Looking for a good hunting scope.

[schonertod]

Hey guys I'm looking for a good scope under 300 for a 30-06. I am wanting at least a 4-12x40.

Im looking at the Redfield revolution and couldnt really find any one on here talking about them. I did do a search for redfield red field revolution nothing so I'm asking if any one has any experience with them. Yes the online reviews say good things about them but im not looking for opinions of paid writers if you get my drift.

heres a link to the scope im looking at.

http://www.opticsplanet.com/redfield-revolution-4-12x40mm-riflescope-matte-finish-4-plex-accu-range-reticle.html

im not stuck on this scope so im open to other options but i have to stay under 300+tax.

[schonertod]

Am I in the wrong section?

[negolien]

I got one for ya..

Try the Nikon Buckmaster 4.5x14 Mildot should come in around $250-300 and it's really a decent piece of glass for the $$$$. MSRP is always higher on the Nikon page. Just do a bing search and you can probably find onr for under $300. They also have the spot-on program which kicks ***..

http://www.nikonhunting.com/en/Nikon-Products/Scopes/index.page

The Buckmaster Scope page

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/Nikon-Products/Riflescopes/6469/Buckmasters-4.5-14x40-Side-Focus-Matte-Mildot.html

[OpticsPlanet]

You can't go wrong with a Revolution. I just put one on my Dad's model 70. It shoots great. That being said, you can't go wrong with Nikon either. The Buckmaster is also a fine scope and the Spot On Tech only adds to its adaptability and versitility.

Chase B.

[repomanNWP]

I have a Nikon Buckmaster 3-9x40, with the BDC (bullet drop compensation) reticle on my Remington 700 and really like it for hunting. The BDC allows me to zero at 100, but shoot anything out to 400 or 500yds with no knob adjustments. It's decent quality, rugged, and is light enough to carry around all day. Also well under $300 when I bought mine.

[schonertod]

I like the focus knob on the nikon.

[GeoffLinder]

If you are not shooting at 400+ yards anything beyond 10x is a waste of money. Look at getting a 1.5-6 or 8x or 2-8x, or at most a 3-9 or 10x. If you are shooting much under 100 yards, the low power setting will be invaluable for field of view. If you spend too much time finding something in a scope, it will be gone before you find it.

Most important thing in a hunting scope is objective size for better light gathering in dim light. 40mm better than 30mm etc...

Next most important things are ruggedness and being impervious to fogging in humidity and cold.

I would recommend not trying to go cheap. Leupold and Nikon are very good choices in the reasonably priced range.

[schonertod]

I had a 3-9 on my old rifle and at 100+ yards it felt like my target was to small. I like spending most of my time over 100 yards

[gregr266]

I love my nikon buckmaster..

[GeoffLinder]

I had a 3-9 on my old rifle and at 100+ yards it felt like my target was to small. I like spending most of my time over 100 yards

I can easily see .30 bullet holes in a target at 200 yards with 10x magnification so whats the issue with seeing something clearly at 100 yards with 9x? Good optics present a crisp image and 9x at 100 yards means a 6" object is appearing to you as though it is 54" in size, that's 4 and a half feet.

Magnification beyond 4-5x at 100-200 yards does nothing for accuracy, you can shoot exact same group size to same POI at 5x mag as at 10x mag at 200 yards, only difference is that it will take twice as long to do so at 10x mag because your hold wobble is exaggerated and you spend wasted time "dressing up" the hold.

This is at a shooting range using bench or prone with solid rest. In a field position when hunting the situation is usually worse with regards to solidity of rest.

As far as size of target with 9x mag at 100 yards. If you can't make a 2-3 MOA (2-3") shot at 100 yards with iron sights, then you aren't gonna' be able to make the same shot reliably with a scope in a field position either.

You should be able to put a shot inside 3-4" at 100 yards no matter what the magnification or you probably shouldn't be hunting as you will do the animal a disservice by wounding instead of making a clean kill. You owe the prey a clean first shot, every time. This has more to do with your marksmanship and ability to hold properly and not that much to do with the optics used.

[ExtremeX]

Vortex Diamondback series is another option in your price range.

I very much like my Vortex scopes too; I have owned various scopes from their Diamondback to their PST line…

[schonertod]

Geofflinder as I agree with some of what u said i have to disagree with most of it. Everybodys eyes are different just because u can see a .30 hole 200 yards away doesnt mean every one can. And thats where the optics come into play. I will agree that u dont want to cheep on the glass which I know was a problem on my last scope I owned but you dont have to spend a fortune on one either. I grew up shooting irons from a marlin 3030 lever and know people who cant hit crap with irons but could pick the flys off a horses *** with a scope. Shooting is very personal and each piece has to be picked by the user.

You sound very educated and experienced but seem closed minded in some aspects and I mean no disrespect just my opinion.

[GeoffLinder]

Geofflinder as I agree with some of what u said i have to disagree with most of it. Everybodys eyes are different just because u can see a .30 hole 200 yards away doesnt mean every one can. And thats where the optics come into play. I will agree that u dont want to cheep on the glass which I know was a problem on my last scope I owned but you dont have to spend a fortune on one either. I grew up shooting irons from a marlin 3030 lever and know people who cant hit crap with irons but could pick the flys off a horses *** with a scope. Shooting is very personal and each piece has to be picked by the user.

You sound very educated and experienced but seem closed minded in some aspects and I mean no disrespect just my opinion.

Not closed minded in any way, just know the realities of shooting in the field versus from a bench. More magnification only serves to make it harder to hold cleanly unless the support is rock solid. My eyes are not great, I'm 56 years old, but at 10x mag anyone can see .30 caliber holes in a high contrast target.

I have walked close-in brush country for deer and sat hunkered over 500 yard wide clear cuts with a solid position. The first demands low power for snap shooting, the latter has served me best using 5-8x magnification at the very most. If I am scouting a large clearing, I use binoculars or a spotting scope as it's impolite to use a scope on a rifle to survey an area in case you lay eyes on another hunter.

Always best to crank mag up only as far as needed to place a shot, any more really doesn't help IME. In tactical LD type competitions, I have gotten 1st round hits out to 800 yards on 1-2 MOA steel targets from field positions and I have never cranked mag up beyond 7-8x to do so. To this end I have always felt that a 3-10x with a very large objective for light gathering is pretty much the ideal scope for hunting across a wide range of terrain.

Eye relief, clarity of optic and lack of parallax are very important in a variable. Nikon and Leupold satisfy these requirements at a reasonable price point.

Something I totally disagree with is the choice of anything that has more than 3 to 3.5x for it's lowest mag setting for hunting. If you have ever been stuck trying to find and track something quickly that is under 50 yards away with a 4.5x you will know what I mean

Just my .02

[Whiterabbit]

I suggest, if you get a redfield, that you get the model that's made in Oregon. You are buying a leupold without the price. The one that's made in China? I'd avoid that one.

[schonertod]

From what I have read all Redfields are made in Oregon