Choose which is best in order

[Huntr2]

Here are 4 scopes how would you rate them from 1-4 choice on.
Burris C4-4.5-12x42 SF
Minox-Z5-3-15x42
Nikon Monarch-3-12x42
Vortex Viper-4-12x40 PA

 

[TheLBLman]

I'm certain opinions will vary a good bit regarding this.
These are just mine, and are in part on the magnifications you selected (which would probably differ from what I would select, as would the scopes on the list). My rating is also skewed towards deer hunting, particularly hunting older deer which tend to be more active in low light.

Here are 4 scopes how would you rate them from 1-4 choice on.

Burris C4-4.5-12x42 SF [color:#FF0000][size] #2[/size][/color] - Mainly because I'm personally biased a bit towards Burris, although this configuration of 4.5-12 is less appealing than say 3-12.

Minox-Z5-3-15x42 [color:#FF0000][size] #3 [/size][/color]- Mainly because in my book this is not a tried & proven brand. The optics "look" great for the money, but will the scope hold up like a Burris? I would also question the usefulness of having 15x with only a 42mm objective. You would like have to decrease the magnification down to about 10-12x for good viewing in low light.

Nikon Monarch-3-12x42 [color:#FF0000][size] #1[/size][/color] - Mainly because it's been long-term tried & proven. I also prefer the 3-12 power range over say a 4.5-12 range.

Vortex Viper-4-12x40 PA[color:#FF0000] [size] #4 [/size][/color]--- I'm sure many are disagreeing with this, but that's where I put it. In part because of the smaller 40mm objective which makes any magnification above 9x less useful in low light (which is typically when older deer are more active, i.e. dawn & dusk).

I will add that for practicality, I prefer no scope objective any larger than 44mm for most of my deer hunting. A 42-44mm objective will perform well at up to 10x magnification in very low light (performs super well at 9x and less magnification). But in the absence of good light, you may find no value in a scope capable of 12x-plus magnification without having a 50mm or larger objective (which I don't want to carry, as it's much like having a grapefruit sitting atop one's gun).

 

[Huntr2]

I'm certain opinions will vary a good bit regarding this.
These are just mine, and are in part on the magnifications you selected (which would probably differ from what I would select, as would the scopes on the list). My rating is also skewed towards deer hunting, particularly hunting older deer which tend to be more active in low light.

Here are 4 scopes how would you rate them from 1-4 choice on.

Burris C4-4.5-12x42 SF [color:#FF0000][size] #2[/size][/color] - Mainly because I'm personally biased a bit towards Burris, although this configuration of 4.5-12 is less appealing than say 3-12.

Minox-Z5-3-15x42 [color:#FF0000][size] #3 [/size][/color]- Mainly because in my book this is not a tried & proven brand. The optics "look" great for the money, but will the scope hold up like a Burris? I would also question the usefulness of having 15x with only a 42mm objective. You would like have to decrease the magnification down to about 10-12x for good viewing in low light.

Nikon Monarch-3-12x42 [color:#FF0000][size] #1[/size][/color] - Mainly because it's been long-term tried & proven. I also prefer the 3-12 power range over say a 4.5-12 range.

Vortex Viper-4-12x40 PA[color:#FF0000] [size] #4 [/size][/color]--- I'm sure many are disagreeing with this, but that's where I put it. In part because of the smaller 40mm objective which makes any magnification above 9x less useful in low light (which is typically when older deer are more active, i.e. dawn & dusk).

I will add that for practicality, I prefer no scope objective any larger than 44mm for most of my deer hunting. A 42-44mm objective will perform well at up to 10x magnification in very low light (performs super well at 9x and less magnification). But in the absence of good light, you may find no value in a scope capable of 12x-plus magnification without having a 50mm or larger objective (which I don't want to carry, as it's much like having a grapefruit sitting atop one's gun).

I am setting up a long range deer rifle. What would you suggest?

 

[TheLBLman]

I am setting up a long range deer rifle. What would you suggest?

Doesn't change my thoughts.

Not sure what anyone means when they say "long range", but let's say you're talking 300 yards. A 10x scope provides you with the visual effect of 30 yards. Most archers consider a 30-yard shot reasonable with no magnification. Just saying I consider 10x very adequate out to 300 yards. In fact, a maximum magnification of 10x would have little to do with the probability of "making" even a 500-yard shot imo, since 500 yards would appear as 50.

Another consideration is the possibility of a "close range" shot even when you're expecting a long-range shot. This is one reason I would prefer to have less magnification than what could be most ideal for "long range".

Although not among the listed options, some scopes are now offering a much wider range of magnification, such as the Leupold VX-6. Consider that one in 2-12 x 42mm and we might be talking the best of most worlds for deer hunting.

There was a recent thread devoted to the Leupold VX-6:
http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubbthr ... w=1#UNREAD

That's what I would suggest.

 

[TheLBLman]

By the way, over the years, while hunting with a very long-range accurate rifle, the gun capable of killing a deer well beyond 600 yards, and topped with a maximum magnification of a 10x scope . . . . .

Most of my shooting opportunities over 200 yards have been passed simply because of my lack of shooting skills, and my ability to recognize the low probabilities of making a clean kill when the opportunity is fleeting, and the deer is moving.

A lack of magnification over 10x has contributed virtually nothing to the probability of making a shot under 300 yards. However, I have failed to pull the trigger on rutting bucks that ran under my tree while I was "expecting" a 200-yard shot, had my scope set on 10x, and couldn't make an otherwise easy close-range shot (something much less likely to happen with less magnification, wide field of view).

 

[Kimberman]

My order would be a bit different. I own the Minox 3-15, and its one of my favorite scopes. It would be the hands down first choice out of the ones you mentioned.

#2 would be the Vortex Viper. I have looked through more than a few of these, my hunting partner uses one, and likes it. They are good quality glass that gives you a lot for the $.

#3 would be the Nikon Monarch. To be fair I haven't looked through the newer version, but I have had an older version for years, and its been a rock solid performer for me.

#4 would be the Burris. I have no clue about the quality level of the C4 series. Burris is a reputable name, and I have or have had a few Fullfields in my life. They are a good scope, but they have always seemed mediocre compared to a bunch of other scopes in the same price range to me.


A scope you may want to include on your list is the Sightron S2 Big Sky 3-12x42. I have one of those and a 3-9x42. They are great glass that doesn't get a lot of attention. I would put it #1 or #2 if it were on your list.

 

[Model70Man]

All of the scopes would be a good choice. I have owned all except the Burris. The Minox is by far the best out of the 4, followed by the Vortex Viper, Nikon Monarch, and the Burris.

I would also look at the Weaver Super Slam, Sightron SII Big Sky, or a Meopta Meopro.

 

[TheLBLman]

The Minox is by far the best out of the 4 . . . . .

I totally agree in terms of the optical quality of the glass and the range of magnification (which is part of why that Minox generally commands a higher purchase price than the other 3 listed).

But each of us may have a balance of factors in determining what's "best" for our personal circumstances. Part of that equation (for me) is long-term "reliability" (which also effects confidence and faith in one's set-up anytime afield). Another part of that equation is purchase price. (Hey, if price didn't matter, doubt any of those 4 scopes listed by Huntr2 would have been on his list.) And for some, the finish options (matte, gloss, special camo pattern, silver) of the scope might weigh heavily into the equation.

Not suggesting Minox is unreliable, and everyone using them seems to be favorably impressed. Just saying I personally have more faith in the Nikon and Burris lines to hold up over time under heavy recoil and use, and that weighs heavily into my choice of "best".

All of the scopes would be a good choice.

x 2

 

[woodchuckc]

I have the Minox Z5, Nikon, and a Vortex (but not that model). My opinion:
Of those three, the Minox wins hands down over the Nikon, but both are fine scopes. The Voxtex is a step down from those two, but is still an acceptable choice. I have never had a Burris so I can't comment on that one.

 

[Huntr2]

They all are so close and it seems its a personal choice.

 

[Rubberduck270]

They all are so close and it seems its a personal choice.

I'd suggest you go somewhere that has all 3 on hand and let your eyes choose for you. Some scopes just look better to some peoples eyes than others.

 

[redblood]

leupold vx3 first

 

[TheLBLman]

leupold vx3 first

That wasn't on his list, but I'd also prefer that over any on that list. Proven, lasting value and satisfaction with the VX-3, and Made in America.

 

[Kimberman]

I own both, IMO the Minox has better glass, as does my 2 Sightrons, and my Zeiss.

 

[TheLBLman]

I own both, IMO the Minox has better glass, as does my 2 Sightrons, and my Zeiss.

I don't think there is any issue about the Minox having outstanding glass for its price range. I was just trying to point out there are other issues effecting the "bestness" of a scope, such as proven durability. For all I know, the Minox may be just as physically "tough" and repeatedly track as well as a Leupold VX-3.

In comparisons where most factors are in the same ballpark, the one "Made in USA" becomes "best" for me. That's where I give a little higher mark to Burris, even though it's Fullfield line is made in the Philippines, Burris is the U.S. company which has traditionally made their higher-end scopes in the USA. Factor in "for the money", and it's hard to beat the Burris Fullfield II (for me). "For the money", I believe the Made in USA Redfield is another excellent choice in that price range. But like you, I'd prefer to pay a little more, and get something yet a little better.

 

[Model70Man]

Minox ZA5 scopes are assembled in the USA. Leupold's are not 100% made in the USA. Their glass is mostly from Japan and the rest from Europe. For $329 you will be hard pressed to find a better scope. To get to the same level of optical quality and features one would have to look at the VX6 in the Leupold line. It's a shame that Leupold doesn't put etched reticles in their VX3 line except for the B&C reticle which is $100-$150 up charge. Yes, Leupold set the standard for customer service, but other scopes companies have the same warranty and also no fault warranties. Leupold makes a good product and I've had several including the VX3. I have sold them off for better features and optical quality that other scopes have which are less expensive. All of the scopes mentioed in this thread are good. It just comes down to which features appeal more to the user. IMO, that's what makes a scope better than the other. Just like trucks Ford vs Chevy. I prefer a Toyota Tundra. Tundra's are better in every way.

 

[redblood]

Minox ZA5 scopes are assembled in the USA. Leupold's are not 100% made in the USA. Their glass is mostly from Japan and the rest from Europe. For $329 you will be hard pressed to find a better scope. To get to the same level of optical quality and features one would have to look at the VX6 in the Leupold line. It's a shame that Leupold doesn't put etched reticles in their VX3 line except for the B&C reticle which is $100-$150 up charge. Yes, Leupold set the standard for customer service, but other scopes companies have the same warranty and also no fault warranties. Leupold makes a good product and I've had several including the VX3. I have sold them off for better features and optical quality that other scopes have which are less expensive. All of the scopes mentioed in this thread are good. It just comes down to which features appeal more to the user. IMO, that's what makes a scope better than the other. Just like trucks Ford vs Chevy. I prefer a Toyota Tundra. Tundra's are better in every way.

i know there are a ton of great scopes out their, but put all the scopes on the list in the classifieds plus a vx3- all new in the box for 10 percent under retail and see which will sell first. kind of like a john deere tractor or a toyota truck, may not always ne the absolute best, but look good and are safe investments with a name that has withstood the ultimate test....the test of time

 

[leader]

I like Zeiss and Minox BUT it truly is personal preference.
My friend shoots only Monarchs on his rifles and I bought a rifle with a brand new one sitting on it and didn't care for it.
Same with Leupold, great scopes and reputation but I don't personally care for them. Look through all and you will know REAL quick....