Scope for New Rifle

DRL1187 · June 19, 2010, 11:57 PM

I just got a Browning X-bolt chambered in 25-06...now I need the scope. I was loooking at a Redfield 4-12x40 or jumping up to a VX-3 3.5-10x40. Any thoughts on which would be best? Is the VX-3 worth the price jump...especially now that the Redfields come out of the same factory? Or is there something else you would recommend?

Thanks for the help.

DRL

slowr1der · June 20, 2010, 12:27 AM

I'd go with a Vortex Diamondback or Burris Fullfield II if you want something a lot better than the Redfield for not much more. The Nikon Team Primo's and Bushnell 4200 are also good scopes for right around $200 or slightly more. If you want to make a big jump I'd look at the Vortex Vipers. I think you can do much better than a Redfield or Leupold VX-3 for a similar price.

.300 Weatherby Mag · June 20, 2010, 12:32 AM

Leupold VX-3 or Zeiss Conquest....

The VX-3 is worth the price jump... Both of the options I listed are great...

Palmetto-Pride · June 20, 2010, 12:36 AM

Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40 $150.00 or Nikon Prostaff 3-9x50 $199.00 are very good scopes for the money......

coyote17 · June 20, 2010, 01:41 AM

The Burris should be able to handle the 25/06 ok, and I really like the fine plex cross hairs.
Had a 2X7 Burris years ago and a 338 Sako played heck with the scope tube inside coating.As the recoil would disloge bits and small pices onto the inter lense.
Sent it back to Burris and had it repaired then it did the same thing again.
Sold it after this.
This was years ago and I am sure Burris has upgraded there scopes and corrected this problem they had by now.
As a old shooting buddy of mine said one time back in the early 70's about his rifle, it has seen a lot of death.
And I have also through Leupold scopes as they have always been excellent performers for me in the past.

brotus2 · June 20, 2010, 02:59 AM

I bought a Nikon 4X12X40 BDC for 169.95 from Bud's. Very pleased with the price - more pleased with the scope.

yorkshiredeerstalker · June 20, 2010, 04:12 AM

Go with the zeiss, the conquest are excellent scopes and will blow the others away.
I use Zeiss across the board having 3 V series scopes bino's and a rangefinder.
We use burris, loopies, redfields they are all very good but none come even close in low light as Zeiss, swaro's, Kahles or schmidt and benders.
They are simply Awesome.
regards john.

Abel · June 20, 2010, 08:05 AM

If Leupold VX-III is even making its way into the conversation, forget the Redfield or the Burris Fullfield. Look at he VX-III & the Zeiss Conquest.

Webyshops.com · June 20, 2010, 08:13 AM

I am with Abel on that one. Plus Zeiss has some good pricing right now.

jgcoastie · June 20, 2010, 08:47 AM

I'll vouch for the Redfield. I have one mounted on my BAR (.30/06) and I have been very pleased thus far. I have the 4-12x40mm w/ Accu-plex reticle. It's a hard scope to beat for the money and it's a good quality scope IMO.

sdj · June 20, 2010, 09:03 AM

I'll chime in for Zeiss; super clear and some good pricing right now.
Excellent guarantee and customer service.

Palmetto-Pride · June 20, 2010, 10:21 AM

I have the Zeiss 3-12x56mm while it is a very good scope. I am not sure it was worth the money I paied for it. I feel like a 1k+ scope should not come with plastic turret covers.

TX Hunter · June 20, 2010, 10:51 AM

The Redfield would work just fine on the Rifle Mentioned.
AS a Matter of fact I would recomend one, because Leupold just started making them, and is really trying to make a good impressoin with them.
So they are well made American Scopes.

For the Ziess Scopes, I dont like them, yes they are clear, but they have very poor eye relief, I would not want one for that reason.

IDAHO83501 · June 20, 2010, 11:01 AM

The .25-06 is a flat shooting round that is great for long distance shooting. Depending on your budget, Redfield will be fine, but if you want to shoot in low light or at a great distance, why not see what you are shooting at? A 4-16 X 50 Nikon Monarch, Pentax, Burris, are just a few that offer EXCELLENT lens coatings for low light and offer more magnification than your standard 3-9x40 and such.

gunmoney · June 20, 2010, 03:35 PM

For their price range the Zeiss Conquest are about as goo as it gets. The equivalent Leupolds are over priced and over rated. Yes I have owned and used both.

James R. Burke · June 20, 2010, 03:39 PM

I am also with Abel on that one. Dont think you could go wrong with either.

June 19, 2010, 11:57 PM	#1
DRL1187 Member Join Date: March 4, 2010 Location: North Carolina Posts: 49	Scope for New Rifle I just got a Browning X-bolt chambered in 25-06...now I need the scope. I was loooking at a Redfield 4-12x40 or jumping up to a VX-3 3.5-10x40. Any thoughts on which would be best? Is the VX-3 worth the price jump...especially now that the Redfields come out of the same factory? Or is there something else you would recommend? Thanks for the help. DRL

June 20, 2010, 12:27 AM	#2
slowr1der Junior member Join Date: March 25, 2010 Posts: 169	I'd go with a Vortex Diamondback or Burris Fullfield II if you want something a lot better than the Redfield for not much more. The Nikon Team Primo's and Bushnell 4200 are also good scopes for right around $200 or slightly more. If you want to make a big jump I'd look at the Vortex Vipers. I think you can do much better than a Redfield or Leupold VX-3 for a similar price.

June 20, 2010, 12:32 AM	#3
.300 Weatherby Mag Senior Member Join Date: September 6, 2008 Posts: 1,777	Leupold VX-3 or Zeiss Conquest.... The VX-3 is worth the price jump... Both of the options I listed are great...

June 20, 2010, 12:36 AM	#4
Palmetto-Pride Senior Member Join Date: May 31, 2009 Location: Charleston, SC Posts: 2,071	Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40 $150.00 or Nikon Prostaff 3-9x50 $199.00 are very good scopes for the money......

June 20, 2010, 01:41 AM	#5
coyote17 Junior Member Join Date: June 20, 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 3	The Burris should be able to handle the 25/06 ok, and I really like the fine plex cross hairs. Had a 2X7 Burris years ago and a 338 Sako played heck with the scope tube inside coating.As the recoil would disloge bits and small pices onto the inter lense. Sent it back to Burris and had it repaired then it did the same thing again. Sold it after this. This was years ago and I am sure Burris has upgraded there scopes and corrected this problem they had by now. As a old shooting buddy of mine said one time back in the early 70's about his rifle, it has seen a lot of death. And I have also through Leupold scopes as they have always been excellent performers for me in the past.

June 20, 2010, 02:59 AM	#6
brotus2 Senior Member Join Date: November 8, 2009 Location: Panama City Beach Posts: 269	I bought a Nikon 4X12X40 BDC for 169.95 from Bud's. Very pleased with the price - more pleased with the scope.

June 20, 2010, 04:12 AM	#7
yorkshiredeerstalker Junior Member Join Date: June 19, 2010 Posts: 7	Go with the zeiss, the conquest are excellent scopes and will blow the others away. I use Zeiss across the board having 3 V series scopes bino's and a rangefinder. We use burris, loopies, redfields they are all very good but none come even close in low light as Zeiss, swaro's, Kahles or schmidt and benders. They are simply Awesome. regards john.

June 20, 2010, 08:05 AM	#8
Abel Senior Member Join Date: November 26, 2006 Posts: 1,161	If Leupold VX-III is even making its way into the conversation, forget the Redfield or the Burris Fullfield. Look at he VX-III & the Zeiss Conquest.

June 20, 2010, 08:13 AM	#9
Webyshops.com Junior member Join Date: June 14, 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 30	I am with Abel on that one. Plus Zeiss has some good pricing right now.

June 20, 2010, 08:47 AM	#10
jgcoastie Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2009 Location: Kodiak, Alaska Posts: 2,118	I'll vouch for the Redfield. I have one mounted on my BAR (.30/06) and I have been very pleased thus far. I have the 4-12x40mm w/ Accu-plex reticle. It's a hard scope to beat for the money and it's a good quality scope IMO.

June 20, 2010, 09:03 AM	#11
sdj Senior Member Join Date: May 24, 2005 Posts: 462	I'll chime in for Zeiss; super clear and some good pricing right now. Excellent guarantee and customer service.

June 20, 2010, 10:21 AM	#12
Palmetto-Pride Senior Member Join Date: May 31, 2009 Location: Charleston, SC Posts: 2,071	I have the Zeiss 3-12x56mm while it is a very good scope. I am not sure it was worth the money I paied for it. I feel like a 1k+ scope should not come with plastic turret covers.

June 20, 2010, 10:51 AM	#13
TX Hunter Senior Member Join Date: February 11, 2010 Location: East Texas USA Posts: 1,805	The Redfield would work just fine on the Rifle Mentioned. AS a Matter of fact I would recomend one, because Leupold just started making them, and is really trying to make a good impressoin with them. So they are well made American Scopes. For the Ziess Scopes, I dont like them, yes they are clear, but they have very poor eye relief, I would not want one for that reason.

June 20, 2010, 11:01 AM	#14
IDAHO83501 Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2009 Location: Lewiston, Idaho Posts: 337	The .25-06 is a flat shooting round that is great for long distance shooting. Depending on your budget, Redfield will be fine, but if you want to shoot in low light or at a great distance, why not see what you are shooting at? A 4-16 X 50 Nikon Monarch, Pentax, Burris, are just a few that offer EXCELLENT lens coatings for low light and offer more magnification than your standard 3-9x40 and such.

June 20, 2010, 03:35 PM	#15
gunmoney Senior Member Join Date: June 3, 2005 Posts: 381	For their price range the Zeiss Conquest are about as goo as it gets. The equivalent Leupolds are over priced and over rated. Yes I have owned and used both.

June 20, 2010, 03:39 PM	#16
James R. Burke Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2009 Location: U.P. of Mich/Quinnesec Posts: 1,897	I am also with Abel on that one. Dont think you could go wrong with either.