail and mule deer. So what do you think?

myarmor · « **Reply #37 on:** July 14, 2005, 04:43:49 PM »

I would go for the Burris.

bluebayou · « **Reply #38 on:** July 14, 2005, 08:30:29 PM »

For what it's worth.......look through the Leupold Rifleman before you buy. It's pretty lame for $250. Can't speak for the Burris. The Rifleman doesn't have AO either so 12x is pretty pointlessly out of focus too. I just got the Bushnell Legend 5-15 AO for $189 and am pretty happy with it. Eye relief and eye box is lacking at higher power, but it is only a 40mm objective (which I wanted and is a trade off at the higher power with brightness).

Anyway, for $300 I would get a Nikon or Bushnell 3200. My two dealings with Bushnell warranty work resulted in a free set of rings for a Trophy red dot scope (two screws stripped, much cussing) and the replacement of a Trophy scope for $10. Their customer service people seem rude but efficient (to me).

Best advice that I ever got was "look through it before you buy it."

BoarHunter · « **Reply #39 on:** July 15, 2005, 09:00:18 PM »

Are you sure you need a variable scope and if not, why not try a fixed one 6X42 mm for example. The new Leupold FX X-VIII line uses high quality optics and should be in your price range.

From my experience, I only really use two settings, the lowest one when walking to the spot I plan to stay, this for an occasionnal running shot, and the maximum when I am all set.

So if you only consider shooting from a stand when you are all set, a fixed one would suit well.

Better a good quality equipment with limited features than junk with a lot of gimmicks.

tikkahunter03 · « **Reply #40 on:** July 15, 2005, 09:32:20 PM »

The hunting I will be doing will be mostly hiking. I won't be in a stand, they don't have trees that big in southern AZ :grin:

hobbyist · « **Reply #41 on:** July 24, 2005, 09:47:47 AM »

If you consider $413 in your range for a 3x-9x. Zeiss all the way.

I did a side by side comparison W/ Monarch, 4200, VXIII and Conquest. To my surprise Zeiss was clearly better although it didn't offer the same range of magnification (2.5 or 3.5 -10) and FOV on paper.

sport · « **Reply #42 on:** August 02, 2005, 03:12:08 PM »

3x9x40 zeiss conquest $399.00, 3x9x50 zeiss conquest $419.00 at the optic zone cant beat that with a stick

Grubbs · « **Reply #43 on:** August 03, 2005, 04:34:16 AM »

The Leupold rifleman pales in comparison to the Burris FFII. Not even close. The FFII is the best bang for the buck under $200 you will find.

High Brass · « **Reply #44 on:** August 03, 2005, 08:33:04 AM »

I reccomend the Nikon Monarch. I have one in 3-9X40 and love it. Very clear and bright and the eye relief is plenty for me(3.5-3.6"). If I had to get another 3-9, it would be a Nikon Monarch. Matter of fact, I have decided to get another one for my 243 when I get around to it.