OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Rifle Scopes
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Scope purchase dilemna
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

Scope purchase dilemna

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
en4h View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: March/06/2008
Location: Manchester, CT
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote en4h Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Scope purchase dilemna
    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.
Back to Top
helo18 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: December/02/2006
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 5620
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote helo18 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/06/2008 at 15:57
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
Back to Top
3_tens View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/08/2007
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 3_tens Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/06/2008 at 16:03
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.
Back to Top
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dale Clifford Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/06/2008 at 16:07

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. )

Back to Top
en4h View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: March/06/2008
Location: Manchester, CT
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote en4h Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/07/2008 at 08:52
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.
Back to Top
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jonbravado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/07/2008 at 09:00
i think either one would be a solid choice - you are on the right track.
J
Back to Top
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 4155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tip69 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/07/2008 at 09:57
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!
Back to Top
Big Squeeze View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
GOOGLE NINJA

Joined: August/30/2007
Location: Anaheim, Calif.
Status: Offline
Points: 3143
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Big Squeeze Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/07/2008 at 10:15
Originally posted by en4h en4h wrote:

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? 
.................................Yes! The 7X setting is good enough for the longer shots on medium sized game and larger! In fact most of the time, a variable scope in most hunting situations, will not be used above 5 or 6x, if that!.................If better target precision shooting is a concern with a lower powered variable, don`t let it be a concern. There is an article on,,, shootingtimes.com,,,I believe under the optics section, "magnification vs. group sizes," where the writer compares group sizes using a 1.5x, a 2.5x or 5x and goes up to a 35x............Hardly a difference to really be concerned about at 100 yards! A 2x7 suites the 7/08 very well!
Back to Top
edsguns View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: February/29/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 36
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edsguns Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/07/2008 at 11:54
Originally posted by en4h en4h wrote:

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'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!
Back to Top
medic52 View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 893
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote medic52 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/07/2008 at 12:29
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
Back to Top
en4h View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: March/06/2008
Location: Manchester, CT
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote en4h Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/08/2008 at 08:16
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"....  Big%20Grin
 
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.
Back to Top
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 4155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tip69 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/08/2008 at 08:32

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!
Back to Top
edsguns View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: February/29/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 36
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edsguns Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/08/2008 at 08:40
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!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.176 seconds.