Rifle scopes

[petethepilot 0]

Not sure I'm in the right bucket but I'm wondering if anyone can help me figure out what size scopes I need for a MK 11 Savage 22LR at 100 yards and a Savage Model 12 Benchrest in 308. I plan on using it at Cherry Ridge at 300 yards but was looking to possibly go out to 600 yards at PA ranges. Thanks and sorry if I'm in the wrong bucket. This is my first night.

[Maksim 1,504]

No problem, I will move it to the optics and accessories section.

 

It really depends on what size targets you are shooting at.

 

For rimfire, you can get a rimfire specific scope, I am a big fan of Bushnell Rimfire series, 3-9x40, for about $50. Great glass for the money, nice and clear, and for rimfire, stands up pretty nice.

 

For the 308, you are only limited by the size of your wallet. I am a big fan of Nikon scopes for the bang for the buck, and have a Monarch 6-24x50 on my remington 700. It is good to 300 yards so that you can easily see the 4 inch targets and holes. Beyond that, you will be able to see the target no problem. I also like Burris scopes in the $100 to $300 range. Alot of folks will recommend SWFA SS (super sniper) scope, around $300, for a 10x optical fixed scope. I have shot with it, and it is a great scope for the price.

 

If you are going north in price, you have alot of terrific options.

[petethepilot 0]

Thanks, Great place to start. I'm getting itchy to get going.

[Jon 264]

Agreed with Maks on the Bushnell. I have that scope on my .22mag and targets are crystal clear @ 100yrds. I can usually shoot 1MOA with the setup at that range.

[Maksim 1,504]

Pete,

 

If you ever want to look through any of the scopes, you are more than welcome to. Only glass I have now is a Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40, a Nikon Prostaff, a couple of bushnell rimfires, and a Nikon Monarch 6-24x50. Wait... forgot about a scope that came on the PSL rifles... and a 4x fixed Kassnar scope.

 

Best way of seeing what you like.... looking through the scopes.

[Mauser88 0]

Mueller APV is the way to go. Top it off with Burris Signature Zee rings and your good to go.

[Shane45 807]

My broken record response, whats yer budget?

[Mauser88 0]

I just got the Bushnell Rimfire Maks is speaking of....I'll let you know tomorrow how it works out.

 

Hope it works out for you but the better choice would have been the Mueller APV.

[Maksim 1,504]

I just got the Bushnell Rimfire Maks is speaking of....I'll let you know tomorrow how it works out.

 

Hope it works out for you but the better choice would have been the Mueller APV.

 

It is a great scope but also 2.5 times the price. =) There is no right or wrong. =)

[Mauser88 0]

I just got the Bushnell Rimfire Maks is speaking of....I'll let you know tomorrow how it works out.

 

Hope it works out for you but the better choice would have been the Mueller APV.

 

It is a great scope but also 2.5 times the price. =) There is no right or wrong. =)

 

My Mueller APV was $129.00. I found it on Ebay.

[Maksim 1,504]

yep, $114 now that I did a look. But still, over 2.5 times the price of the bushnell rimfire. for the parameters given, $50 or less, it is tough to beat the bushnell rimfire.

[Mauser88 0]

yep, $114 now that I did a look. But still, over 2.5 times the price of the bushnell rimfire. for the parameters given, $50 or less, it is tough to beat the bushnell rimfire.

 

You get what you pay for. The APV is 100 times better then the Bushnell. Optics are super clear.

[Maksim 1,504]

yep, $114 now that I did a look. But still, over 2.5 times the price of the bushnell rimfire. for the parameters given, $50 or less, it is tough to beat the bushnell rimfire.

 

You get what you pay for. The APV is 100 times better then the Bushnell. Optics are super clear.

 

They are great scopes.

 

So he should of just spent $2k and gotten a SB, or USO. =)

 

For $50 or less it is tough to beat that value. If you spend $150 or so, Muellers are great scopes.

[Mauser88 0]

yep, $114 now that I did a look. But still, over 2.5 times the price of the bushnell rimfire. for the parameters given, $50 or less, it is tough to beat the bushnell rimfire.

 

You get what you pay for. The APV is 100 times better then the Bushnell. Optics are super clear.

 

They are great scopes.

 

So he should of just spent $2k and gotten a SB, or USO. =)

 

For $50 or less it is tough to beat that value. If you spend $150 or so, Muellers are great scopes.

 

Only a keyboard command would buy a USO scope.

 

If your going to spend that kind of money only a Night force or Leupold will be.

 

However anyone who buys a Kimber Tactical rifle as a sniper doesn't have a clue!!!!!

 

Ignorance is bliss!!

[Maksim 1,504]

will wait for shane to respond to that one, considering he has some actual experience with them... but leupold makes good stuff... good overpriced scopes. =)

[Shane45 807]

mauser88, your clueless brother. You simply have no idea what your talking about..... If I were you Id cut my losses right here and not even bother responding to this thread......

[Wolfy 51]

Maks I like the Leupold Rifleman series but have bought the Nikon Prostaff's and they are a value for the features.

 

PS I have a Nikon for sale.

 

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10175

[Tactical Monkey 51]

Alot of folks will recommend SWFA SS (super sniper) scope, around $300, for a 10x optical fixed scope. I have shot with it, and it is a great scope for the price.

 

+1 I have one on my .308 and it does the job quite nicely...

[Maksim 1,504]

Well... I shot with a $1,500 leupold today...... yeah... what a waste. I prefer my half priced nikon.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

 

Only a keyboard command would buy a USO scope.

 

If your going to spend that kind of money only a Night force or Leupold will be.

 

However anyone who buys a Kimber Tactical rifle as a sniper doesn't have a clue!!!!!

 

Ignorance is bliss!!

 

Man, your a jerk! Aren't you one of the knuckle-heads from CJPRC?

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Let's bring this back on the topic. This sniping back & forth isn't very constructive. What the OP should take away from these posts is that there is a lot of variety in the optics world, and people tend to feel passionately about their choices. Not sure that a lot of us have the experience, or a discerning enough eye to really tell the difference between the really high-end optics (S&B, Nightforce and to a lesser degree Leupold Mk IV's) and the more common stuff. At the lower end of the scale you have a plethora of Chinese optics - some just the lenses and others the entire scope. You do get what you pay for, but an argument about the merits of a Mueller $115 scope over a Bushnell $50 is just specious.

 

You should be aware that there are differences between scopes designated as "rimfire" and those that are not. It has nothing to do with quailty. The difference is where the parallax is set. If you get something like the 3x9, it does not have an adjustable objective (AO) lens. The parallax is set at the factory at a compromise distance - this distance is closer for rimfire (RF) scopes than it is for those meant for centerfire (CF) application. On scopes with an AO, the closest distance shown on the objective bell (or knob if it is a side focus) is, again, closer on RF scopes than on CF ones. That does not mean you can't use a CF scope on a RF gun, it only means that doing so may limit the utility of the RF by precluding shooting at typical RF distances. Since you specified 100 yards, you'd be GTG with either.

 

As for your .308: You have a precision instrument and the idea is to put all shots in one hole. You also specified that you want to shoot out to 300 yards and more (if the opportunity presents itself). You can spend anywhere from under $100 for Chinese optics to $3000 for something like a Schmidt & Bender. As I stated before, it's doubtful that many of us have the experience, the need or the ability to make full use of the top-end optics, but that doesn't mean you should scrimp either. With all items there is a cost to benefit ratio that decreases as you go up the price scale. In other words - at the lower price points, not a whole lot more money may buy you a whole lot more quality. You will reach a point where it will take a whole lot of money to buy a barely (if at all) discernible increment in quality. Depends on your budget where you "get-off" on that curve. I like to pick the highest I think I can afford and then go one increment higher. I'm a believer in buy quality and only cry once. Don't interpret that to mean I have all high-end optics on my rifles. I have my favorites just like everyone else. I try to avoid Chinese stuff. I think Weaver is probably the minimum quality scope I'd use. I like Leupolds (some may think they are overpriced, but I like the "made in USA" factor). I have a couple Bushnell Elites (3200 & 4200) and would like to try a 6500 next time. It's a personal choice based on your needs, preferences and budget. Go into it with your eyes open and do your research first. As suggested, look through scopes you are interested in - attend some of the group shoots the board puts together - you'll find the members will be more than happy to let you sample their optics choices.

 

I hope all this helps.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Shane45 807]

I think Bob covered quite a bit and on the mark. The only thing I have to add is that in high end optics there tend to be features that are important to some that are just now only starting to show up in mid level priced optics(optics around the 600 to 1.5k mark) and that is a First Focal Plane and knobs matched to the reticle. They dont exist in cheap scope land. If you dont know what these features are, you probably dont need them but if you plan on jumping into the tactical rifle game, you need to learn what they are before you drop your coin. The other item is that I would say Loopy aint what they used to be. IMO they are coasting on their name and more and more of there parts have made in china on them and maybe even some complete scopes I was never a Loupy guy so I never followed them that closely buy I know a few died in the whool former distributers that have turned their backs. I went Nikon 9 years ago with the original Nikon Tactical Now if they would get their sh!t together and make a FFP Mil/Mil scope....

[Maksim 1,504]

Leupold Mk4 is a piece of shit.... well, an overpriced mediocre scope.

 

Hate to say it.... i bought a very nice, with this scope on it... honestly, it is not even as clear or as bright as my half priced (still $650) Nikon Monarch.

 

the comparisson is a mueller for $120 vs a $50 Bushnell rimfire scope is absolutely in line. I have looked through both, owned both, and hands down, the bushnell is a better bang for the buck with on par with the muellers.

[Parker 213]

I don't know if I can bring anything to the table here, but I'm happy with the Leupold's and Weaver's I've had, the edge going to Leupold for quality, clarity, repeatability, lightweight, compactness and size, sturdiness afield and impervious to the elements. All range in age from 58 years to 30 years old. My brother has had good luck with Redfield's of the same age. The Leupold's I own are the youngest at about 30 and 28 years old, the Weaver's are around the same age except for one which I think was used to hunt dinosaur's at one time. (Only kidding, but it is 58 years old and is mounted on a bolt action that suits its style and look.) A fixed four-power, it's still clear enough to shoot 3/4" 3-shot groups at 100 yards from a benchrest too. My Leupold's spent 6 weeks each deer season in three states handling all types of rough use, weather conditions and temperature changes. They never fogged or let me down. They belong on a good centerfire hunting rifle. For my next scope for a centerfire I will probably treat myself to a Zeiss demo refurb w/warranty to try and save some bucks. Someday I will like to look into and procure a good high-end scope for a tactical/varmint rifle of mine but that is down the road. I wouldn't even know what to look at today or where to start. But I have some ideas.

 

In the last few years I've picked up a couple cheapo Bushnell's that were fitted on rifles I bought but they are no comparison to the Leupold's. Don't know what the new Leupold's are like today, but I suspect like everything else, things get cheaper over time.

 

For a .308 for 300-600 yards, I would get a good scope that's tough and durable. You get what you pay for today. I don't know what Nikon scopes are like but I've heard good things about them. I would look at a Zeiss as well.

 

Scopes for .22's don't have to be expensive. Just be clear to see through and with adjustments that are repeatable. Your target and distance over what type of terrain you hunt are what dictate your optic needs. And of course, what you are prepared to spend.

 

BTW - I have nothing higher than 7X. Personally, I detest large bulky scopes. I prefer slim, trim lines on the rifle for compactness and portability afield. I know some can be trim today but the fad I see today incorporates amazing magnification ranges, with large objective bells to gather light. My style of hunting doesn't call for "beanfield" needs so what I have is more than adequate and I see no reason to change.

[Shane45 807]

Just for clarification it is unfair to compare brand vs brand really. Because its unfair to compare say a Mark4 Loopy to a bushnellXXX as it is unfair to compare a weaver grand slam or bushnell elite 4200 to a loopie vx1.......

[Maksim 1,504]

I don't know if I can bring anything to the table here, but I'm happy with the Leupold's and Weaver's I've had, the edge going to Leupold for quality, clarity, repeatability, lightweight, compactness and size, sturdiness afield and impervious to the elements. All range in age from 58 years to 30 years old. My brother has had good luck with Redfield's of the same age. The Leupold's I own are the youngest at about 30 and 28 years old, the Weaver's are around the same age except for one which I think was used to hunt dinosaur's at one time. (Only kidding, but it is 58 years old and is mounted on a bolt action that suits its style and look.) A fixed four-power, it's still clear enough to shoot 3/4" 3-shot groups at 100 yards from a benchrest too. My Leupold's spent 6 weeks each deer season in three states handling all types of rough use, weather conditions and temperature changes. They never fogged or let me down. They belong on a good centerfire hunting rifle. For my next scope for a centerfire I will probably treat myself to a Zeiss demo refurb w/warranty to try and save some bucks. Someday I will like to look into and procure a good high-end scope for a tactical/varmint rifle of mine but that is down the road. I wouldn't even know what to look at today or where to start. But I have some ideas.

 

In the last few years I've picked up a couple cheapo Bushnell's that were fitted on rifles I bought but they are no comparison to the Leupold's. Don't know what the new Leupold's are like today, but I suspect like everything else, things get cheaper over time.

 

For a .308 for 300-600 yards, I would get a good scope that's tough and durable. You get what you pay for today. I don't know what Nikon scopes are like but I've heard good things about them. I would look at a Zeiss as well.

 

Scopes for .22's don't have to be expensive. Just be clear to see through and with adjustments that are repeatable. Your target and distance over what type of terrain you hunt are what dictate your optic needs. And of course, what you are prepared to spend.

 

BTW - I have nothing higher than 7X. Personally, I detest large bulky scopes. I prefer slim, trim lines on the rifle for compactness and portability afield. I know some can be trim today but the fad I see today incorporates amazing magnification ranges, with large objective bells to gather light. My style of hunting doesn't call for "beanfield" needs so what I have is more than adequate and I see no reason to change.

 

 

+1.

 

I have shot with, and looked through older Leupolds... half the price, and they are clearer optics than the new stuff.