The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

jmr40 · August 28, 2013, 06:08 PM

You don't have to spend $500 to get a good scope. I wouldn't spend less than $200 though.

Some people only consider glass quality when judging scopes. It is only 1 factor, and not the most important. Many good scopes with very good glass such as Nikon, Vortex, Bushnell have a tunnel vision effect. It looks like you are looking through a cardboard tube with a large band of black around the edges. Other scopes give a clear image with only a thin black ring at the edge. Look through some before you buy something online unseen.

Eye relief is often forgotten. You can get smacked in the eye easier with a short eye relief scope, but that is not the most important reason to avoid anything with much less than 4". Even short eye relief can be compensated for if you are shooting from a bench and have plenty of time to set up the shot. But in the field when shots have to be taken fast, and often from odd angles, you can find your target in the scope much easier if the eye relief is more forgiving. It also means you can see though the scope in August wearing a T-shirt and in December wearing everything you can put on.

You don't need or want anything with a front objecive over 40mm. Anything bigger is a waste of money and will never offer any advantages. Just disadvantages. Try to locate a chart showing a scopes light transmission rating. It is a better judge of how much light is getting through. Many mid priced 40mm scopes let more light through than most mid priced 50mm scopes because the quality of the glass is more important than the size. Even with high end 50mm scopes they only offer better light transmission than a comparable 40mm scope when set on 9X. Any more, or less magnification and a 40mm scope will equal a 50mm scope.

Look at the scopes weight. Many are 18-20 oz and can quickly ruin a quick pointing and handling carbine like you are considering when there are many 8-11 oz scopes that will do the same job.

Rugged dependability rates high with me. My rifles and scopes get used hard in rough country, rain and snow. Clear glass is worthless if it is fogged or reticles are broken.

I like Leupold or Zeiss. I can do anything I need to do with a $300 VX-2 from Leupold. If I won $100,000,000 in the lottery tomorrow I'd probably splurge on a few rifles, but I'd still put a $300-$400 Leupold on all of them.

In the $200-$300 range I like the Burris FF-II and Redfield Revolution. If you just want to spend $400-$500 the better Vortex scopes look pretty good, but not the cheaper versions. The Leupold VX-3's and if you can still find one of the $400 Zeiss Conquests they are good scopes.

The new Zeiss Terra sounds promising from what I've read, but I've not seen one in person yet.

August 28, 2013, 06:08 PM	#8
jmr40 Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,808	You don't have to spend $500 to get a good scope. I wouldn't spend less than $200 though. Some people only consider glass quality when judging scopes. It is only 1 factor, and not the most important. Many good scopes with very good glass such as Nikon, Vortex, Bushnell have a tunnel vision effect. It looks like you are looking through a cardboard tube with a large band of black around the edges. Other scopes give a clear image with only a thin black ring at the edge. Look through some before you buy something online unseen. Eye relief is often forgotten. You can get smacked in the eye easier with a short eye relief scope, but that is not the most important reason to avoid anything with much less than 4". Even short eye relief can be compensated for if you are shooting from a bench and have plenty of time to set up the shot. But in the field when shots have to be taken fast, and often from odd angles, you can find your target in the scope much easier if the eye relief is more forgiving. It also means you can see though the scope in August wearing a T-shirt and in December wearing everything you can put on. You don't need or want anything with a front objecive over 40mm. Anything bigger is a waste of money and will never offer any advantages. Just disadvantages. Try to locate a chart showing a scopes light transmission rating. It is a better judge of how much light is getting through. Many mid priced 40mm scopes let more light through than most mid priced 50mm scopes because the quality of the glass is more important than the size. Even with high end 50mm scopes they only offer better light transmission than a comparable 40mm scope when set on 9X. Any more, or less magnification and a 40mm scope will equal a 50mm scope. Look at the scopes weight. Many are 18-20 oz and can quickly ruin a quick pointing and handling carbine like you are considering when there are many 8-11 oz scopes that will do the same job. Rugged dependability rates high with me. My rifles and scopes get used hard in rough country, rain and snow. Clear glass is worthless if it is fogged or reticles are broken. I like Leupold or Zeiss. I can do anything I need to do with a $300 VX-2 from Leupold. If I won $100,000,000 in the lottery tomorrow I'd probably splurge on a few rifles, but I'd still put a $300-$400 Leupold on all of them. In the $200-$300 range I like the Burris FF-II and Redfield Revolution. If you just want to spend $400-$500 the better Vortex scopes look pretty good, but not the cheaper versions. The Leupold VX-3's and if you can still find one of the $400 Zeiss Conquests they are good scopes. The new Zeiss Terra sounds promising from what I've read, but I've not seen one in person yet.