PDA

View Full Version : Hunting Scope Priorities


fisherman66
March 15, 2009, 08:19 PM
List the most important feature to the least important features you look for in the hunting scope.

Does it need a scope is the first filter to run. My 30/30 is peeped and that works great.

1. Reliability
2. Eye Relief/Box
3. Bell clearance to fit into low rings
4. Reticle
5. Coatings/Light Transmission
6. Weight
7. Exit Pupil size
8. Magnification
9. Finish (wish there were more glossies)
10. Tracking

hogdogs
March 15, 2009, 08:33 PM
All I care about is wide enuff field of view for hunting and hold a zero... Lucky for me I haven't been spoiled with any great quality optics... yet...:D
Brent

HiBC
March 15, 2009, 08:54 PM
Dependable.,Rugged.Includes mounts

Optical quality.Includes adequate exit pupil

Mounted,so if I close my eyes,mount the rifle,open eyes,I have full field.I'll sneak eye relief here,too.

Reasonably compact/light

Acurrate,repeatable adjustments.

Power-Hunting rifle? most cases,prefer fixed 4x to 6 x For a big game rifle,I have a hard time understanding more than a 3.5-10.Oh,and I hope you don't use a sope for binos/spotting in the field.I don't like the feel of crosshairs on me.

Reticle,Duplex or B+C or? Not cluttered,but I want some means to estimate range,holdover.Duplex is enough.

My Leu M-8 6x42mm has served me well as a western hunter.

And,doggone,they are expensive,but I would consider an ACOG a viable choice on some hunting rifles,like an Encore .405 WCF carbine?

Quickdraw Limpsalot
March 15, 2009, 09:55 PM
Personally I could take 'em or leave 'em. I've never spent more than $100 on any scope and in most cases a $40 Simmons does every bit of what I need in a scope (when and if I need one) so my 'bar' is probably set way lower than most everyone else here, I'm guessin'.

A long shot around here is usually about 150 yards on deer (more often 50-75 in our thick woods) and the possibility of a long shot on a varmint might push 300-400 yards in an open field.

pilothunter
March 16, 2009, 09:31 AM
1. Reliability, to include maintaining zero.

2. Proper mounting, having the scope mounted as close to the barrel as possible AND adjusted to your proper height and proper eye relief

3. Relative brightness and clarity along with the scope being focused to your eyesight.

4. Proper reticle. There are lots of good reticles available and a buyer should select the proper one for their needs. No one needs a BDC reticle for shots out to 250yds in big game hunting when using a proper 250 yd caliber.

5. Overall weight and size

6. Magnification. High magnification is highly overrated, IMO. A 4x or low to medium range variable such as a 1-4 (ranges out to 200 yds) or 2-7(ranges out to 350yds) will cover any typical hunting scenarios.

Finally, I would suggest those who have never owned a decent quality scope try one of today's myriad of fine scopes available at under $200. There are several such scopes out there today that are likely head and shoulders above anything available 15-20 yrs ago at any price.

DiscoRacing
March 16, 2009, 09:34 AM
i usually stick to bushnell banner series.... always have good luck with them... never had a problem.... until i sprung for the last one and got a bushnell elite two weeks back....

pilothunter
March 16, 2009, 09:50 AM
The Bushnell Elite series is one of the best value/$$ there is, IMO. Very nice scopes, congrats

Quickdraw Limpsalot
March 16, 2009, 10:59 AM
Finally, I would suggest those who have never owned a decent quality scope try one of today's myriad of fine scopes available at under $200. There are several such scopes out there today that are likely head and shoulders above anything available 15-20 yrs ago at any price.

While I appreciate your position on it, I just don't see the need for the hunting I do. Maybe someday when my eyes aren't as good as they are now and I have more cash in my pocket...

pilothunter
March 16, 2009, 12:12 PM
It is simply a suggestion, should anyone be wondering about trying a scope. After all, we all should simply shoot and hunt in a manner and with the equipment that we enjoy! (within the laws of course)

Art Eatman
March 16, 2009, 05:11 PM
I don't guess I've ever ranked the features of a scope with any idea of priority. I found out in the way-back-when that the old steel-tube Weaver K4s filled the bill for rugged, field of view, and clarity under most conditions. My Leupolds (Vari-X II; 2x7x32, 3x9x40) have pretty much been the same. As long as I get a good cheek weld without diddling around, the diameter and mounts are righteous.

Sure, lots of other good scopes around that are just as good, and many that could be called better. I just figure that if a scope does what I want it to do, it's as good as anything else.

I've been a four-eyes most all my life, so for me, scopes are better than irons.

Fremmer
March 20, 2009, 12:31 AM
Reliablility is most important. If it won't hold zero, clarity is irrelevant. Next would be eye relief, then clarity and the rest of it.

Buy one that won't fog up and that'll hold zero and you'll be fine.

Big Bill
March 20, 2009, 12:37 AM
1. Reliability
2. Eye Relief/Box
3. Bell clearance to fit into low rings
4. Reticle
5. Coatings/Light Transmission
6. Weight
7. Exit Pupil size
8. Magnification
9. Finish (wish there were more glossies)
10. Tracking

All the above in no particular order for $40 or less.

bswiv
March 20, 2009, 05:30 AM
The most expensive "scopes" I have are not even scopes but rather 2 Aimpoint Micro Red Dot sights. One is mounted on a O/U 45-70 and one is on a SXS 20 ga with rifled barrels ( Sadly this gun is currently BROKEN! ).

What I've noticed is that they function only a little better than the MUCH less expensive Bushnell and Tasco Red Dots that are on my old .35 Rem and on Louann's .243 and single shot rifled 20 ga.

With the Red Dots getting them to come on, which thankfully Ive not had a problem with, is paramount. After that clarity and holding zero are up there.

All of them seem to hold up well, even though I'd guess over time that the Aimpoints will prove to be more rugged.

Seems to me that over the last 35 years the cost of a truly functional scope has come down significantly relative to inflation. Today's $100 scope is about as good as a $100 scope of 30 years ago but relatively less expensive.

At least so it seems..........

thinkingman
March 20, 2009, 11:37 AM
Reliability is number one....A scope with a great warranty sucks if you have to send it back for repair/replacement.
Clarity and brightness is number two.
price/value next
tracking/repeatability
eyerelief if it's going on a lightweight gun.