BEST RIFLE SCOPE and size?

[mossyoak3d]

Opinions on best all around rifle scopes?

 

[stik]

you will get a different opinion from everybody that answers.
3-9x40 is the most popular for deer. brand is personal preference but you should spend as much as you can afford on good glass.

 

[Double-D-Team]

A wise old man told me once:

If you can't see it you can"t hit it....

He told me to buy the very best optic's I could afford. He also said you can take a cheep gun and put good optic's on it and make it shoot.

I use a 3x9x40 BDC by Nikon, just my choice.

 

[Anonymous]

bushnell banner 6-18x50 for me.at 300 yds.looks like your standing next to them:)

 

[rem270]

i like the nikon pro staff 3-9-40 and the simmons aetec
best scope for the money imo

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . . 6-18x50 for me.at 300 yds. looks like your standing next to them:)

But at 30 yards they make a clean get-away before you can find them in the scope. ;)

For most hunters and situations in Tennessee, the 3-9 variables seem to be the most popular, although I'd speculate a 2-7 variable might actually be better for many, especially if you hunt a lot in thickets and woods.

Just my opinion, but I think many hunters are handicapping themselves by choosing too much magnification relative to most of their hunting circumstances. A 2-7x scope set on 7x makes a 300-yard target look like 45 yards, yet still allows you to go to a huge field of view with 2x for those moving 30-yd shots in a pine thicket.

If you're not going above 9 or 10x magnification, the low-light-gathering ability of 40mm size objectives is usually large enough. At 7x and below, a 32 to 35mm objective is enough.

Other than that, spending more money usually means higher quality glass. Cheap glass will "glare" more in good light (especially bright sunlight) and not be as clear in low light or any light. But you don't have to spend a fortune to get decent quality glass. In the $150 price range, hard to beat a Burris Fullfield II 2-7 x 35mm or the 3-9 x 40mm. You might have to spend three times this to "see" a significant difference in the glass quality (which matters more on greater magnification scopes.)

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . . best scope for the money imo

The best scope for the money depends on how much money you have to spend on a scope. :)

I really like the Leupold VX-III, but not so sure it's the best thing going for what it costs, as in you might find a comparable scope for less money.

 

[redblood]

Depends on the rifle. A scope has to match the rifle in caliber to maintain function and balance. I have leupold 2.5-8x36 vx 3's on my lightweight rigs and bigger optics on heavier/longer guns. If I could have only 1 scope it would be a leupold vx 3 3.5-10x40. It is only about 12 oz, sleek and has has a small eye piece.

 

[redblood]

bushnell banner 6-18x50 for me.at 300 yds.looks like your standing next to them:)

That scope would be useless for most of my hunting setups. Its size and weight would overpower my lightweight rifles and 6 power is not low enough to obtain a large field of view in tight cover at traveling deer.the 18x would not be necssary for shoots inside 400 yards and I will never have to shoot that far except in rare and desperate situations. You must be hunting cotton fields in west tn in bright sunshine, because the higher magnification levels hurt light transmission via the exit pupil value. It may be the perfect scope for you, but probably not for most.

 

[TheLBLman]

If I could have only 1 scope it would be a leupold vx 3 3.5-10x40.

Great minds think alike! :grin:

That's exactly what I have mounted on the rifle I carry most!
And even at 10x, that 40mm objective still provides a visible target even in the last second of legal shooting time ---- good quality glass.

 

[redblood]

for sure wes, the vx 3's are great scopes, my brother (gun nut and avid reader) was telling me he read an article in which one of leupolds engineers said the 2.5-8X36 was the brightest scope they made, due to multi coatings and the low 2.5 X

 

[Kimberman]

I have 1.5-5, 1.75-6, 2-7, 2.5-8, (2) 3-9 and a 3-12. I think the 2.5-8 is about perfect for most shooting, with the 2-7 and 3-9 being close behind.

 

[Model70Man]

The best scope and size would definetly depend on the application you intend on using it for. I would never take a 4.5-14 scope on a hog hunt, but for for mule deer and pronghorn out west it would be my go to scope.

For the best hunting variable range I would have to go with a 2.5-8. It's smaller and lighter than the 3-9x40 and you really aren't losing any significant magnification.

 

[redblood]

2.5-8 is a great power range. The 36 mm mount nicely in low rings close to the line of bore, which is a great plus.

 

[Locksley]

you will get a different opinion from everybody that answers.
3-9x40 is the most popular for deer. brand is personal preference but you should spend as much as you can afford on good glass.

. . . . . 6-18x50 for me.at 300 yds. looks like your standing next to them:)

But at 30 yards they make a clean get-away before you can find them in the scope. ;)

For most hunters and situations in Tennessee, the 3-9 variables seem to be the most popular, although I'd speculate a 2-7 variable might actually be better for many, especially if you hunt a lot in thickets and woods.

Just my opinion, but I think many hunters are handicapping themselves by choosing too much magnification relative to most of their hunting circumstances. A 2-7x scope set on 7x makes a 300-yard target look like 45 yards, yet still allows you to go to a huge field of view with 2x for those moving 30-yd shots in a pine thicket.

If you're not going above 9 or 10x magnification, the low-light-gathering ability of 40mm size objectives is usually large enough. At 7x and below, a 32 to 35mm objective is enough.

Other than that, spending more money usually means higher quality glass. Cheap glass will "glare" more in good light (especially bright sunlight) and not be as clear in low light or any light. But you don't have to spend a fortune to get decent quality glass. In the $150 price range, hard to beat a Burris Fullfield II 2-7 x 35mm or the 3-9 x 40mm. You might have to spend three times this to "see" a significant difference in the glass quality (which matters more on greater magnification scopes.)

. . . . . best scope for the money imo

The best scope for the money depends on how much money you have to spend on a scope. :)

I really like the Leupold VX-III, but not so sure it's the best thing going for what it costs, as in you might find a comparable scope for less money.

I really like the Leupold VX-III 3x9x40 scope. The Redfield 3x9x40 is OK too.

 

[Anonymous]

. . . . . 6-18x50 for me.at 300 yds. looks like your standing next to them:)

But at 30 yards they make a clean get-away before you can find them in the scope. ;)

For most hunters and situations in Tennessee, the 3-9 variables seem to be the most popular, although I'd speculate a 2-7 variable might actually be better for many, especially if you hunt a lot in thickets and woods.

Just my opinion, but I think many hunters are handicapping themselves by choosing too much magnification relative to most of their hunting circumstances. A 2-7x scope set on 7x makes a 300-yard target look like 45 yards, yet still allows you to go to a huge field of view with 2x for those moving 30-yd shots in a pine thicket.

If you're not going above 9 or 10x magnification, the low-light-gathering ability of 40mm size objectives is usually large enough. At 7x and below, a 32 to 35mm objective is enough.

Other than that, spending more money usually means higher quality glass. Cheap glass will "glare" more in good light (especially bright sunlight) and not be as clear in low light or any light. But you don't have to spend a fortune to get decent quality glass. In the $150 price range, hard to beat a Burris Fullfield II 2-7 x 35mm or the 3-9 x 40mm. You might have to spend three times this to "see" a significant difference in the glass quality (which matters more on greater magnification scopes.)

thats why you set the focus at 100yds and dont use the zoom unless you need it.like the 50mm lens too.lets you see more and it is a dusk till dawn scope that gathers all the light form the area for those late in the evening scopes.136 bucks at walmart.cant beat it.PERIOD!why pay more?

 

[Anonymous]

bushnell banner 6-18x50 for me.at 300 yds.looks like your standing next to them:)

That scope would be useless for most of my hunting setups. Its size and weight would overpower my lightweight rifles and 6 power is not low enough to obtain a large field of view in tight cover at traveling deer.the 18x would not be necssary for shoots inside 400 yards and I will never have to shoot that far except in rare and desperate situations. You must be hunting cotton fields in west tn in bright sunshine, because the higher magnification levels hurt light transmission via the exit pupil value. It may be the perfect scope for you, but probably not for most.

ive used this rifle to kill deer at 30 yards and used it this year to watch clear cuts.if you know how to use the scope it wont matter.it is perfect for me and every shot it has made has brought meat home.this scope rocks for the money and imho is the best scope for 150 bucks or less.banner all the way baby!

 

[Model70Man]

. . . . . 6-18x50 for me.at 300 yds. looks like your standing next to them:)

But at 30 yards they make a clean get-away before you can find them in the scope. ;)

For most hunters and situations in Tennessee, the 3-9 variables seem to be the most popular, although I'd speculate a 2-7 variable might actually be better for many, especially if you hunt a lot in thickets and woods.

Just my opinion, but I think many hunters are handicapping themselves by choosing too much magnification relative to most of their hunting circumstances. A 2-7x scope set on 7x makes a 300-yard target look like 45 yards, yet still allows you to go to a huge field of view with 2x for those moving 30-yd shots in a pine thicket.

If you're not going above 9 or 10x magnification, the low-light-gathering ability of 40mm size objectives is usually large enough. At 7x and below, a 32 to 35mm objective is enough.

Other than that, spending more money usually means higher quality glass. Cheap glass will "glare" more in good light (especially bright sunlight) and not be as clear in low light or any light. But you don't have to spend a fortune to get decent quality glass. In the $150 price range, hard to beat a Burris Fullfield II 2-7 x 35mm or the 3-9 x 40mm. You might have to spend three times this to "see" a significant difference in the glass quality (which matters more on greater magnification scopes.)

thats why you set the focus at 100yds and dont use the zoom unless you need it.like the 50mm lens too.lets you see more and it is a dusk till dawn scope that gathers all the light form the area for those late in the evening scopes.136 bucks at walmart.cant beat it.PERIOD!why pay more?

The 50mm lense does not let you see more as far as field of view is concerned.

 

[10mm4me]

I love the Leupold Rifleman 3-9x40 for deer.Affordable,tough,easy to work,clear as day.

 

[redblood]

Very little or no advantage of a 50 mm with a 1 inch tube. But the disadvantages: bulk, weight, higher mounting postion, gaudy appearance are real

 

[Anonymous]

nobody on this site can convince me that there is no advantage of a bigger scope.FAILED!appearance looks like a hard core sniper rifle.i dont mind the weight at all, its definately worth the gains it has over a 40mm.just for fun i looked at some leupold scopes and the cheapest one i could find is 299 bucks.where is the deal in that?i say buy what you can afford!ive saqw 70 dollar scopes walk all over 500 dollar scopes.its not the scope anyway,ITS THE SHOOTER!

 

[Anonymous]

Very little or no advantage of a 50 mm with a 1 inch tube. But the disadvantages: bulk, weight, higher mounting postion, gaudy appearance are real

oh yeah by the way, my savage 110 has stock mounts and stock rings and the 50mm fits just fine.it didnt have sights on it, so i didnt need the clearance.and i can fit my 40mm muzzleloader scope in it and bang it around.there is definitely more field of view with the 50. a side affect, my gun looks like a sniper rifle now, man i love it!!!

 

[Kimberman]

I havent seen any 70$ scopes that can "walk all over" a 200$ scope, much less a $500 scope. You are paying for a lifetime warranty, better quality glass with better coatings, better adjustments, 1 piece tube, waterproof/fogproof coatings and stronger internals. I would bet that your 70$ scope might have 1 or 2 of those things, but not all of them. You can do no wrong spending money on quality optics, but you can definately go wrong with a cheap scope, I know from experience. And while being a good shooter is important, a busted scope will turn the best shooter into the most inaccurate chump in the woods, I know from experience.

 

[redblood]

hard core snipers do not use cheap scopes. i promise you that. i am pretty sure they dont use bushnells either. no field of view advantage to a 50 mm, that is a fact you can verify in your cabelas or bass pro catalog. i own the high level pentax, burris, baush and lombs, leupolds. there is an advantage to premium optics. as far as appearance, i want people to notice the fine lines, checkering and european walnut of a crafted high end rifle. not the 2 liter coke bottle setting on top.

 

[Model70Man]

Drumstix,
You crach me up man. Sniper rifle.... You apparently haven't been hunting long enough to have a cheap scope fail on you.

Secondly, do you really scan fields with your scope?

 

[Anonymous]

crach?what does that mean?anyway, bullseye is a bullseye dont matter what you pay, as long as you can hit it cosistantly, and mine does.if you are cracking or breaking glass, quit dragging your gun behind a truck.ive owned many cheap scopes and they do perform.and yes i do scan the clear cut with my scope, it is that good.1 scope failed on me it was a simmons blazer that came with my 270.ive been hunting for 10 years now, so i think i know what im talking about.

 

[Anonymous]

hard core snipers do not use cheap scopes. i promise you that. i am pretty sure they dont use bushnells either. no field of view advantage to a 50 mm, that is a fact you can verify in your cabelas or bass pro catalog. i own the high level pentax, burris, baush and lombs, leupolds. there is an advantage to premium optics. as far as appearance, i want people to notice the fine lines, checkering and european walnut of a crafted high end rifle. not the 2 liter coke bottle setting on top.

not downing your gun at all, but to me, pretty guns belong in a gun cabinet.if i had one like that id kill myself if i scratched it.2 liter?man you aint right,lmao

 

[Anonymous]

I havent seen any 70$ scopes that can "walk all over" a 200$ scope, much less a $500 scope. You are paying for a lifetime warranty, better quality glass with better coatings, better adjustments, 1 piece tube, waterproof/fogproof coatings and stronger internals. I would bet that your 70$ scope might have 1 or 2 of those things, but not all of them. You can do no wrong spending money on quality optics, but you can definately go wrong with a cheap scope, I know from experience. And while being a good shooter is important, a busted scope will turn the best shooter into the most inaccurate chump in the woods, I know from experience.

am i the only poor person on here that can make shooters out of cheap scopes?and last time i checked 136 bucks is alot of money maybe not to you but it really is to me.and yeah my scope has all of thos things, multi colored lens,fog/shock proof.camera quality lenses and strong internals.and i did that without saleing my car to buy it.

 

[Hillbilly Hunter]

Very little or no advantage of a 50 mm with a 1 inch tube. But the disadvantages: bulk, weight, higher mounting postion, gaudy appearance are real

oh yeah by the way, my savage 110 has stock mounts and stock rings and the 50mm fits just fine.it didnt have sights on it, so i didnt need the clearance.and i can fit my 40mm muzzleloader scope in it and bang it around.there is definitely more field of view with the 50. a side affect, my gun looks like a sniper rifle now, man i love it!!!

I am betting you are under 25 years old. Your gun does not look like a sniper rifle. Do you have a standard cut stock? What about your bolt handle? I have never seen a sniper rifle with a cheap POS Banner on it. What is funny is yuou used light gathering and Bushnell Banner in the same paragraph. Objective diameter isn't the most important thing, but lense quality anf lense coatings are what seperates the good scopes from the blister pack ones.

 

[Kimberman]

What can I say, ignorance is bliss I guess. I am far from rich, like most Americans I live paycheck to paycheck. But I have a simple question: how many 200$ scopes have you handled? shot? hunted with? My guess would be very few to none if you think that a 70$ can walk all over a 500$ scope.