Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Scope purchase dilemna |
Post Reply |
Author | |
en4h
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/06/2008 Location: Manchester, CT Status: Offline Points: 5 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: March/06/2008 at 15:40 |
Long time reader, first time writer.....
I just sold my Leupold Vari-x III because it was illuminated (illegal here) so I'm in the market for a new scope. I've got budget constraints so I've been looking on Samplelist and SWFA for some really sweet deals. My dilemna is this. In doing quite a lot of research over recent weeks, I've discovered that I really like the Kahles CL scopes. The multizero is really attractive to me as I do primarily whitetail hunting in the northeast, but I'm headed to Wyoming in October for Antelope and hopefully setting the stage for more "out west" hunting. I also like punching paper and making really tight groups out as far as I can shoot. 3-9x42 seems to make the most sense but I've been entertaining 2-7x36. As for parallax adjustment, I can take it or leave it in a 9 power scope.
My other choice is the Zeiss Conquest in a 3-9x40. A pile of great features not the least of which include a little more eye relief, and a great Z600 reticle. I've experimented with Zeiss' Rapid Z Calculator to use the reticle. I have to say it's pretty cool. Nutshell, you put the scope on a precise magnification and you're set up for 100 yard increments on the long hashmarks as indicated by the reticle. These hashmarks increase in length as your range increases. Would these be for windage? Leupold Boone and Crocket reticle is similar and they write that theirs is for 10mph cross wind. Is this the same for the Conquest??? Kahles CL with MultiZero doesn't care about the magnification - I don't think.... or does it??? Kahles doesn't have any provision for windage as it is only available in Plex and 4A reticles.
Having made my long-winded rant, which would I be better suited for on my Thompson Encore .270 ??? Are the optics comparable? Realistically, will my eye see a difference? Do I need a windage reticle? Is my Encore "not worthy" of such optics as the Kahles? On another post, from tahqua on March 2, 2008, 2008 Rifle Rating Scale scored the Conquest a 6/10 and the Kahles a 9/10. Is the difference that great? Any thoughts would be great.
Still up in the air.......
|
|
I can only help one person a day. Today is not your day, tomorrow doesn't look good either.
|
|
helo18
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: December/02/2006 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 5620 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Go with the Kahles. Better Glass. If you get the multizero you will be able to zero at different ranges ( one for where you hunt currently and a longer range for hunting out west) and won't need a drop compensating reticle. If you site one of the setting on the kahles for 300 yards, with a 270, you will be good out to 400 and can just hold a little high for 500. If you can afford the Kahles get it!
|
|
To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
GEORGE WASHINGTON |
|
3_tens
Optics Jedi Master Joined: January/08/2007 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 7853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I just recieived a Kahles 3-10x50 CL Yesterday. WOW!!! It is so clear, and this scope really showes its stuff at night. I had it out before I left the office last night and watched the gangers slim jim a car in the apartments across the street. They were as clear as day over 350 yds in the dark.. It beats the 3-9x50 conquest hands down. Kahles at $799 on the sample list. For the best scope I have ever looked thru.
|
|
Folks ain't got a sense of humor no more. They don't laugh they just get sore.
Need to follow the rules. Just hard to determine which set of rules to follow Now the rules have changed again. |
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
why is illuminated illegal?? anyway remember seeing a kahles (3x9) in a local store with a tds which is similar to the windage ones your talking about. windage with most of these type of bdc reticles are marked of in 5 moa increments. usually with a 10 moa limit. Sooo this means they are are too slow for wyoming, which needs about a 40 moa. --just kidding-- (a windy day in wyo is just another day-- if they think its windy, the interstate will be closed). a bdc with 100 yd increments can be approx. pretty close on an antelope sized animal, say if it is 137 yds. in actual. or you can simply dial in the click differences. one can't compare a reticle hold over with a dial in --- the hold overs are structured for (usually) the highest magnification while the multi is a dial in no different than dialing in moa inany scope. (although possibly more convient). (actually dial ins like the multi and m2 on mk4 leo are done at the highest mag also, but the error is really small for ranges out to 600 yds on flat shooting cartridges. ) |
|
en4h
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/06/2008 Location: Manchester, CT Status: Offline Points: 5 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks everyone for your input. I'm pretty well sold on the Kahles. In reading the post from Antleraddiction and his Browning 7mm-08, the idea of the Kahles 2-7x36 was touched upon. The 7mm-08 has very similar ballistics to my .270 so I wonder how well suited the 2-7x36 would be for my .270? Or should I just focus on the 3-9x42? Anyone have any thoughts on that? Is 7x enough to reach out and touch 400 yards, assuming I could muster up the confidence?
|
|
I can only help one person a day. Today is not your day, tomorrow doesn't look good either.
|
|
jonbravado
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Status: Offline Points: 1131 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
i think either one would be a solid choice - you are on the right track.
J
|
|
Tip69
Optics Master Extraordinaire Tip Stick Joined: September/27/2005 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 4155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You really can't go wrong with either...... I'm more familar with the 3-9 and that is what I would go with, but I can't site any good reasons for it. Do you do a lot of tree-stand hunting? If most of your shots are pretty close.... like under 50 yds.... like what can happen in a tree stand, I think the 2 power would be great! I guess what I'm saying is, I wouldn't buy a scope for "out west" until you really start going out west! If you do get to do that on a regular basis, that's a great reason to buy another gun or barrel and have 2 scopes!
|
|
take em!
|
|
Big Squeeze
Optics Master Extraordinaire GOOGLE NINJA Joined: August/30/2007 Location: Anaheim, Calif. Status: Offline Points: 3143 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
edsguns
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/29/2008 Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'll agree that 7x is plenty of magnification for big game shooting at up to 400 yds. I own a T/C Encore too, with two barrels 25/06 and .35 Whel. I'd say the 25/06 is pretty much on a ballistic par with your .270 and the clincher for me would be that the 2-7x36 would look much better on that compact platform. I actually felt a 3-9x40 Looked a bit too big on mine. A matter of opinion, of course. |
|
We are all responsible for leaving the same legacy of rights and freedoms we have to our children and grandchildren!
|
|
medic52
Optics Professional Joined: October/05/2006 Location: Missouri Status: Offline Points: 893 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
IMHO- I vote for Kahles ....
|
|
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
en4h
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/06/2008 Location: Manchester, CT Status: Offline Points: 5 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks everyone for such great advice. You all could have told me I spelled dilemma wrong every time I used the word. Now I look like "en4h, the new putz on OpticsTalk".... .
I took the plunge and bought the Kahles CL 3-9x42 Multi. off of samplelist. I think I'll be really happy with my decision. I was hoping that they would inadvertently ship it next-day-air but no luck. I have to wait 5 days until next thursday to get it. My next question is about rings and mount.
On my Encore, I have the Encore Weaver style "see-thru" mount because I also have open sights on my 270 barrel. Open sights are more for back-up if something happens to the scope. I don't use see-thru rings. When I sold the Leupold, I kept the Leupold QR Weaver style rings in case I decided to put them on the new scope. Now with the new Kahles on the way, I'm not sure that they are the best choice. The rings are steel and the top half of them wrap around a little more than 180 degrees making them very difficult to install without scratching the scope. Not only that but the screws don't seem to want to stay tightened. After a few boxes, I notice groups getting a little sloppy and when I investigate, I find that the screws have backed out a quarter turn or so. I retighten and things come back together. This happened more than once. I didn't use lock-tite on the screws but maybe I should have.
Which rings would be best suited for the Encore Kahles 270 ??? Looking for some more great advice. Any other comments would be awesome too.
Thanks again...
|
|
I can only help one person a day. Today is not your day, tomorrow doesn't look good either.
|
|
Tip69
Optics Master Extraordinaire Tip Stick Joined: September/27/2005 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 4155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I would recommend the Warne rings and they work with Weaver style mounts. I'm not a fan of see-thru mounts/rings because usually they make you lift your head to see thru the scope. Just go with the regular mounts. You should be able to use Med. Warne rings with this set up and maybe even Low rings. Good pick with the CL....... Welcome to the land of awesome glass Baby! |
|
take em!
|
|
edsguns
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/29/2008 Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I concur with Tip69, as I think Warnes are the best of the many types of rings I've used. Because your .270 barrel has sights I'd go with the Warne Maxima QDs and I'd think medium should suffice for the 42mm objective. As a vertical split ring design, I don't think you can beat Warnes.
|
|
We are all responsible for leaving the same legacy of rights and freedoms we have to our children and grandchildren!
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |