Scope Question

aprubio · August 17, 2007, 10:16 AM

I have a Burris Fullfield II 3x9x40 on a .35 marlin and am real happy with it. Great FOV and draws in a lot of light. I'm upgrading to a Browning BAR .300 win mag and want to get a larger scope (maybe along the lines of a 4x15x50 on it). The Burris model that fits those dimensions runs about $500. For that type of money, any suggestions on a different brand (Zeiss, Leopold, etc.) that would be a better buy? More bang for the buck?
Thanks,
Armando

jbirdhaffield · August 17, 2007, 12:28 PM

I have a NIB Leupold scope that has never been used. It is the Rifleman line and is 4-12X40. Excellent scope and I paid over $275 not including shipping. If interested I will sell it to you. I can save you shipping cost and sell it for $250 which includes shipping cost. Call me (772)979-0287 Thanks, Jason
Otherwise Nikon makes a great scope that came out this year. It is the Buckmaster 6-18X40 with the latest BDC for around $325 plus shipping. Nikon makes GREAT products as well as Leupold.

Art Eatman · August 17, 2007, 01:18 PM

Considering that I've killed deer to 350 yards with a 3x9 set on 3X, and killed prairie dogs to some 300+ yards with 7 X and 9X, I'm sorta conservative about how much weight and money is stuck on top of a rifle.

Art

Bottom Gun · August 17, 2007, 02:41 PM

Art is telling you right. IMHO, the scope you are considering is too much glass for a hunting rifle.

I would also re-think the 50MM objective as well. It only adds weight and bulk to your rifle. A 40 MM objective is plenty.

My two cents. . . . . . . .

T. O'Heir · August 17, 2007, 03:07 PM

"...along the lines of..." The closest Zeiss is a 4.5-14x50. It weighs 20.45 oz and is 14" long with a 25.5-8.84 ft FOV at 100 yards. They run in the neighbourhood of $800US. Great optics from Zeiss, but you pay for it.
The same magnification Leupold runs about a grand. No dinner, kiss or sweet nothings whispered in your ear either.
You don't need a high magnification scope for a .300 mag hunting rifle. Another 3X-9X-40mm Burris will do nicely. It runs around $300 with great optics.

prime8 · August 17, 2007, 05:48 PM

I got mine from RW Snyders gunsmithing in Manning Iowa. Good people!!

http://www.rwsnydergunsmithing.com/scopes.asp

http://www.falconoptics.com/4-14x42.php

http://www.snipercentral.com/falcon.htm

I absolutely love mine!!

FirstFreedom · August 17, 2007, 06:18 PM

There's two reasons why I wouldn't put that much scope on that rifle. A) It's a hunting rifle, and that is too much magnification for a hunting rifle. It's also too big/heavy for a hunter rifle with the 50mm objective, though that's not as big of a deal as the magnification, since you might not be carrying it a long ways, if you're an "ATV hunter". I'd go 3.5-10 or maybe 4-12 max on that, and B) Lightweight rifle + high magnification (short eye relief) + magnum round = scopeeye; not fun. I think the same Burris would serve you well on both rifles. Or better yet, slap a 1-4, 1.5-5, or 2-7x32 on the levergun, and put the Burris on the new magnum, and then you'd be cooking with butane.

wolverine350 · August 17, 2007, 08:51 PM

The Burris is pretty good

Brad Clodfelter · August 17, 2007, 09:43 PM

I agree with what some of the others have said here. You don't need a 50mm scope for one thing. Just more weight and harder to look through as naturally without jacking your head up to look through. I for one don't like 50mm scopes. A 3-9-40mm is really a plenty unless you are hunting in places you will take 200yds shots are farther. I will recommend a scope for you. A Nikon Monarch 3-9-40mm. One of the best scopes out there in my opinion for the money. Super bright, and crystal clear. You can hunt up to last bit of light with this scope. It just flat out transmits what little light is available through the scope lenses.

Brad

aprubio · August 20, 2007, 10:50 AM

Thanks for all the input. Followed the good advice and picked up a 4.5x14.42 Burris this weekend. Not much bigger than the 3x9x40 and weight is about the same. $399 at Bass with a free Garmin E-trex GPS.

davlandrum · August 20, 2007, 11:25 AM

Looks like you already made your choice, but big +1 on not needing a 50mm Objective lens. I made the mistake of putting one on a 30-06 (Leupold) and never liked the way it sits on the rifle. It does let in an ungodly amount of light, but I would not do it again.

August 17, 2007, 10:16 AM	#1
aprubio Member Join Date: November 28, 2006 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 18	Scope Question I have a Burris Fullfield II 3x9x40 on a .35 marlin and am real happy with it. Great FOV and draws in a lot of light. I'm upgrading to a Browning BAR .300 win mag and want to get a larger scope (maybe along the lines of a 4x15x50 on it). The Burris model that fits those dimensions runs about $500. For that type of money, any suggestions on a different brand (Zeiss, Leopold, etc.) that would be a better buy? More bang for the buck? Thanks, Armando

August 17, 2007, 12:28 PM	#2
jbirdhaffield Senior Member Join Date: June 22, 2006 Location: South FL. Posts: 113	New scope I have a NIB Leupold scope that has never been used. It is the Rifleman line and is 4-12X40. Excellent scope and I paid over $275 not including shipping. If interested I will sell it to you. I can save you shipping cost and sell it for $250 which includes shipping cost. Call me (772)979-0287 Thanks, Jason Otherwise Nikon makes a great scope that came out this year. It is the Buckmaster 6-18X40 with the latest BDC for around $325 plus shipping. Nikon makes GREAT products as well as Leupold.

August 17, 2007, 05:48 PM	#6
prime8 Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2006 Location: In a tent in Iowa Posts: 434	Merlin 4-14x42 by Falcon optics!!! I got mine from RW Snyders gunsmithing in Manning Iowa. Good people!! http://www.rwsnydergunsmithing.com/scopes.asp http://www.falconoptics.com/4-14x42.php http://www.snipercentral.com/falcon.htm I absolutely love mine!! __________________ X

August 17, 2007, 08:51 PM	#8
wolverine350 Senior Member Join Date: November 27, 2006 Location: ponca city ok Posts: 746	The Burris is pretty good __________________ CVA Kodiak Magnum .50 cal Marlin 981T 22LR Bolt Action Remington 770 Bolt Action 270 Thompson Center Encore 243

August 17, 2007, 01:18 PM	#3
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	Considering that I've killed deer to 350 yards with a 3x9 set on 3X, and killed prairie dogs to some 300+ yards with 7 X and 9X, I'm sorta conservative about how much weight and money is stuck on top of a rifle. Art

August 17, 2007, 02:41 PM	#4
Bottom Gun Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 1998 Location: Arizona Territory Posts: 1,092	Art is telling you right. IMHO, the scope you are considering is too much glass for a hunting rifle. I would also re-think the 50MM objective as well. It only adds weight and bulk to your rifle. A 40 MM objective is plenty. My two cents. . . . . . . .

August 17, 2007, 03:07 PM	#5
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	"...along the lines of..." The closest Zeiss is a 4.5-14x50. It weighs 20.45 oz and is 14" long with a 25.5-8.84 ft FOV at 100 yards. They run in the neighbourhood of $800US. Great optics from Zeiss, but you pay for it. The same magnification Leupold runs about a grand. No dinner, kiss or sweet nothings whispered in your ear either. You don't need a high magnification scope for a .300 mag hunting rifle. Another 3X-9X-40mm Burris will do nicely. It runs around $300 with great optics.

August 17, 2007, 06:18 PM	#7
FirstFreedom Junior member Join Date: May 31, 2004 Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A. Posts: 12,451	There's two reasons why I wouldn't put that much scope on that rifle. A) It's a hunting rifle, and that is too much magnification for a hunting rifle. It's also too big/heavy for a hunter rifle with the 50mm objective, though that's not as big of a deal as the magnification, since you might not be carrying it a long ways, if you're an "ATV hunter". I'd go 3.5-10 or maybe 4-12 max on that, and B) Lightweight rifle + high magnification (short eye relief) + magnum round = scopeeye; not fun. I think the same Burris would serve you well on both rifles. Or better yet, slap a 1-4, 1.5-5, or 2-7x32 on the levergun, and put the Burris on the new magnum, and then you'd be cooking with butane.

August 17, 2007, 09:43 PM	#9
Brad Clodfelter Registration in progress Join Date: January 26, 2007 Posts: 925	I agree with what some of the others have said here. You don't need a 50mm scope for one thing. Just more weight and harder to look through as naturally without jacking your head up to look through. I for one don't like 50mm scopes. A 3-9-40mm is really a plenty unless you are hunting in places you will take 200yds shots are farther. I will recommend a scope for you. A Nikon Monarch 3-9-40mm. One of the best scopes out there in my opinion for the money. Super bright, and crystal clear. You can hunt up to last bit of light with this scope. It just flat out transmits what little light is available through the scope lenses. Brad

August 20, 2007, 10:50 AM	#10
aprubio Member Join Date: November 28, 2006 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 18	Thanks for all the input. Followed the good advice and picked up a 4.5x14.42 Burris this weekend. Not much bigger than the 3x9x40 and weight is about the same. $399 at Bass with a free Garmin E-trex GPS.

August 20, 2007, 11:25 AM	#11
davlandrum Senior Member Join Date: February 27, 2006 Location: Lane County Oregon Posts: 2,547	Looks like you already made your choice, but big +1 on not needing a 50mm Objective lens. I made the mistake of putting one on a 30-06 (Leupold) and never liked the way it sits on the rifle. It does let in an ungodly amount of light, but I would not do it again.