Optics for a .243win

[PDW292]

I have a Ruger MarkII Hawkeye, currently I have a Redfield 3-9x 40mm with a accu-range scope on it. It is a good scope and I am happy with it, but I have been considering getting a Leupold VX-3 4.5-14x 40mm with the Boone and Crockett reticle. It's main use is for varmint/predator hunting. JUST WONDERING WHAT YOU GUYS ARE USING, AND HOW YOU LIKE THEM? Thanks Paul

[PIGMAN]

I use a Zeiss 6x20x50 for mid-range small varmints and target shooting. Considering the cost of a Zeiss and for that matter a VX III , a Nikon Buckmaster does basically the same thing for a lot less money as long as you NEED magnification greater than you have now otherwise for the cost of a VX-3 I would get another gun.

Scope selection mainly depends on the size of the animal and at what range you will be shooting at it from.The higher the magnification the smaller the field of view and the smaller the field of view,the harder it is to aquire the target. So from a practical stand point if you are shooting at stuff that doesnt move real fast like paper targets or small varmints at mid-range then a higher magnification scope is a good thing.On the other hand for mid-sized fast moving varmints like coyotes,coons, possums and ferral hogs your present 3x9 scope is fine.

[viking499]

Mine wears a Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14x40 BDC. Had a 6-18x40 Buckmaster on it before I did some scope swapping.

[Abel]

On the other hand for mid-sized fast moving varmints like coyotes,coons, possums and ferral hogs your present 3x9 scope is fine.

I agree. You could go up in quality, but a 3-9x40mm or similar sized scope is fine for type of vermin that a 243 is typically employed for.

[billnourse]

I have 4 4.5x14x40 vx3's with varmint reticule. I prefer it over the Boone and Crockett because it has finer crosshairs for target work. They are very good scopes, and with either reticule, will serve your purposes well.

Bill

[Saltydog235]

Lots of scopes out there to upgrade to but moving from a Redfeild to a Nikon BM is a lateral move at best, closer to a downgrade. Nikon glass sucks, period. A lot of places have the Bushnell Elites on sale right now and I have to say the 4200 series is nice. Leupold VXIII's are a nice peice of glass and Ziess is top notch. Meopta is another you can get below a $1000.00. Trijicon makes some good glass as does Burris.

[pabuckslayer08]

Nikon Monarch line is worth a look

[Abel]

Nikon glass sucks, period.

That is about the most ridiculous thing that I've ever read here on this forum.

:rolleyes:

[Saltydog235]

Then you can waste your money on them. I've had nothing but problems with the product that I had from Nikon. Admittedly they sent me a brand new scope last time but rather than risk more issues I sold it and bought something else. Maybe when your trophy goes bailing off into the woods because the POS Nikon made just broke loose, you'll change your mind too, or when you look through it after you get it back from repair and the interior is fogged up or when you get it back again and it won't hold zero, get the picture?

[pabuckslayer08]

Wow, I didnt see what you said about Nikon, you yourself need to go and spend some time and think about what your saying. They have some of the best service in the optics world, way over Leupold and even Swaro. Also the quality is amazing, every bit as good as Leupold. Not like the swaro but dang close for alot less money. Also imo the Nikon glass out does all the rest, I mean all. Ive shot through Zeiss, Swaro, High priced Leupolds and the clarity of the Nikon cant be matched, thats what they are known for. For the prices I would take a Monarch over a Swaro any day of the week. The only things gained is I feel better adjustments. I personally own 5 Nikon scopes and they are the best ones of any

[Saltydog235]

I'm happy for you that they are working out, but they are still crap to me. I sent the same scope back 3 times for three seperate issues. Seems like they would have gone through it and made sure it was right the first time. I've owned scopes from many manufacturers over time and have had more reliable service out of an old Simmons Atec than a Nikon. The Simmons gave up the ghost after about 1000 rnds of .300 Wby and a 25 ft drop from a stand, the Nikon went to crap after 250 rnds on my Sako 7mm-08 and kid glove treatment with not one scratch on it.

As to Nikon being clear, when they work they are still VXII clear at best. They aren't Ziess or Swaro or VXIII or Meopta or Trijicon etc clear.

But hey opinions are like a-holes we all have them and isn't it great there's so much for us to choose from. Personally, I wouldn't own a Chevy but I had problems there too.

[Art Eatman]

My 19" Sako carbine .243 sports an old Leupold Vari-X II 2x7. It's good for prairie dogs to 300 yards, I've found. A 3x9 is plenty good for anything a .243 can reach.

[precision_shooter]

Take a look at the Vortex Viper scopes. SWFA has sales on them all the time and i'm really impressed with them for the price. Every bit as clear as my Leupold, good solid clicks with resettable turrets. I own 2 already and plan to buy another for my next rifle.

Dang, they don't have the one I just bought anymore. It was a discontinued reticle model and I got it for $249.99 on sale. Mine is just like the below but with the target dot reticle.


http://swfa.com/Vortex-65-20x44-Viper-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P11231.aspx

[Fusion]

The only Nikon I've had experience with is the Nikon Prostaff. For the $100 you can get them now, I think they are a good buy. However, at the full price, I don't think they are that great of a buy, just because you can get scopes that are quite a bit better for a similar price, or not much more. IMO the $100 price glass is more where they belong all the time not when they are on sale.

The Prostaff replaced a Simmons Blazer for me. The glass was nearly identical to my eyes. The Nikon might have had a tad less glare in the bright sun, but it was very close. The biggest thing I liked better about the Nikon is I just had more faith in it lasting. The glass in it leaves a lot to be desired compared to the Burris FFII I've got. However, it's decent glass and it is a bit better than my Leupold VX-I. The other thing I don't like are the turrets. You have to use a coin or screw driver to adjust them and I found them fairly hard to adjust even with a screw driver, but as long as you aren't trying to make adjustments in the field, these should work.

Once in field, I hunted with it some and was fairly happy with it. I actually dropped my gun and ended up catching it, but it swung and the scope hit me in the knee fairly hard. Hard enough it left a bruise. I ofcourse was afraid it would have lost zero. When I went to check it, it still shot to the same POI as it had previously. Now I've only used this thing for one hunting season, but it seems to have decent glass, and be pretty durable.

More than I can say about my Leupold VX-I. The first one I bought, I had to send in for repair twice. The first time it looked like the insides were shaking after each shot. The second time it wouldn't hold zero and would adjust after each couple of shots. I also noticed that even when it was working it lost zero fairly easily. I set my rifle against the wall in the house for a few minutes and it fell over on the carpet. When I took it to the range to shoot it and see how it did, it was shooting several inches higher than where it had been. Another time I had it him me in the forehead as I had my head to close to it. Next shot, it was completely off target. That's all when it's been working properly. The glass is also pretty lousy imo for a scope in it's price range. I've certainly seen some scopes with worse glass, some of Bushnell's come to mind, but it doesn't have good glass by any means. It's about the same as the Prostaff and Simmons Blazer in daylight, but in low light, it's actually worse. I will say that since it's been fixed the second time, it's not given me any issues, but it's still not that great of glass.

The second one I had I bought from a friend when he got fed up with it. He bought his used on a gun. He hunted with it for a year. The next year, he went to shoot it to make sure it was sighted in. It was still perfect from the year before. A few days later he took it out to show us how great it shot and it didn't even hit the target. He shot a few more times and it was way off target. He tried to adjust it back in, but it was just moving with ever shot. He took it off, and sold it to me really cheap as he said he didn't even care to have it fixed as he couldn't trust it. I got it fixed, and resold it. The glass was identical to the first one, so it wasn't that I just got a bad one the first time around.

The next one, a friend bought and right out of the box it wouldn't hold zero. He got it fixed and when it came back he traded it off for a .22 rifle.

These are the only 3 friends or I have had and all of them have had the same issue as well as sub par glass.

Another thing worth mentioning is these have friction adjustments which are horrible. They don't seem to track reliably at all, and they are super hard to make precise adjustments with. They are just horrible.

I really don't see anything good about the VX-I line of scopes.

That just made me not trust them. Infact they are the only scopes that have failed on me, and I've had a few cheap Simmons, Tasco's, Bushnells, etc.

Now once you step up to the VX-II, you at least get decent click adjustments. After reading online how many people said the VX-I might be bad, but the VX-II and better were great. So I had to try a VX-II. I got one used that was made in 01. Honestly, imo the glass in my Burris FFII still had a slight edge over the VX-II and it was a lot cheaper. I wasn't impressed at all with the glass quality of the VX-II. I never mounted it so I can't say how it would hold up, but from what I've read they do hold up decently.

If I had to go with a Leupold I'd go with a VX-II at minimum, but I think you can get a lot better scopes for the money with other brands.

Another Leupold experience I had is I ran into a guy at the range with a VX-III in 3.5-10. He was telling me that he had two. He said the other one he had for some reason he'd sight it in and get it perfect, and after letting it sit for a couple of days, it would be a couple of inches off. He said it was almost like the adjustments took a couple of days to settle in, but once it moved that few inches it stayed where it was. He said this made it hard to get it sighted in. He said he sent it to Leupold, but they sent it back and it still does it.
The one he had at the range he was trying to sight it in and the adjustments weren't moving where he was adjusting them. I watched him shoot a very tight group that was low. He adjusted it up, I watched him, and shot a few more shots. It was still a very tight group, but instead of going up it had gone lower. Then he made another adjustment and this time it finally did go up, but way up. It just wasn't tracking at all like it should. This made me question the quality of the VX-III's too.

I just don't see an advantage to Leupolds, except for the warranty and other companies have better warranites, nowdays anyway.

[Fusion]

Another thing worth checking out is this post over on THR.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=555388&highlight=prostaff

It makes me feel pretty like the poster above having issues is in the minority, but who knows.

[Doodlebugger45]

Several years ago I bought my first VX-III and I figured I had the ultimate scope. It is really good, no question and it still sits on my 7 mm mag today. But a couple years ago I bought a 270 WSM rifle from a guy and it came with a Nikon Buckmaster scope, a 4.5-14 version. Shooting the rifle, I could tell I was really going to like the scope. It wasn't until I had both of the rifles sitting side by side at the range, alternating 5 shots from each while evaluating different loads that I realy noticed some of the subtle differences in the scopes. To my surprise, I have to say that the Nikon is the better scope when you compare them like that, trying to really concentrate on getting your best shot each time.

I am also thinking about upgrading the scope on my .243 now. I must say that I'm leaning in the direction of another Nikon, either a Buckmaster or a Monarch, rather than another VX-III. I don't know anything about the VX-I or the Prostaffs, it might be a different ballgame there.

[Picher]

I compared my VXII 2.5-8 to my Monarch 3-10 at the same power and found the VXII to be considerably clearer. What I don't like about the Monarch is that the image doesn't go all the way to the edge of the tube. I feel like I'm looking through a tunnel.

The VXII is the cheapest "assembled in USA" Leupold, as I understand. I just wish the power change knob was a little easier to use in cold weather.

[precision_shooter]

Here is a pic I took last year while at the range. This is looking through my Leupold VX-I 4-12x40mm. It's mounted on my Tikka T3 Lite in .308. It's been hunting every year since I got it about 5 years ago and hasn't had to be adjusted since sighted in 5 years ago.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58250&d=1269349821

[billnourse]

Must be some problems with Nikon. My gun shop won't handle them anymore because of customer complaints, and there are sure a lot of REFURBURISHED ones for sale at Natchez and other vendors. Only reason to get refurburished is if you didn't get furburished right in the first place.

If I want a camera I'll get a Nikon. If I want a scope it will be Leupold, Sworavski, Zeiss, or the like.

Bill

[Saltydog235]

Must be some problems with Nikon. My gun shop won't handle them anymore because of customer complaints, and there are sure a lot of REFURBURISHED ones for sale at Natchez and other vendors. Only reason to get refurburished is if you didn't get furburished right in the first place.

This cannot say it any better

[Smokey Joe]

PDW 292, when you saidIt is a good scope and I am happy with it,unless you have money you don't need and just want to spend it on something.

As usual, Art Eatman nailed it re: the usefulness of higher magnification. Unless you're doing critical benchrest target shooting, or some such, your 3-9 is all you'll ever need in the magnification department.

[.300 Weatherby Mag]

I've never been impressed with nikon glass personally...

I have 4 4.5x14x40 vx3's with varmint reticule. I prefer it over the Boone and Crockett because it has finer crosshairs for target work. They are very good scopes, and with either reticule, will serve your purposes well

I agree with bill on this one.. The varmint reticle will be better for your intended use.. I have scopes with both reticles..

[phil mcwilliam]

Ive been hunting with centerfire rifles for over 30 years. My latest rifle wears a high end European Kahles 2.5-10 x 50 scope which cost me around $1,500.
My other centerfire rifles wear Leupold 3-9x 40 VII scopes.
When I first started out my initial scope for a centerfire rifle was a Bushnell 2.5-10 x 45 which I think cost under a couple of hundred dollars.
In hunting applications I dont think I shoot any more accurately now with the $1,500 Kahles than I did with the $150 Bushnell.
I actually set the Kahles & Bushnell up side by side for a comparitive test & while the expensive Kahles was slightly clearer at dawn & dusk there was not enough difference between them in acquiring varmit sized targets at 300 yards to feel disadvantaged by the old Bushnell.
The main difference between the expensive Kahles & the old Bushnell only became apparent after dark, where the optical clarity of the Kahles, also helped by the slightly larger objective, made acquiring targets in moonlight possible.
If you are happy with your Redfield dont expect miracles to occur in switching to a Nikon.

[PDW292]

I bought a Mini 14, and I am thinking the Redfield is a good scope for that. I would like to upgrade for the Mark II, I have several Leupolds and Burris scopes, very happy with both brands. I'm not sure I need the 4.5-14x but the price difference between that and the 3.5-10x is not that much.
Again thanks for your input
Paul

[PIGMAN]

IMHO the clarity of glass in a scope does not matter that much and neither does the light gathering ability since where I live it is illegal to hunt after sundown anyway and if you are shooting in the dark optical scopes are the wrong system anyway night vision scopes work alot better after sundown.All that matters to me is that they hold zero,don't fog up and have a lifetime guarantee.

I have 2 Nikons,1 Zeiss,1 Sightron,1 Vortex and an ancient Weaver K-4 and another ancient Bushnell Scope Chief.The Bushnell and Weaver hold zero and have been doing so for probably about 45 years now and still going strong.The point is that no matter how clear the target appears in the reticle if it don't hold zero the scope totally sucks no matter who makes it or how much it costs.

Scopes are tempermental things by nature so it is a good idea to have a back up already pre-sighted on quick detach rings just in case somthing unfortunate happens to you primary optical sight. I have Evolution Gun Works Picatinny Rails on all my rifles and Warne Q/D rings on all my scopes so its easy to change to a pre-zeroed back up scope if needed.On a serious hunt I would rather have two pre Zeroed Sightrons with me than one Swarov.

[700cdl]

I would go with the Leupold and don't look back. Nothing bad to say about the far more expensive optics out there, just spending more money for comparable quality. The B&C models are awesome for long shots. And if you really want some fun, buy the Leupold RX-IV B&C range finder to go with your B&C scope. I picked one up and it does everything but pull the trigger for you. It will give you compensations for what ever ballistic catagory you are shooting, in MOA or hold over. It ranges out to 1500 yds. and has a rain and fog setting. It compensates angle also. This little jewel uses the same ballistic program that military is using for their missles and Nasa is using. For about $500. it will put you in a class the other range finders can't get close to.

[skoro]

JUST WONDERING WHAT YOU GUYS ARE USING, AND HOW YOU LIKE THEM?

My 243 is a Winchester Model 70 featherweight. Its scope is a Weaver Classic V 2-10x38 with the ballistic reticle. I'm VERY pleased with this combination.

[bamaranger]

The Ruger Hawkeye M77 is a fairly slim trim rifle and has traditional, conservative lines. Since you asked, I would not bulk up that lovely profile by attaching a big bell scope. Myself, I stay w/ 40-42mm bells (or smaller) on all my hunting rifles. You mention doing a goodbit of varmint/predator hunting so I might stray towards the upper end of the 40mm size, say a 4-12x40mm-42 at largest.

My own .243 bolt wears a Leu 3-9x40 w/ a duplex, its primary target is deer. BTW, just not a fan of fancy reticles.

[603Country]

I've had a pretty good assortment of scopes (Tasco, BSA, Bushnell, Marlin, Weaver, Redfield, Leupold, Nikon), though not any of the German big money scopes. Of those scopes listed, I had a couple fail. One Weaver and one Redfield fogged up on me. Both were repaired for free, and I sold them both. Other than those two that failed me, the Leupolds have been in the most severe service (mud, rain, snow, ice) and not one of them has ever failed to perform. I'm pretty sold on Leupold quality. Still, I recently bought a Nikon Monarch 4X16 and I like it. I'm not ready yet to say I like it as much as I like the Leupolds. Bottom line...I use a 6.5X20 on my main 220 Swift coyote gun and a 4.5X14 on my favorite 270 deer rifle. The only upgrade I think I'd ever want is to have the varmint reticle on both of them. I doubt I really need it on the deer rifle, since inside of 350 yards you don't have to worry too much about bullet drop. On the 220, those little coyotes can often be way out there, and I would like at least a 400 yard fine crosshair. So I'm very happy with Leupold, though I'm sure I'd be happy with Zeiss or Swaro or Kahles.

[tpcollins]

After searching for new glass for my .243 Ruger M77 Mark II, the Optics Planet had the Sightron SII 4-16x42mm down to $347, they gave me another 5% off as a returning customer, Sightron is offering a $50 rebate thru March so that gets it to $280 - no tax, free shipping.

It one of the recommended optics on a varmit forum I frequent so we'll see.

[JGant]

4-12x Nikon on my 243 Browning BLR