PDA

View Full Version : What kind of scope do you primarily use?


hometheaterman
January 23, 2010, 01:30 AM
So I hear guys on here talk about how cheap scopes like Simmons, Tasco, etc are crap and if you listen to what guys on here say it sounds like they all fail quickly. However, in reality I know a lot of guys that hunt and most of them primarily use Simmons, Tasco, or cheaper Bushnells on their rifles and very very few of them have any issues. The 2 people other than me that have Leupolds have all had issues though. I wonder if when we hear of problems with a cheaper scope it's not because there are soo many more of them out there being sold. A local shop said he sold around 80 Bushnell banners every hunting season and he highly recommended it. That's quite a few. I doubt they sell near that many Leupolds.

Anyway, I thought I'd start a poll and let people vote. I'm curious as to what the majority of them actually use. If you don't want to let us know who you are you don't have to post just vote up so we know what you use.

If you have several rifles with many of the different brands which one is on your primary rifle?

The Tourist
January 23, 2010, 01:35 AM
I have now reached the comfortable age in life where I buy what I like no matter what anyone might say. In the final analysis, I have to live with the purchase.

I like Leupold scopes on centerfire rifles. I like turret adjustment knobs, and if you buy a Leupold without them, the factory can retro-install them.

For the money, the glass is clear, and the settings are repeatable. YMMV.

But don't be swayed by my preferences. If that Tasco fills your needs, your vision requirements and your price point, buy it.

dmazur
January 23, 2010, 01:36 AM
Due to a problem with rings on a Ruger #1, I changed from Leupold to Zeiss Conquest. (The Zeiss had an honest 4" of eye relief.)

Only one hunting season on the Zeiss, so far. It survived rain and temperature extremes and didn't fog.

Low end Zeiss is roughly equal to better Leupolds, I've read.

jcjr3020
January 23, 2010, 01:42 AM
For many years i used a Simmons and killed many deer. I would check zero at the start of every year, until one year it would not zero. I broke down and spent more money on a Burris fullfield II than i have ever spent on a scope before. It was night and day between the two and i would never switch away from Burris. I love them, have 3 now.

hometheaterman
January 23, 2010, 01:59 AM
But don't be swayed by my preferences. If that Tasco fills your needs, your vision requirements and your price point, buy it. Well, that's not exactly how I feel. Between the Leupold VX-I and Tasco I used honestly I couldn't tell much of a difference. However, with the Burris like said it was night and day difference. I'd love to have a couple more Burris scopes. The thing that just made me wonder about it is while the cheaper scopes I've used don't seem as good in low light they do work perfectly fine during normal light and they have all seemed to hold up pretty well. Can't say that for the Leupold I had.

Anyway, when I got my Burris I had several guys I hunt with want to check it out and commented on how expensive they were. This is when I really started to realize spending a lot on a scope doesn't seem to be the normal or at least not in this area. I know a lot of guys that hunt and it seems like almost all of them use cheap scopes. I know 2 people that use Nikons and the rest seem to use cheap Bushnells, Simmons, Tascos, and stuff like that. I've heard one or two people complain about Tasco's while others loved them. Almost everyone I know that uses Simmons loves them too. They often abuse the rifles, have them bounce around in the truck, drop them, etc and they hardly ever seem to have a scope problem.

I then noticed when I started going to gun shops unless I went to a really high end gun shop it seemed like there were a ton of Simmons and Tasco's on the shelfs. Most of them didn't even stock Leupold and Burris and other higher end brands. There have been a few that have carried them also but it seems like they are highly outnumbered by the cheap scopes. So this really made me think there must be more of a market for cheap scopes.

So I started wondering who actually uses expensive scopes? Most guys I hunt with or know of that hunt don't. So I wondered if the guys on this forum saying they are using these scopes are the normal or if there are more people that use cheap scopes. Maybe it's still just that guns into firearms like most of this forum are use better quality than hunters I'm not sure.

Do most of the hunters that you guys hunt with or are friends with use nice quality scopes or do they use cheap ones?

One thing I will say is I know a lot of guys that have cheap scopes. A lot more than have expensive scopes and it seem like almost every time there is a problem with a scope in our hunting group it's one of the expensive ones.


After having a Burris though it makes others seem not near as good picture quality wise. However the others still seem to work fine for hunting.

RedneckFur
January 23, 2010, 04:11 AM
May sound strange, but I'm a beliver in Simmon's higher end scopes. My 30-30 wears a Simmon's prohunter 3-9x40, and my .22lr and .17hmr both wear Simmons 6-18x40 Master Series. Simmons, like tasco, does make some walmart-priced stuff, but their Prohunter and Master series scopes are generally over $100 and not bad at all for the money.

my 308 wears a Bushnell elite 4200 in 8-32x40. Its a very good scope, but also very long. Not cheap either. Its very bright and it holds zero without issue and I"m quite pleased with it.

I've played around with some of the cheaper scopes and been disapointed.

phil mcwilliam
January 23, 2010, 05:29 AM
I find generally with optics(scopes & binoculars), the more you pay the better the quality. I've owned & used Tasco, Bushnell, Leupold, Zeiss & Swarovski & would rank them in this order, from lowest to highest quality.
Of course they sell more Tascos than Swarovski scopes, but that doesn't mean the Tascos are better.
I shot plenty of game with the Tasco, but the higher end scopes definately have better clarity in the half light of early morning & late afternoon, which in my opinion are the best hunting times.
I tracked a wounded deer recently that was shot late afternoon. I caught up to this deer & finally dispatched it after dark. The Swarovski optics I was using allowed me to take a finishing shot at this deer, where I doubt I could have even seen the deer with a lesser quality scope.
If you go hunting in the middle of the day the differences in clarity between scopes is less obvious.

Moloch
January 23, 2010, 06:54 AM
I am not much of a scope guy and I really like iron sights, on my do-it-all rifle is a Millet DMS-1 1-4x24, on my precision rifle a Bushnell Banner 6-18x50.

Kreyzhorse
January 23, 2010, 07:42 AM
I use Bushnell over the $150 price tag and Nikons Monarchs.

hoytinak
January 23, 2010, 07:59 AM
I've got 8 rifles that are scoped, 4 are Nikons (3 Prostaff, 1 Monarch), 3 Bushnell (1 3200 Elite 10x, 1 an old Sportview, 1 Banner 6-18x50) and 1 Leupold FX-II 6x.

rezmedic54
January 23, 2010, 08:24 AM
I have use the cheap scopes for years. I get a lot of grief for it but my money. I have Bushnell's, NcStar's, BSA's, Barska's, and my new one is a WOTAC. The WOTAC is the most I have ever spent on a scope. None have ever let me down I have a 9 year old NcStar on an 8 mm Mauser probably has 400 rounds under it still holds zero with no problem. BSA's I use the same way along with my Barska's. I've looked through Leo's and other high dollar scopes and have used friends rifles with high end scopes I can't tell and difference in them might just be me might not. For me I always use the creed you get what you pay for and for me it's the cheap stuff until they start to fail me guess I'll just keep using them.

robotman
January 23, 2010, 08:43 AM
We have 3 rifles
Weatherby Vanguard 30.06
Remington 700 .243
Savage 93R17BV .17 HMR The Chinese Bushnell 3-9 x 40 that came on the gun disintegrated after about 20 rounds.

I had a Chinese Bushnell Scopechief 3 x 9 x 50 no AO on the 30.06 but it did not have enough eye relief. It ended up on the .243 and worked great, 1-1/2" groups at 100 yds. Seemed to hold up okay as far as repeatability.

I bought a new Master Series Simmons Pro Sport 4 x 12 x 40 and put it on the 30.06 and could also shoot 1-1/2" groups. The Pro Sport was also on the .17 HMR for a 30 yard Penny Shoot on Thanksgiving day this year. 6 people were able to hit a penny, some had never shot a rifle before. My 18 year old got a John Wilkes Booth award for hitting you know who in the head, sick, I know. Anyway, it seems easy to dial in and also seems to "stay" I do think it is a little squishy in windage. Elevation was always easy to dial in.

I ended up putting a Chinese Simmons Boresighter 4 x 16 x 40 on the .17 HMR. I bought it used on eBay. It dialed right in and is repeatable but it has paralax problems I think. I set it up and was hitting bulls at 30 yds but both of my teenagers hit about 1" higher and 1" left with the scope on the same settings.

I bought a Simmons Whitetail Classic 6.5 - 20 x 50 for the .243 and put the Scope Chief on the shelf. We are shooting some at the range on the 100 yd targets and I needed more power to see the target. It dialed right in at 30 yds but I have not taken it to the range to see how it does at a 100. I wanted to "step up" so I bought a "made in the Philippines" scope LOL

I am really poor right now, at least compared to my status 5 years ago. I worked in the auto industry as an industrial robot programmer and lost my high income job. I can only buy the cheap scopes right now. I yearn to buy a Burris, Nikon or Leupold but that is not in the cards. I can either buy bullets or better scopes!

The Simmons Pro Sport is the bottom end of the Master Series and it has proven reliable through several dis-mounts, re-mounts and dialing ins. All 3 of the Simmons scopes I have seem to have some chromatic blurring at the edges of the sight picture but it has never been a distraction while shooting. I bought a Vintage Weaver Classic 6x fixed power on ebay and it was much much clearer than any of the Simmons. I put 3 in a penny at 30 yards with it mounted on the .17 HMR and could probably have done better with it at 100 yards than with the Boresighter I have on the gun now. I sold it to buy the Whitetail Classic. Probably should have kept it for when the boys get into hunting...

DiscoRacing
January 23, 2010, 08:47 AM
mostly bushnell elites now... but am looking at nikon and sightron for the next

mapsjanhere
January 23, 2010, 08:47 AM
Zeiss, Zeiss, Nightforce, Weaver, Leupold, Ubertl, Hensoldt

Guess I go with "other"

mikejonestkd
January 23, 2010, 09:20 AM
I have mostly Bushnell elites ( even between 3200 and 4200 series ) and Leupold Vx-II and Vx-III scopes are a close second.

I have 4 4200s, 4 3200s, 4 vx-IIs, and 3 vx-IIIs. A couple of bushnell banners, one trophy, and a legend, plus my son has a cheap simmons mag 22 on his marlin .22 bolt.

riggins_83
January 23, 2010, 09:34 AM
I have one Burris on a 223... otherwise everything is Leupold

Rembrandt
January 23, 2010, 10:30 AM
Don't think your poll is going to be very accurate....where's all the European scopes?

JackL
January 23, 2010, 10:44 AM
For the most part I go with Leupolds and Nikons, mostly 4x or 6x fixed-power models. In that sense I'm an oddball.

I shoot a lot more than I hunt, for whatever that's worth.

rantingredneck
January 23, 2010, 11:13 AM
My 3 centerfire bolt guns (700 ADL .243, 700 ADL .30-06, M77MKII .308) all wear Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40's with BDC. They work well for my purposes and at 150.00 or so each they didn't break the bank.

2 of my .22's wear Nikon Prostaff 4x32 Classic Rimfires. 1 wears an old Bushnell Trophy .22/shotgun scope.

My 2 muzzleloaders wear Nikon Prostaff 2-7x32 shotgun scopes and they work very well for that application.

My AR and .357 lever gun both have irons only.

Overwhelmingly Nikon as it turns out......

stevelyn
January 23, 2010, 11:24 AM
Leupold on my main hunting rifle and a Bushnell on a .17 HMR. The next rifle I scope will be one I'm having built and I'm leaning toward a Burris or IOR/Valdada for it.

rickdavis81
January 23, 2010, 11:49 AM
Monarchs, buckmasters, Elite's and some some smaller companys like the Mueller Tac II, which so far is a great scope for only 300

ndking1126
January 23, 2010, 12:11 PM
I have had 2 simmons. One on a .22lr (still fine) and one Pro50 on a .30-06. It gave in to the recoil after probably 200 shots. I replaced it with a Burris FF II and it's going great. Much better glass, too. I'm personally done with cheap scopes.

rantingredneck
January 23, 2010, 12:15 PM
Savage 93R17BV .17 HMR The Chinese Bushnell 3-9 x 40 that came on the gun disintegrated after about 20 rounds.


Had a similar experience with my Savage 9317 and the package scope that came on it. Mine was a Simmons, though. After about 80 rounds the reticle was canted about 30 degrees. It shifted inside the scope under the .17's punishing recoil........:rolleyes:.........

Dr. Strangelove
January 23, 2010, 12:37 PM
My two main deer rifles wear Leupolds now, one I got as a gift and one I bought for crazy cheap on Evil-Bay. Otherwise, one of them wore a Bushnell Sportview for over 20 years until that old scope just gave up the ghost. The other is a Savage that was a factory combo with a cheapie Burris that finally just fell apart.

I've used Tasco, Bushnell, Burris, and Leupolds on my own rifles and shot most other brands. I can't say that I've seen much difference in the manner that I shoot, which is very casually. I'm sure someone into bench-rest competition or the like would have a different result.

Most of my hunting friends use cheap scopes, simply because that's what they can afford. I advise folks to buy what they can afford and will use. Here in GA where I hunt, 100yds is about the max shot distance, usually much more like less than 50yds. I simply can't afford and don't need a super nice scope. If I have to spend $600.00 to get five more minutes of shooting time, I'll just hit the snooze button once more and keep the $600.00.;)

FrankenMauser
January 23, 2010, 02:32 PM
I've never seen a Burris or Bushnell that was useful for more than being a target.

I actually have a Tasco that has outlived all the Burris and Bushnell scopes (in my entire family), combined.

Leupold is my preferred scope.

L_Killkenny
January 23, 2010, 02:57 PM
Main Rifle? How about none of the above? How about many of the above?

I have 5 "main" rifles. On em ride 2 BSA's, 1 Simmons, 1 Tasco and 1 Weaver. The newest is 5 or 6 years olds. The oldest is almost 30. Zero issues with any of them.

LK

Dougw47
January 23, 2010, 03:09 PM
I have almost all Leupolds, and one Nikon on centerfire's,

two tasco's on kids 22 lr.

2rugers
January 23, 2010, 03:21 PM
Leupold: 4x12 vari-x ll Ruger .300 win.
4.5x14 vx lll In the box
2x7 vx ll Ruger RSI .308
3x9 vari-x ll Stainless Marlin 336

Burris: 3x9 signature elecro-dot In the box
1x6 signature electro-dot In the box

Weaver: 3x10 Grand Slam Remington Mohawk 600 .308 Main deer getter.
1x5 Grand slam Remington 7615
4.75x Grand Slam Marlin 336
1x3 classic Winchester Trapper .44 mag.

Several older weaver El Paso scopes, some mounted some not.

A couple of Simmons 44 mags

Various Bushnells and Tascos on .22's and the like.

Of these I like the Weavers for the value but the Leupolds for overall BEST OF THE BUNCH so to speak.

ormandj
January 23, 2010, 03:22 PM
Main Bolt: Zeiss
Main Semi: Trijicon

DMK
January 23, 2010, 03:26 PM
I like Weaver Classics. I have about 7 of them. They hold up fine on my FALs and Mosin Nagant carbines.

For red dots, I really like the Bushnell Holosights. I have three on AR15s and I'm buying another right now from a fellow board member. They aren't great on battery life, but I really like the precision dot reticule with the big circle around it.

jrothWA
January 23, 2010, 04:58 PM
Bushnell 1.5-4.5X40 Dawn to Dusk
Now hanging two Pentax 3-9X40 Gameseeker II, on some 7mmMag rifle for Elk.

Have an 11970's era Weaver K1.5 Post reticle for Slug gun work, and still tickking.

Have a M88 that had a K3, on that I ahd rebuilt by the El Paso repair shop, three years ago.

Major Dave (retired)
January 23, 2010, 05:32 PM
Pentax Lightseeker, 3-11 X43 AO, on my main rifle, a Win M70 Classic Fwt, in .270 WSM. MSRP nearly $700, in 1998, store price about $575. It has 7 layers of multi-coating, on every lens surface. Bright, color correct sight picture.

Leupold VX-3, 2.8-8X 36, on my back-up deer rifle, a 7X57 Mauser. Just got it, but only shot thru it for zero, bright daylight, on a 100 yd range, so don't know what it will look like at first and last light in a deer stand.

Leupold Vari-X III, on my Win Mod 70 short action carbine in .243. Just got it, only sighted it in on the range.

Bushnell Sportview, fixed 4X on my Marlin Mod 60, .22 rimfire. Looks bright on the range, but never hunted with it.

Bushnell Phantom Magnum (pistol scope), circa 1970's, on 12 gauge slug barrel for my Rem 870 Wingmaster. Probably have fired only 40 or 50 slugs through it, and it has held up, so far. Marketing hype for this scope, in the '70's, was that it was designed to take the recoil of the .44 Mag pistol.

Bolosniper
January 23, 2010, 06:18 PM
The primary scope I use is an IOR 6-24x50mm 35mm body diameter SF Tactical with an illuminated MP-8 Dot reticle. I literally use it for everything here in SW Montana. Here there are very few opportunities for a close shot, and when I've had one the very large field of view made acquiring the target easy.

The optical quality of European glass can't be overstated.

shooter_john
January 23, 2010, 06:49 PM
Nikon wins by one (over Leupold) in my safe. My primary bolt gun has a Nikon, my primary AR's (223 & 308) wear Leupold, and my "hunting only" rifle wears a Burris.

deadeye1122
January 23, 2010, 07:30 PM
I currently have two leuopold vx11 in 3x9x40,bar 7mm,338 abolt, nikon prostaff 3x9x40 .270 abolt, bushnell buckhorn on a m788 .243 and a vx111 2.5x8x32 on a kimber 84m in .260. All are great optics in my opinion for there intended use. just purchased a 4x16x42sf nikon monarch for a m700 tac rifle. based on the prostaff scope I expected to be of very good quality.

Palmetto-Pride
January 23, 2010, 08:30 PM
Zeiss

Grainraiser
January 23, 2010, 08:42 PM
I have 8 rifles and they sport 4 Bushnell Banners, 1 Sightron, 1 Redfield and 1 Leupold. I'm more of a meat hunter than a shooter. I check them at the beginning of the season and blast animals the rest. Never missed one because of a scope.

tpcollins
January 23, 2010, 08:46 PM
Swarovski 1st, Elite 4200 2nd, Redfield Illuminators on two others. I understand not everyone can afford a Swarovski, Zeiss, or Schmidt & Bender.

However, I would say those that think their Tasco's, Barska's, and whatevers are just as good as the $1000+ scopes haven't looked thru one across a field or meadow well before minimum shooting light.

4sixteen
January 23, 2010, 08:54 PM
I'm not saying it's the best brand, but Leupold is my favourite. ;)

bamaranger
January 23, 2010, 09:00 PM
Jeez, who can afford a European scope????

I am primarily a Leu guy, but on the lower end of their price range, either M8 fixed, or mostly VX-II of Vari-II or whatever they were and are now. Folks may find it interesting that the M8's are fixed 6's, except for an IER Scout.

It wasn't always this way, my money had to go other places. But slowly I have been sticking Leupolds on my rifles. I'm looking at one now on Ebay for the Mini-30. I have a big box of busted, worthless Tasco, bushnell simmons scopes, that have crapped out over the years.

I am a fan of Burris too, and run a big XTR only cause I could NOT spring for four figures plus on the Leu I wanted. I have a USA fullfield that has served well, but both are more critical about eye relief than my Leu's.

The only Bushnell these days is the one my dad put on my grandad's M88, when I was 13, which I cannot bring myself to change.

James R. Burke
January 23, 2010, 09:34 PM
Just myself I like the Leupold line. I hunt with people that use cheaper ones, and they do get deer. You can see the differnce at dusk or on the paper real easy, or even fogging up. I see lots of people with a 800.00 to 1800.00 rifle with a 55.00 dollor scope on it. I guess to each there own, but just myself I like fairly good optics.

bamaranger
January 23, 2010, 10:31 PM
You can't hit what you can't see. I have kind of made a point of asking guys over the years, "Hey you mind if I look through your scope?"

I have noticed that on side by side comparisons in the field, WHEN CONDITIONS WERE LESS THAN IDEAL, that the "better" scopes really do let you see better.
Dawn, dusk, fog, rain, low sun, back lit, moon lit ( a test now, no night hunting)
You wouldn't see the animal of a lifetime at any of these times, right?

At high noon, in parking lot, or on the porch at the club, etc, they ALL do ok.
When it counts, the better ones do better.

As a counterpoint, when the guys look through my Leus or one of two Burris, and all there used to is brand X, they usually say "WOW".

GeauxTide
January 23, 2010, 10:38 PM
Have been very impressed at the new Weavers.

deadeye1122
January 23, 2010, 11:09 PM
Any one have or looked at the new redfield scopes? Just wanted to know what you thought. deadeye

howahunter
January 23, 2010, 11:15 PM
my big game rifles sport pentax 4x12 optics and my small caliber rifles sport centerpoint optics which helped me take a few 'yotes today.

jdperry88
January 23, 2010, 11:17 PM
I have been going through a scope search myself. I am building a Remington Sendero in .300WM and want to build it right with the best that I could afford. Started out with a Monarch 4-16X50 and was not really impressed. I took it back and got a leupold LR/T 8.5-25X50 with the TMR. Was kinda dissapointed in that one as well. Glass was pretty much equivilant to the Monarch, and the Leupold had alot parralex for a higher end scope. Took that one back and bought a Nightforce 5.5-22X50 with NP-R1 and I absolutely LOVE it! Everything is perfect for a long range rifle. Feels very well built, glass is awesome, and they are standard with illuminated reticles. They are pricey, but I believe that they are the absolutey top class!!

earlthegoat2
January 24, 2010, 12:26 PM
I use Bushnell Elites 3200 mostly but I have one 4200.

I have a 2x ACOG on my Guide Gun.

Abel
January 24, 2010, 01:11 PM
Anyway, when I got my Burris I had several guys I hunt with want to check it out and commented on how expensive they were. This is when I really started to realize spending a lot on a scope doesn't seem to be the normal or at least not in this area.

Burris scopes are certainly not expensive at less than 225 dollars for several of their models. Some folks are just opposed to spending 100+ dollars on rifle scopes. Some people like to think that they saved themselves from unnecessarily throwing money away on frilly, gimmicky, worthless gear, when cheap gear is perfectly serviceable. Its almost a sense of pride & accomplishment for them that they got the job done "on the cheap". I have some cheap scopes, but I enjoy my Burris more than those others.

onebadscrambler
January 24, 2010, 01:18 PM
NIghtforce and US Optics.

Huffmanite
January 26, 2010, 11:13 AM
No scope brand loyalty here and my most expensive scope was about $140, with majority costing around $80 or less. I have 4 Simmons, 3 Bushnell, 2 truglow, 3 Barska, and one each of Center Point, Nstar, Zhumel, Swift, Intensity Optics, Tasco, BSA and Pentax. Only two of them are on a 22LR rifle, rest on centerfire rifles from 223 to 30-06s.

Only two scopes to fail me was one that came on a Gamo air rifle and a Truglow. Seller replaced the Truglow, charging me only for shipping. I threw the Gamo scope away.

Retired guy here, who doesn't hunt, but likes to shoot his rifles at a local range once a week and needs a scope to clearly see target and the bullet holes in it. Most of the guys I shoot with are using Leopolds, Nikons, Zeiss, Burris and an occassional Swarvorski. LOL, yea I feel out of place with them when it comes to scopes but my budget doesn't allow those brands and I'm quite happy with what I use.

hivel37
January 28, 2010, 03:31 PM
Mostly I've used Weaver, Burris, and Leupold. I had problems with Leupolds years ago but they're made better today.

Last year I picked up a Pentax Gameseeker 4-12 used at a gunshow because it was so clear. Mounted it on an AR. The W/E clicks felt so good but didn't seem to be connected to the crosshairs. Another of life's lessons.

Mike Irwin
January 28, 2010, 03:43 PM
I have 4 Leupolds, 1 cheap Romanian, and 1 cheap Chinese scope that came with my SKS.

The Leupolds are mounted.

The other two are in the closet. I think. :)


Edit in...

OOPs, I forgot, I also have a Weaver C-4 on my Remington 521T and a Bushnell Phantom Magnum that I used to have mounted on my .22 revolver for squirrel hunting.

uncyboo
January 28, 2010, 05:15 PM
Of those in the poll, I have and use Leupold, Tasco, Simmons, both classes of Bushnell, Aimpoint, and Nikon, so I didn't vote.

They all have their uses. I bought 2 Tasco World Class scopes in the mid 80s. They are both serving well and have seen alot of use, one in particular on an '06.

I bought 4 Simmons Aetecs when they came out. They all sit on pretty good kickers (300 WBY, 7mm STW, 280, 30-338) and have had no issues as of yet. I haven't shot the 30-338 yet, but the scope came off of an AR 10, and with the experience with the others, I don't anticipate any problems. I really like the generous eye relief on those.

Of the last 3 scopes I have bought, 2 were Sightrons and one was a Nikon. I am really liking the Sightrons. I notice they were missing from the poll.

BTW, the only scope failure I have personally had was a Weaver.....

PhilC
January 28, 2010, 06:43 PM
Bushnell Trophy red dot. Works well so far.

rjrivero
January 28, 2010, 06:46 PM
I've always used Leupold. Never had an issue. No reason to change boats mid stream.

73-Captain
January 28, 2010, 06:49 PM
Valdada...

If I could afford more, almost all of my scopes would be Valdada!

C.

SR420
January 28, 2010, 06:59 PM
Leupold and Aimpoint.

sc outdoorsman
January 28, 2010, 08:58 PM
I have a 1989 model Redfield 3x9x40 on my 06 that holds its settings, is good in low light, and is clear and bright. I see no reason to change it. I have killed quit a few deer and hauled it through all types of weather and terrain. I could not ask for better performance. My only real complaint is it could use a little more eye relief.

I am in the market for a new scope for the Savage 7 mag and havent made up my mind yet. I tend to take my time and research things a lot. I am not sure which scope I will buy but I like the Nikons for the cost and performance.
My Dad likes the Bushnell 3200's. He has had good results from them. If I found a great deal on one I would consider it strongly.

alaskaman94
January 28, 2010, 09:21 PM
from bears and moose to squirrels iv never spent more than 100$ on a scope and never been let down.. have tasco, bushnell, simmons, barska, uag.all WORK! maybe iv just been lucky but idk.

ARDogman
January 29, 2010, 12:52 PM
I've used all sorts...I guess I'm not much of a brand loyalist.

I voted "other" because my primary rifle wears a Zeiss Conquest. I also have an old Redfield Widefield, a Leupold VXII, Pentax Gameseeker.