Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Scope vote everyone please participate |
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Author | |
white cloud
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/10/2005 Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: January/10/2005 at 20:42 |
I would like to cast a vote of experienced opinions on a scope for a .257 weatherby magnum. Price does not matter since there is little price difference.The choices are the following. Leupold vx3 3.5-10x50, pentax lightseeker2 4-16x44, zeiss conquest 3-9x50 or nikon monarch 3.5-10x50
|
|
Southeast Georgia Boy
|
|
Bart Simpson
Optics Apprentice Joined: August/25/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I sold my Nikon 3.5-10x50 on a rifle recently though I liked it alot. The Leupold never looked quite right to my eyes( shot on a friends rifle). No experience w/ the Pentax. Put a conquest 3-9x40 on a Rem 760 carbine and love it. Scoped a buck in SC at 55 minutes after sunset a few weeks ago though I decided not to shoot. Some ambient light, good sight picture, strong reticle- just passed. Scope was excellent. Good luck.
|
|
Carl in N. FL
|
|
KYHunter
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/10/2004 Status: Offline Points: 25 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Zeiss Conquest. |
|
power-strings
Optics Apprentice Joined: November/26/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 28 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Now that I've had and used my conquest 4.5x14x44 for a couple of months even shooting two hogs when it was too dark to see without a scope. I can't help but to believe that for some reason my vxII 3x9x50 was clearer and brighter. I would love to try the vxIII especially if it is better than a vxII.
Now I don't understand this because most people own here says the conquest is considerable clearer and brighter than Leupold but I just can't see that. I think I'm going to send the conquest to Zeiss now that Deer season is over and let them see if there is anthing wrong with it. It also seems like if my eye is not very close to center that I will see black spots on top and on bottom, but the vxII was not so sensitive to eye position. I also had a full view on any power. I did try to email zeiss but never got a return email. |
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Zeiss is probably the best glass of the bunch, but Pentax Lightseeker2
is quite good also. Is there a particular reason you want to go
with a 50mm objective bell? There is really very little
difference (if any) between 40mm and 50mm objective bells in the field.
Have you considered other comparable scopes like Burris Signature Selec 3-12x44, 3-10x40 or 4-16x44? These are quite good, in your price range and available with Ballistic Plex or MilDot reticles. Ilya |
|
mwyates
Optics Master Joined: June/15/2004 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 1196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Power-strings knows what he's talking about. Go with the Leupold. I've got a 3.5-10X40 on my 223 WSSM and love it. I'd also recommend the 40 instead of the 50mm objective. It fits on low rings and is plenty bright.
|
|
Grubbs
Optics Apprentice Joined: August/18/2004 Status: Offline Points: 134 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
mwyates doesn't know what he's talking about unfortunately. The Zeiss Conquest is superior to the Leup every time. The Pentax is too (I have both of them). I would take Koshkin's advice on this matter. Leupold would be my last choice here.
|
|
mwyates
Optics Master Joined: June/15/2004 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 1196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I might not know what I'm talking about, but I did spenf 2 full days with identical rifles, one with a Conquest 3.5-10X44 and the other with a VX III 3.5-10X40. Here's what I found:
Image quality - equal Build quality - Leupold wins; just take the caps off and turn a few clicks; you'll see the difference. Eye relief - Leupold wins, unless you really like fixed. I'd rather have more eye relief. Customer service - everybody agrees that Leupold is the best Price - Leupold wins by over $100 Overpriced German name - Zeiss wins
|
|
chasseur106
Optics Journeyman Joined: March/12/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 137 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
My thoughts are as follows. If I were considering the three that you mention, I would opt for the one with the smallest objective bell, as that would assure me, that while I am aiming with it I would be getting the best cheek to stock weld possible. So that I could return to that same position time and time again without uncomfortable head contortions. The reason being is that I would want accurate and consisitent shot placement without sacrificing shooting comfort, which will make a difference on those occasional long shots in the field. My preference is also for an American manufacturer even if they are using imported glass. |
|
Grubbs
Optics Apprentice Joined: August/18/2004 Status: Offline Points: 134 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I bought my Conquest's (2) 3.5x10x44 for $410/ea. I've never seen the Leupold you rave about for $310 anywhere. I did the same comparison you did with my hunting buddies from Louisiana. Everyone agreed my scope was superior optically, and time will tell if it's as "tough" as your Leupold. Zeiss wrote the book on optics many, many, many years before Leupold was ever even and idea. You are just what Leupold likes in a consumer....blinded by their marketing genius with mediocre, overpriced products.
|
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Grubbs, I certainly would not call Leupold products mediocre.
They are, typically, well made pieces. I do agree that they are overpriced. Leupold is incredibly successful in their marketing endeavours, and they do stand behind their product 100%. They are not top of the heap optically though. Ilya |
|
redneckbmxer24
Optics Master Joined: June/02/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1055 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
how about a bushnell elite 4200 2.5-10X40??? right under $400, and its brigher (i know this is going to cause some people to holler, but Roy will agree with me) than the others, and has rainguard coatings.
cory |
|
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, I'll be only one of millions!!!
|
|
BillD1
Optics Apprentice Joined: October/30/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 31 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Let's throw in the Bushnell 4200 it is also in this price range.
This scope's quality is probably better but at least as good as most of
White Cloud's selection. And I do believe that if White Cloud is
not happy with this scope within the first year of it's purchase,
Bushnell will refund your money. Like White Cloud I am also it
the market for a scope in this price range and the Bushnell 4200 is
tough to beat.
|
|
Bill D
|
|
white cloud
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/10/2005 Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I;ve heard many times that 40's and 44's are just as bright as 50mm, if this is the case then what is the purpose of 50mm scopes. Are these ideas true are only biase comments of 40 and 44 mm scope owners. No offense to anyone but i just dont want to spend extra money on a bulkier scope with no advantage over the more low profile 40's and 44's.
|
|
Southeast Georgia Boy
|
|
carolinaflats
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/14/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 44 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I had the same question and from what I understand the little bit of light gained from a larger objective adds weight, bulk, and can sometimes mean the need for higher rings(since you said such things are an issue for you). Many say that better quality glass in a 40 or 44mm can end up giving better performance than a lesser quality scope with a 50mm objective. Also, I would strongly consider a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x44 while you are looking(the other scopes you listed seemed to be similar in magnification and obj. size). Like Grubbs said, you can find one for around $410 if you look hard, and if it is at a gunshop or online store SWFA has the 110% guarantee so you could get it even cheaper! I Good luck!
|
|
mwyates
Optics Master Joined: June/15/2004 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 1196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Guess I'll change my name to LeupyPimp; they must have a ring through my nose There's a few people here who make a lot of sense, like those that recommend spending your money on binoculars instead of scopes. Truth is, most of us spend way too much money on scopes for hunting. A scope does not need to be incredibly sharp or bright to shoot a deer with it. I counted last night, and I have 17 scopes (4 are Leupold). The oldest, and cheapest, is a Redfield 2 3/4X on my Marlin 30-30. I bought this scope used 30 years ago. It still works perfectly and holds zero through lots of banging around. I've used it for the majority of deer I've taken, and the biggest. What more do you need? |
|
Grubbs
Optics Apprentice Joined: August/18/2004 Status: Offline Points: 134 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
mwyates....guess what?.....I agree with you this time. Koshkin, I agree with your response also. Leupold is a marketing genius. |
|
chasseur106
Optics Journeyman Joined: March/12/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 137 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
This response is addressed to the person who does not think that image quality in a rifle scope is of major consequence. Image quality in a rifle scope is of major consequence because being able to differentiate between a bare branch and the buck's rack while he walks casually through the fading twilight and into the forest can mean the difference between legally taking a trophy or legal deer, and missing the opportunity that might never present itself again. If all you are looking for is a sighting system, then Tasco (read as Crapco) is the scope for you. If, however, you want to not only see what you are aiming at clearly and also know for sure that where you are aiming is a safe shot then stop trying to save a nickel while losing dimes on a cheap scope. Yes, it can be expensive, but if you are going to hunt the whole proposition is expensive. It is far cheaper to give it all up and go to the store and buy your hamburg and steaks there.
|
|
carolinaflats
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/14/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 44 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I agree with chasseur106. The fine for shooting a button buck that appeared to be a doe is 100 bucks at the club where I hunt. Makes sense to me to have good optics to make sure you know what you are shooting. Sure good binos could help identify your target, but the scope that sits on your gun is whats going to make it count. If you don't mind spending the extra cash for a good scope, then why not get something with good light transmission and clarity? To me spending the extra money now will save me from paying hundred dollar fines for years to come. Also, I'd hate to be able to see a nice buck through my good binos and not be able to get a good sight picture through my cheap scope.
|
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I am not advocating using crappy scopes. However, scopes are not
there to count points on the antlers. Any decent scope will allow
you to see the animal and place your shot. A decent scope to me
is Burris Fullfield II or better. In my opinion there is not
enough difference in performance between a $1300 Swarowski and $400
burris to justify the difference. With the Swarowski you'll see
clearer but both scopes are clear enough to place your shot. By
the time your are ready to shoot you should have identified the animal
using your binos. The scope is for shot placement not for trying
to resolve the animal's eye color.
Anyhow, this is just my opinon and I could be wrong. If I had enough money I'd be buying all sorts of very expensive scopes simply because I like fine optical instruments. If you can afford to put a $1000 optic on every rifle, more power to you. It certainly won't hurt you in any way (other than your wallet of course). Ilya |
|
Post Reply | Page 123> |
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 |