Scope question

[SignorSchnitzel]

hey guys, I bought my new sps varmint, now comes the decision of what scope to get, im really interested in the mueller eraticator, which leupold would be good for varmint, and how about burris? and is there a good sight with scope prices?


thanks

[billy]

SWFA Incorporated

[lefty o]

set yourself a budget, then search for the scope. for all around general varminting, id go for something in the neighborhood of 6.5-20X with either a varmint reticle, or mil dot reticle. the leupold vxIII is a good choice, but for less money the busnell elite 3200/4200 series are every bit as good, and i personally believe slightly better.

[kregg]

I use a BSA SWEET .223 6x9x40. I think if my memory serves me correctly,
it cost around $125.00. I absolutely love it! I also have a Leupold 6x9x40.
It is a great scope also, but cost alot more money.

[ShawnF]

Hey kregg, how close is the bdc on that sweet .223?

[samuel]

Originally Posted by kregg

I use a BSA SWEET .223 6x9x40. I think if my memory serves me correctly,
it cost around $125.00. I absolutely love it! I also have a Leupold 6x9x40.
It is a great scope also, but cost alot more money.

Thought I had heard of all of them but I never heard of a 6x9x40,sure you dont mean 3x9x40?I agree with LeftyO on a 6.5x20 for daylight hours but like something like 2.5x7 or 3x9 for dawn and dusk hunting. sam.

[kregg]

Sorry guys! It is a 6-18x40. And the Leupold is a 3-9x40. I dont want to sound stupid Shawn but what is bdc?

[killer]

Most of my scopes are Leupold...not that they're brighter than others but the custom service, specifically, reticle changes is what I like. I have also dropped binocs out of trees and they were fixed no questions asked, so lifetime warr means lifetime. They didn't ask if I was original owner (which I was) or any question how I cracked them, they just fixed them.

The reason I bring up reticle changes is when you hit age 40 most guys start to lose some up close focus. When you hit 50 you start to turn out the adjustable eye piece of the scope to where there's no more adjustment left and if you don't have an AO either the crosshairs are pretty much worthless. I suppose one can use cheaters but than you lose your long range vision if you have to pull your head back quick.

I do wear prescription glasses but I never got the up close vision back I had with my younger eyes, it's only a certain bracket of good focus. It just sucks with scopes using glasses as far as I'm concerned. My long range vision is still good so I prefer hunting/shooting with no glasses.

A quick fix is the Leupold heavy crosshair. You'll get a complete going over of the scope and fresh nitrogen put in it with a big fat crisp crosshair to last another 20 years? Hopefully by that time my dang medical will cover the new fangled eye surgery out on the market. Not counting on it though.

One of my varmint scopes is the Leupold basic 12x varmint with what they called the "varmint duplex." It's basically a medium thin duplex. I can't really hold much more magnification very well, it just gets too shaky. For some reason that scope is still working fine with original crosshairs but that one has both an AO and adjustable eye piece.

So in conclusion why I recommend Leupold:

1) warranty
2) reticle changes available and or other scope custom work

I think the 12x varmint Leupold is around $500.00 maybe less if you ferret out some sales somewhere.

Wow...have prices gone up or what on stuff. Glad I bought what I did when I did.

[rckymtnboy]

I have a Remington 700 SPS VT and for glass, I took Billy's recommendation of Mueller scopes. It's a great combination, and a lot cheaper than Leupold if you're on a budget. I own several Leupold scopes, but I'm finding the Muellers are just as good, in several areas, for a fraction of the cost. 6.5-20x is a good scope for varmint hunting, and a varmint reticle is always nice to help see those little buggers behind the crosshairs.

[rdale501]

A good rule of thumb, on scopes, is to get the best one you can afford. Thats what I have done and haven't been sorry yet. Some of my scopes cost me more than the rifle they are on. I like Leupold and Burris the best. Although I do have a Tasco that was just going to be temp. and has found a perminate home on my .204 Ruger.

[ShawnF]

bdc= bullett drop compensation (compensator) the adjustment for yardage provided with the scope. You don't sound dumb, its a term i learned not that long ago.

[kregg]

Shawn. On the BSA scope it is 100yds to 400yds. It has 3 turrets for 50, 55 and 62 grain bullets.

[ShawnF]

Kregg how accurate is the bdc system on it? if you set it for 250yds are you gonna hit dead on at 250?

[kregg]

Shawn, I sighted mine in at 100yds. Then moved back to 200 yds and it was
shooting 2in. groups. My buddy has the same scope and he can do the same thing at 400yds. But he shoots alot more than I do.

[soonerborn]

Leupold - waste of money
Sightron - great
Bushnell - pretty good
Burris - great
Nikon - waste of money
Simmons - junk
Tasco - junk
Zeiss - overpriced
Swarvarski - (sp?) overpriced
Kalinka - havent got to look through one but I want one
Nightforce - awesome but again overpriced
BSA - junk

Just my opinion, I would go with Sightron SII, Bushnell 4200 or Burris Signature Select/Black Diamond.

try buds gun shop and make me pukebay also

Again I aint trying to step on anybody's toes, or bash their choice of scope, this is just my opinion.

[lefty o]

i have no problems with your opinions, i dont 100% agree with them, but like you when i believe a scope is junk i say so.

[Marrjob]

Sooner, I'm jumping in here late but read all the previous posts on this thread. I have a Redfield 3x9x40 on my Ruger 77 in 308 and various brands on other weapons. The Redfield was what I thought the top of the line when I bought it a couple of decades ago, $200 then Where does the Redfield fall in your list of scopes?

[ShawnF]

I have shot through a few bsa's, and found them to be reliable, although not as clear as most, and the ones i have shot the field of view was not great, I think with the bdc, the sweet series would make a good scope, I do not own one, but would love to give them a chance.

[billy]

Originally Posted by Marrjob

Sooner, I'm jumping in here late but read all the previous posts on this thread. I have a Redfield 3x9x40 on my Ruger 77 in 308 and various brands on other weapons. The Redfield was what I thought the top of the line when I bought it a couple of decades ago, $200 then Where does the Redfield fall in your list of scopes?

ive got a redfield wide view from the 70's?
anyway it's an old scope.
and it is a good scope.
they should make more like em!

the mueller is a great buy!

[soonerborn]

Originally Posted by Marrjob

Sooner, I'm jumping in here late but read all the previous posts on this thread. I have a Redfield 3x9x40 on my Ruger 77 in 308 and various brands on other weapons. The Redfield was what I thought the top of the line when I bought it a couple of decades ago, $200 then Where does the Redfield fall in your list of scopes?

The only experience that I have with Redfield is looking through some a few years back. Not good. But I have heard that they were excellent optics before the 90s and sometime in that decade the quality slipped.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but my understanding of the Optics world is that very, very few actually make the glass. So a scope company designs a good line of scopes, orders top quality glass, puts together a great scope and builds a reputation for quality. Then a few years down the line the company grows management changes and becomes more bottom dollar orientated than quality and they get cheaper glass, move the manufacturing to a cheaper location, maximize profits and live on the old reputation. Not a good recipe for long term success but it happens. Nikon comes to mind. So what may be good today may not be so good next year. This is why you hear alot of "I have such and such and its great" followed by someone elses "I bought that last month and it sucked" (well that and about 80% of stuff posted on the internet is BS).

Like I said though I have read some great reviews on the older Redfields.

I am no scope expert but I have taken some time (and money) to try out several. The things that are important to me may not be as important to someone else. I used to use cheap scopes but when I started shooting more I quickly learned to not waste my money on them. I used to think spending over 200 on a scope was crazy, now I think spending less is a waste (unless its a 22, airgun etc.).

What I look for is
1. Ability to hold zero. (cant test without buying it but cheap scopes fail here very hard). Also I like to see a scope return to zero when I adjust the turrets for different bullet weights.
2. Clearness. Most all the better scopes pass this well enough for me. I really wont argue about which brand is brighter or clearer than the other because really there just isnt that much difference.
3. Eye relief and exit pupil. I dont like getting a scope jammed into my eye and I really cant stand a small exit pupil on a scope. Its annoying and hard to quickly find a target.

Thats really it for me. If I am paying 300, 400 or 500 bucks for a scope I am gonna be careful not to drop it or bang it around so I havent ever really found out which ones are the toughest.

I like sightrons because the are the cheapest ones currently available that do well in all 3 of those things I list and they have a lifetime warranty (although I have never had a chance to test it).

Here is a good place to get some great info on optics
The Optics Talk Forums