Help,I need a scope for my new TC Encore 300 Win.

[jdbuck]

I think I have narrowed it down to a few but would like some advice and opinions from all you experts. There is alot of good info here.

All the scopes I list are in the 3-9 x 40 category. This setup will be used primarily for hunting.

Okay,I took a trip to Gander Mountain today to get a look at some scopes.First I compared the Buckmaster, Fullfield II, and Elite 3200. To me the Buckmaster had the best clarity, Elite 3200 was a very close second,but not quite as clear, the Fullfield II did not impress me at all. Next I compared the Monarch to the Buckmaster, I really could tell no difference between the two optically, and it was the middle of the day so a low light comparison was not availiable. I really wanted to compare the two Nikons to the Elite 4200 and the Weaver Grand Slam but they had neither of these 2 in stock They did have a Conquest and all I can say is wow! That definitly was a nice scope, there was no problem telling the difference between the two Nikons and the Conquest. Just not sure I can justify spending that much.

 

 Have any of you noticed a great difference between the two Nikons I list? I really could not tell any difference, but since the Monarch is supposed to have better glass there will most likely be a difference in low light situations. How does the Nikon Monarch compare to the Weaver GS and how does the Elite 4200 compare to both of these? I am assuming the Conquest is in class by itself compared to these other scopes. As far as Leupold goes, I really dont see the need to spend that much for a scope when there are others availible just as good or better for the same price.

 

The eye reliefe of the Elite 4200 was initially a concern of mine, but I do have a B&L Elite 3200 3-9 x 40 on a
Ruger 77 MKII Synthetic 300 Win. and have never been whacked with the scope, came very close a few times though, but that gun/caliber combination kicks like a mule on steroids  . I think the Encore will tame the recoil a bit compared to that setup, maybe not though.

Thanks

[lostsniper308]

Nikon, i had thier 3-9x40 Pro-staff and its great, probably could stand to .300mag but if you've got the means a Buckmaster or Monarch would be nice. I had accidentally broken the seal so it fogged up and Nikon fixed it no charge, stupidity insurance is nice
coming soon to Midwayusa is the 3-9x40 Prostaff with BDC reticle so that may be worth a look, otherwise those Buckmasters look really nice even cosmetically. Just don't spend more than is really nessesary.

[poncaguy]

I have all 3 of those scopes, prefer the Burris FF II, then the Buckmasters, 3200 is last IMHO. My old eyes can see better at dusk with the Burris.

[pigboy]

I have the Weaver GS and the Nikon Monarch.  I like the Weaver better.

[whitedogone]

to compare them in a store in bright light is not a very good way to compare.  IF you can test them in low light you would see the difference.  I have a Z scope and it is slightly better than my Monarch.  But it costs $200.00 more.  For me the Elite 4200's are VERY nice and the raincoat really works well.   WDO

[Zachary]

I have an elite 3200 1.5x-4.5x-32mm on my .375H&H Mag. I bought it from Jon at the optic zone about 2 years ago. The only thing that I don't like about my particular model is that it has a firefly reticle - which is too fat during the day - almost like the German reticle.

The bottom line is that, with this scope, I can shoot under 1/4" groups at 100 yards!  Yup, you read right.  That means that the 3200s are built to withstand very high recoil.  I do know that they make the 3200s in 3x-9x-40mm version, and I am certain that it can definately handle the lower recoil level of the .300 and still have excellent tracking and optics.

I highly recommend the Elite 3200!

Zachary