PDA

View Full Version : need a bit more help with the scopes


joemama
09-15-2008, 12:39 AM
ok so I've narrowed down what I want. I would prefer a 2-14x or similar x 50mm. but with an illuminated reticule. I really wanted to go with a leupold but I cant find anything in my price range. The most I can really afford without really really pissing off the wife is about 600 bucks. and thats pushing it. I was hoping to get a leupold but only because of its brand name i must say. I have no experience what so ever with scopes or scope brands, so if someone could help me out by listing say best to worst by brand that would help me a bit in my search. I did find some cheap scopes that have what I want but I'm afraid thats just what they are... cheap. I've already put 1300 bucks into my rifle and dont really want to skimp here but I kinda have to. I plan on range shooting and blowing up squirrels with this rifle. please help me find the perfect scope as i am having a bit of a hard time choosing one...

aplinker
09-15-2008, 12:44 AM
Why do you think you want an illuminated reticle? You'll be spending money on something that won't really help.

I think you must have typed something wrong, since 2-14X doesn't exist outside my dreams.

50mm isn't the way to go if you're buying cheaper glass - bigger lenses at low price mean a LOT lower quality.

I'd suggest the Nikon Buckmark 4.5-14X with mil-dots. Save the rest and upgrade down the road.

You could also go with the Millet TRS-1.

joemama
09-15-2008, 1:01 AM
well I was trying to put a range with that not an exact magnification. I saw a 2x-10x somewhere. I was kinda going for the 50mm for looks more than performance and i figured it would make things lighter and more visible. I kinda have a hard time with the dark on dark so like a ground squirrel at 200 yards in some star thissel with a black reticule over it is just a bit harder for me to distinguish. I havent used a whole lot of scopes though so maybe it was just that one time. I shot my buddies rifle with the red and green illuminated sight and it seemed easier to see the sight and the target. but that was at the range and only 1 time. And I kinda feel bad putting a cheap scope on a nice rifle. Its my pride and joy and i want it to be perfect :) Lol I'm having a harder time picking the scope than i did the rifle.

joemama
09-15-2008, 1:07 AM
I also need something to fit my rifle. Its the 16" CMMG Medcon upper w/ an A2 stock. I'm thinking a 12" scope would fit perfect... I'm guessing the scope i'm searching for doesnt exist though so I'm def open to suggestions.

I'll check that one out, thanks for the advice uclaplinker. I got the midlength upper like you suggested a while back. Cant wait to try it out. I just need to pick out a freaking scope now.

rksimple
09-15-2008, 7:39 AM
+1 on the Nikon. For <600 bucks you're not going to find a decent scope with an illuminated ret, and moreover, its not going to help you for what you want. If you do want a loopy, check out the 56120. CS Gunworks has them for 619 with a mildot. And don't go by looks. You may end up dissapointed in the end.

a1fabweld
09-15-2008, 2:23 PM
I'm definately a scope rookie but in my research over the last year or so, I've found that the Nikon Monarch, Burris Fullfield, & Bushnell Elite 3200 & 4200 series get great reviews. I was at a local gun shop last week which has a pretty good variety of scopes from Simmons to S&B. The very knowledgable gentleman behind the counter basically told me to buy what works best for me regardless of price or popularity. I held a $2000 Schmit & Bender (sp?), Leupold, Bushnell 3200 & 4200, Burris Fullfield, Nikon Monarch & a Trijicon. The only one that marginally stood out of the bunch was The S&B. It was a little brighter than the rest. TO ME, I could not see $1000 worth of difference from the Burris I purchased vs. the high end Leupold. I really wanted to see the difference as I figured it would be black & white. I asked the counterman to please explain to me the difference I should be seeing from a big name scope vs. a not so big name scope. Maybe my eyes are bad, but I couldn't justify the price difference. He did say that in darker situations, the spendy scopes are brighter. For my daytime range sessions, I figured the Burris I purchased would serve it's purpose well.

aplinker
09-15-2008, 2:32 PM
Glass isn't all you pay for with a good scope. Also, what you "see" under good conditions isn't the same as what you'd see when in use.

Its ability to hold zero, repeatable adjustments, quality of build, etc. are of equal import to what you can see.

Differences in the field will be pretty substantial under non-ideal conditions, but a well-made, moderate priced scope will do 70-90% of what a top scope will do. Some of that top 10-30% is absolutely necessary to some people (tactical shooters, mil).

Warranties cost money, too.

I'm definately a scope rookie but in my research over the last year or so, I've found that the Nikon Monarch, Burris Fullfield, & Bushnell Elite 3200 & 4200 series get great reviews. I was at a local gun shop last week which has a pretty good variety of scopes from Simmons to S&B. The very knowledgable gentleman behind the counter basically told me to buy what works best for me regardless of price or popularity. I held a $2000 Schmit & Bender (sp?), Leupold, Bushnell 3200 & 4200, Burris Fullfield, Nikon Monarch & a Trijicon. The only one that marginally stood out of the bunch was The S&B. It was a little brighter than the rest. TO ME, I could not see $1000 worth of difference from the Burris I purchased vs. the high end Leupold. I really wanted to see the difference as I figured it would be black & white. I asked the counterman to please explain to me the difference I should be seeing from a big name scope vs. a not so big name scope. Maybe my eyes are bad, but I couldn't justify the price difference. He did say that in darker situations, the spendy scopes are brighter. For my daytime range sessions, I figured the Burris I purchased would serve it's purpose well.

rksimple
09-15-2008, 3:47 PM
I'm definately a scope rookie but in my research over the last year or so, I've found that the Nikon Monarch, Burris Fullfield, & Bushnell Elite 3200 & 4200 series get great reviews. I was at a local gun shop last week which has a pretty good variety of scopes from Simmons to S&B. The very knowledgable gentleman behind the counter basically told me to buy what works best for me regardless of price or popularity. I held a $2000 Schmit & Bender (sp?), Leupold, Bushnell 3200 & 4200, Burris Fullfield, Nikon Monarch & a Trijicon. The only one that marginally stood out of the bunch was The S&B. It was a little brighter than the rest. TO ME, I could not see $1000 worth of difference from the Burris I purchased vs. the high end Leupold. I really wanted to see the difference as I figured it would be black & white. I asked the counterman to please explain to me the difference I should be seeing from a big name scope vs. a not so big name scope. Maybe my eyes are bad, but I couldn't justify the price difference. He did say that in darker situations, the spendy scopes are brighter. For my daytime range sessions, I figured the Burris I purchased would serve it's purpose well.

Looking through scopes in a gunstore is a poor way to compare, at best, unless you're comparing reticles, knobs, etc. It's just a good way to get a feel for what the bugger looks like. You may never see the 1k difference; many never do. I've done just as well in the past at some matches with my $150 3200 10x as I have with my 5-25 S&B. But I've done much better, on average, with the S&B. Little things like seeing holes in the white at 600 yards, futzing with magnification and never having to worry if my reticle is calibrated, dead nuts reliability and repeatability, etc. have helped me get a few points here and there. Often times, a few points here and there add up to many positions in the standings. To me, the extra 2800+ was worth it. Now I don't have to second guess my equipment. I know exactly whose fault it was when I miss. Not to mention the added piece of mind that your equipment is less likely to fail when you're at a match or class hundreds, if not thousands of miles from home. When your scope breaks at that $1400 a week class in Texas, well that turns out to be a REALLY expensive scope.

a1fabweld
09-15-2008, 8:22 PM
Looking through scopes in a gunstore is a poor way to compare, at best, unless you're comparing reticles, knobs, etc. It's just a good way to get a feel for what the bugger looks like. You may never see the 1k difference; many never do. I've done just as well in the past at some matches with my $150 3200 10x as I have with my 5-25 S&B. But I've done much better, on average, with the S&B. Little things like seeing holes in the white at 600 yards, futzing with magnification and never having to worry if my reticle is calibrated, dead nuts reliability and repeatability, etc. have helped me get a few points here and there. Often times, a few points here and there add up to many positions in the standings. To me, the extra 2800+ was worth it. Now I don't have to second guess my equipment. I know exactly whose fault it was when I miss. Not to mention the added piece of mind that your equipment is less likely to fail when you're at a match or class hundreds, if not thousands of miles from home. When your scope breaks at that $1400 a week class in Texas, well that turns out to be a REALLY expensive scope.
I fully understand what your'e saying. But, not everyone is in the market for a match grade scope or shooting high dollar classes. I'm just saying that in general on forums, if a guy asks for a recommendation for a midgrade plinker scope, alot of people say that you absolutely have to have a $1k+ scope or don't bother with one. It's quite discouraging for guys new to scopes/longer range shooting. Ask me how I know. Don't discount the great less expensive scopes offered on the market. In particular, I read a ton of reviews on the Burris Fullfield regarding hunters dropping them off their horses, bouncing around in the back of their Jeeps, etc...& they still held zero. Great reviews on the glass as well. JOEMAMA, I saw you want a Leupold primarily because of the name. There are a TON of scope yuppies out there that only run them for that same reason. Some are my friends. If you blacked out all the labels & handed them 3 different scopes while asking them to pick the big money one, the results would be interesting. I'm not discrediting high end scopes or brands, just bringing a different perspective to light. Just to clarify, I'm not a scope expert. This is just my experience in a similar situation to JOEMAMA's. The Bushnell Elite 3200 10x fixed mentioned previously get's outstanding reviews. There's the Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9x40 which can be had for $250.

aplinker
09-15-2008, 8:42 PM
I fully understand what your'e saying. But, not everyone is in the market for a match grade scope or shooting high dollar classes. I'm just saying that in general on forums, if a guy asks for a recommendation for a midgrade plinker scope, alot of people say that you absolutely have to have a $1k+ scope or don't bother with one. It's quite discouraging for guys new to scopes/longer range shooting. Ask me how I know. Don't discount the great less expensive scopes offered on the market. In particular, I read a ton of reviews on the Burris Fullfield regarding hunters dropping them off their horses, bouncing around in the back of their Jeeps, etc...& they still held zero. Great reviews on the glass as well. JOEMAMA, I saw you want a Leupold primarily because of the name. There are a TON of scope yuppies out there that only run them for that same reason. Some are my friends. If you blacked out all the labels & handed them 3 different scopes while asking them to pick the big money one, the results would be interesting. I'm not discrediting high end scopes or brands, just bringing a different perspective to light. Just to clarify, I'm not a scope expert. This is just my experience in a similar situation to JOEMAMA's. The Bushnell Elite 3200 10x fixed mentioned previously get's outstanding reviews. There's the Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9x40 which can be had for $250.


3-9x isn't a bad magnification range for a 16" upper, but the OP seems more interested higher magnification.

I've used both those scopes. They both do very well, especially considering the price.

a1fabweld
09-15-2008, 9:03 PM
3-9x isn't a bad magnification range for a 16" upper, but the OP seems more interested higher magnification.

I've used both those scopes. They both do very well, especially considering the price.

My mistake. I overlooked that part.:) How about the Burris 4.5-14x42. I've seen them new for $260 or the Bushnell Elite 3200 4-12x40 for around that $.

rksimple
09-15-2008, 9:25 PM
I fully understand what your'e saying. But, not everyone is in the market for a match grade scope or shooting high dollar classes. I'm just saying that in general on forums, if a guy asks for a recommendation for a midgrade plinker scope, alot of people say that you absolutely have to have a $1k+ scope or don't bother with one. It's quite discouraging for guys new to scopes/longer range shooting. Ask me how I know. Don't discount the great less expensive scopes offered on the market. In particular, I read a ton of reviews on the Burris Fullfield regarding hunters dropping them off their horses, bouncing around in the back of their Jeeps, etc...& they still held zero. Great reviews on the glass as well. JOEMAMA, I saw you want a Leupold primarily because of the name. There are a TON of scope yuppies out there that only run them for that same reason. Some are my friends. If you blacked out all the labels & handed them 3 different scopes while asking them to pick the big money one, the results would be interesting. I'm not discrediting high end scopes or brands, just bringing a different perspective to light. Just to clarify, I'm not a scope expert. This is just my experience in a similar situation to JOEMAMA's. The Bushnell Elite 3200 10x fixed mentioned previously get's outstanding reviews. There's the Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9x40 which can be had for $250.

This is true. And for that reason, I recommended that $250 Nikon in my first post. Its killer for the price. Same with the 4200 bushnells. Like UCLA said, you can really get around 75% of the performance of top scopes for a fraction of the price. I always advocate people getting a cheaper, RELIABLE, scope in the beginning and put a few thousand rounds downrange with it. Then they usually have a better idea of what they really want in an optic.