New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Rugged Budget Scopes?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Rugged Budget Scopes?

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  < 12 3>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/13/2009 at 22:55
wshive View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/11/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Originally posted by hunter12345 hunter12345 wrote:

The Weaver Classic Extreme is a great scope still on sale for under $300,original MSRP over $900.For what you can buy this scope for is the best deal going.

hunter, where do you see it on sale for $300? I can't find it anywhere for less than $500. Perhaps you mean a different Weaver line?

I was kinda set on the Burris FFII, but the 4200 seems to be getting a lot of nods as well. So here's the question:

FFII 3-9x40 for $160 (after rebate) or the 4200 Elite 3-9x40 for $240? FFII seems like the deal here...
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/13/2009 at 23:17
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
I'd invest the extra and go 4200 Elite.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/14/2009 at 00:27
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11303
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

In a side-by-side test of an SII Big Sky and a VX-II (not III) a couple of months ago the Sightron was a definite second best. I know a lot of people would argue with that, but this was with a chart after dark, with both scopes set on 6x.

I have shot FFII's on rifle up to .300 Weatherby (and using bullets up to 200 grains at 3000 fps) with no problem. Have also shot a LOT of prairie dogs with them at long range, and done the chart-test. They are surprisingly good optically.

Personally, I would go with whichever scope mentioned I could get cheapest, since the point of this post was budget.


I'd definitely disagree with that, John.  You must have the worst luck with the S2 Big Sky, since I have not heard anyone make that assessment yet.

My mileage with the S2 Big Sky has been entirely different.  I am now wrapping up with a review of the S2 Big Sky 6-24x42 Silhouette scope and it is very good (used it earlier today).

In Sightron's line-up, S2 is positioned as a direct competitor for VX-II, and my practice, compares well with it.  S2 Big Sky is a fair bit better.

As far as the original question goes, for $200, you are not going to be able to do better than S2 3-9x42.  If you can spend a bit more, Elite 4200 3-9x40 is certainly a better scope.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/14/2009 at 00:55
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 14063
One other thought on this is that Leupold has some fixed 6 power scopes that have long range duplex which has two hold over marks below center so you could zero at 200 and have hold over for 300 and 400. The 30-06 is quite capable of those distances for deer.  I have the FX3  6x42  As far as my experience nothing beats a fixed power for durability.
Leupold 6x36 FX-II Riflescope Leupold 6x36 FX-II Riflescope
Stock # - LEU63085
  • Matte
  • Long Range Duplex
  • 1"
  • Multi-Coat 4 Lens System
$309.95 
Add Leupold 6x36 FX-II Riflescope to Cart
Leupold 6x42 FX-3 Riflescope Leupold 6x42 FX-3 Riflescope
Stock # - LEU66820
  • Matte
  • Long Range Duplex
  • 1"
  • Xtended Twilight Lens System
$409.95
 
Add Leupold 6x42 FX-3 Riflescope to Cart 


Edited by Urimaginaryfrnd - June/14/2009 at 00:56
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/14/2009 at 21:24
hunter12345 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: November/21/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 470
I agree with Koshkin,I own many Sightron S2 and find them to be better than the Leupold VX-II.Sightron has the best warranty in the business.The S2 Big Sky is in my opinion as good as the Zeiss Conquest.
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

In a side-by-side test of an SII Big Sky and a VX-II (not III) a couple of months ago the Sightron was a definite second best. I know a lot of people would argue with that, but this was with a chart after dark, with both scopes set on 6x.

I have shot FFII's on rifle up to .300 Weatherby (and using bullets up to 200 grains at 3000 fps) with no problem. Have also shot a LOT of prairie dogs with them at long range, and done the chart-test. They are surprisingly good optically.

Personally, I would go with whichever scope mentioned I could get cheapest, since the point of this post was budget.


I'd definitely disagree with that, John.  You must have the worst luck with the S2 Big Sky, since I have not heard anyone make that assessment yet.

My mileage with the S2 Big Sky has been entirely different.  I am now wrapping up with a review of the S2 Big Sky 6-24x42 Silhouette scope and it is very good (used it earlier today).

In Sightron's line-up, S2 is positioned as a direct competitor for VX-II, and my practice, compares well with it.  S2 Big Sky is a fair bit better.

As far as the original question goes, for $200, you are not going to be able to do better than S2 3-9x42.  If you can spend a bit more, Elite 4200 3-9x40 is certainly a better scope.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/15/2009 at 02:41
wshive View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/11/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Originally posted by Urimaginaryfrnd Urimaginaryfrnd wrote:

One other thought on this is that Leupold has some fixed 6 power scopes that have long range duplex which has two hold over marks below center so you could zero at 200 and have hold over for 300 and 400. The 30-06 is quite capable of those distances for deer.  I have the FX3  6x42  As far as my experience nothing beats a fixed power for durability.

I'm definitely not opposed to the idea of a fixed scope, and I understand it would be more rugged, but at 6x, is the magnification really to be enough for, say a 300yd shot? Also, at 50yds would it be too high?

By the way, not to be picky, but when you guys mention that you think X scope is better than Y scope, are you talking optics or durability?

Just to reiterate, I'm looking for something rugged than can hold zero and is repeatable first and foremost (unless there's really a big difference in optics). Optics are important but secondary. (Blaslphemy on these boards, I know!)

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/15/2009 at 08:02
300S&W View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: January/27/2008
Location: Burlington,WV
Status: Offline
Points: 10592
     Thunbs Up     NOT blasphemy at all!  Many members here,including myself under certain circumstances, place the other factors of a scope over the optics.  We try our best to be open minded here so we can best serve OT visitors and potential as well as repeat SWFA customers. That being said,that FX3 6x42 is a heck of a scope.  I've made 300+yd shots using my 4x El Paso Weaver w/no problems.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/15/2009 at 08:33
Bigdaddy0381 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
Georgia peach

Joined: February/27/2007
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 13036

wshive,

http://swfa.com/Nikon-3-9x40-ProStaff-Riflescope-P6272.aspx

 This is a great scope for the money. My uncle has this on a Remington adl 700 30-06 and it works great. He beats it around pretty good hunting and shooting and it has kept a zero and the BDC is dead on out to 500yards with a 168gr VLD Berger. The glass is nice and clear and the weight of the scope is great it is not too heavy and not to light. It also has a good amount of eye relief. I think it is a perfect scope for a hunting rifle it is good in wooded areas and still allow you to use the BDC in a bean field if need be.

 

 Don't let the small price tag fool you.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/15/2009 at 09:52
John Barsness View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist


Joined: January/27/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785

wshive,

I've hunted with fixed 6x scopes for several decades now. For general big game hunting there isn't any problem with shots at 300 yards, in fact I have used them out to well over 400 yards with no problem. Of course individual eyesights varies.

At the low end I have killed running deer at 20-25 yards with fixed 6's. A typical modern 6x has a field of view at 25 yards of 4-5 feet, and very few deer are longer than that. So any warnings you hear about a "scope full of hair" when shooting deer at 50 yards with a fixed 6x are simple BS.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/15/2009 at 10:12
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9988
With 6x a 300 yard shot is only going to look like it is 50 yards away.  Shooting big game, that should not be a problem at all.  But if you get a 3-9x then you have the best of both worlds. 

I have a couple 4200s, they are very nice scopes.  I also have a Sightron big sky and it is also a very nice scope and very tough, it survived 40 heavy rounds with a 45-70 no problem. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/15/2009 at 14:10
wshive View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/11/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Hmm... okay will think about a 6x... just don't wanna end up regretting it and wishing I had that extra 9x!

John, been following your posts on binoculars, and I just ordered a pair of Leupold Cascade Porros thanks to your input. Hopefully they'll serve me well. :)

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/15/2009 at 15:24
John Barsness View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist


Joined: January/27/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
Let me know how theyw ork out for you. I think they're one of the better bargains on the market, even compared to some of the most recent roof prism models.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 03:36
jetwrnch View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/03/2006
Location: Knoxville, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 294
How 'bout the $300 Zeiss Conquest? Seems like a real deal and if you get the 4x you've eliminated the erector assembly as a potential failure point. Not a lot you can't do with a fixed 4.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 04:23
wshive View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/11/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Originally posted by jetwrnch jetwrnch wrote:

How 'bout the $300 Zeiss Conquest? Seems like a real deal and if you get the 4x you've eliminated the erector assembly as a potential failure point. Not a lot you can't do with a fixed 4.

Appreciate the suggestion, but I think that's crawling a bit past my price range. I'd really like to keep it in the $150 to $200 range (internet prices, of course!)

That said, I would really like to be sold on a fixed scope, but I'm a bit scared to commit to just one magnification. Seems like for my purposes, the debate would be between 4x or 6x. Which one would I "regret" less? (Yes, someone please tell me, seriously.) Or perhaps I should just split the difference and get a 2-6 or 2-7? I know I'm flip-flopping on this subject, but I'm having a tough time trying to "predict" what I'm going to need given my absense practical experience.

Also, does a 2-7 have few lenses/pieces than a 3-9 than a 4-12 thereby making the 2-7 inherently easier to make durable? Am I right to assume that the number of moving parts is the primary factor affecting scope durability (quality control being equal)?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 06:53
Bigdaddy0381 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
Georgia peach

Joined: February/27/2007
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 13036
Originally posted by Bigdaddy0381 Bigdaddy0381 wrote:

wshive,

http://swfa.com/Nikon-3-9x40-ProStaff-Riflescope-P6272.aspx

 This is a great scope for the money. My uncle has this on a Remington adl 700 30-06 and it works great. He beats it around pretty good hunting and shooting and it has kept a zero and the BDC is dead on out to 500yards with a 168gr VLD Berger. The glass is nice and clear and the weight of the scope is great it is not too heavy and not to light. It also has a good amount of eye relief. I think it is a perfect scope for a hunting rifle it is good in wooded areas and still allow you to use the BDC in a bean field if need be.

 
 
This has your name all over it.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 08:51
seattlesetters View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/20/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 136
Originally posted by wshive wshive wrote:

That said, I would really like to be sold on a fixed scope, but I'm a bit scared to commit to just one magnification. Seems like for my purposes, the debate would be between 4x or 6x. Which one would I "regret" less? (Yes, someone please tell me, seriously.) Or perhaps I should just split the difference and get a 2-6 or 2-7? I know I'm flip-flopping on this subject, but I'm having a tough time trying to "predict" what I'm going to need given my absense practical experience.
I've hunted for over 35 years and the times I used a fixed power scope, the only thing I ever wished for was less magnification when using a 6x...to me, it was nearly useless in the woods. The times I've used 4x, I found it to be better-suited to all-around use than a 6x but again, I found myself wishing I had more field of view in the thick stuff.
 
If you are going to be hunting mostly open terrain, a 4x fixed is fine. Wide-open terrain is better for a 6x. Or, just get a 2-7x or 3-9x and hunt anywhere you like.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 10:01
jetwrnch View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/03/2006
Location: Knoxville, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 294
With boar in the mix I would (and did) consider a 1.25-4x20 or similar. An older El Paso Weaver K2.5 micro track can be had for well under $100 and work just fine. A new Weaver V3 would be another option at $150. GREAT little scope for the money and dang near bullet proof.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 13:05
John Barsness View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist


Joined: January/27/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785

seattlesetters,

Obviously we're all different. I have been hunting big game for 43 years now and killed my first deer at 40 FEET (not yards) with a 4x, no problem. Have killed more than one bull elk in thick stuff at under 100 yards with a 6x. Elk are a lot bigger than deer, and I've also taken a bunch of similar-sized game all over North America and in Africa at close ranges with 4-6x scopes. If they are specialized instruments for open country then my definition of open country must be different than yours.

I have also killed quite a bit of game with a 2.5x scope at up to 300 yards. Have also killed several head of big game at 200-350 yards with iron sights.
 
All of which is why I feel that, in general, magnification is way over-rated for general big game hunting. 
 
Extra magnification helps most when shooting in really dim light, because of twilight factor--or when shooting at REALLY long range, say beyond 400 yards. Even then, I have killed a bunch of animals neatly at over 400 with a 6x scope. 
 
But in general both field-of-view and magnification are over-rated in a normal hunting scope. The average hunter tends to obsess about them, however, just as he obsesses about a couple hundredths of an inch in bullet diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, or 200 fps in muzzle velocity. If you know the rifle, and know how to shoot, then a very wide range of scopes and ballistics will do the job on a very wide range of big game.
 
We tend to obsess over relatively small details in America because we have such an array of rifles and scopes that we feel that somehow we can pick the "perfect" combination for eveyr kind of hunting. In other countries, where firearms ownership is more limited and both rifles and scopes are really expensive, hunters tend to use one all-around rifle with an all-around scope--and often it's a fixed power, partly because of price and partly because of reliability. They don't worry much about whether 4x is exactly right for every range, or whether their 7x57 or .30-06 or .375 H&H is under-powered or over-powered. They just got out and hunt stuff.
 
In my experience the only reason most deer hunters even "need" 9x or 10x on a hunting scope is so they can spot their shots on a 100-yard target when sighting in. And the only reason they "need" 3x is to feel better at closer ranges. Fiddling with the magnification ring also makes them feel more confident because they feel "ready" for any shot, even though when the shot comes most of the time they could have just left the scope on 4-6x and got it done.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 13:18
SD Dog View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
OT Scratching Post

Joined: February/28/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 4177
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

seattlesetters,

Obviously we're all different. I have been hunting big game for 43 years now and killed my first deer at 40 FEET (not yards) with a 4x, no problem. Have killed more than one bull elk in thick stuff at under 100 yards with a 6x. Elk are a lot bigger than deer, and I've also taken a bunch of similar-sized game all over North America and in Africa at close ranges with 4-6x scopes. If they are specialized instruments for open country then my definition of open country must be different than yours.

I have also killed quite a bit of game with a 2.5x scope at up to 300 yards. Have also killed several head of big game at 200-350 yards with iron sights.
 
All of which is why I feel that, in general, magnification is way over-rated for general big game hunting. 
 
Extra magnification helps most when shooting in really dim light, because of twilight factor--or when shooting at REALLY long range, say beyond 400 yards. Even then, I have killed a bunch of animals neatly at over 400 with a 6x scope. 
 
But in general both field-of-view and magnification are over-rated in a normal hunting scope. The average hunter tends to obsess about them, however, just as he obsesses about a couple hundredths of an inch in bullet diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, or 200 fps in muzzle velocity. If you know the rifle, and know how to shoot, then a very wide range of scopes and ballistics will do the job on a very wide range of big game.
 
We tend to obsess over relatively small details in America because we have such an array of rifles and scopes that we feel that somehow we can pick the "perfect" combination for eveyr kind of hunting. In other countries, where firearms ownership is more limited and both rifles and scopes are really expensive, hunters tend to use one all-around rifle with an all-around scope--and often it's a fixed power, partly because of price and partly because of reliability. They don't worry much about whether 4x is exactly right for every range, or whether their 7x57 or .30-06 or .375 H&H is under-powered or over-powered. They just got out and hunt stuff.
 
In my experience the only reason most deer hunters even "need" 9x or 10x on a hunting scope is so they can spot their shots on a 100-yard target when sighting in. And the only reason they "need" 3x is to feel better at closer ranges. Fiddling with the magnification ring also makes them feel more confident because they feel "ready" for any shot, even though when the shot comes most of the time they could have just left the scope on 4-6x and got it done.


Excellent  Amen.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 14:28
wshive View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/11/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Okay, I think I need to just man up and make a decision. One last question though: is it a good rule of thumb to assume that a fixed scope will have better low light visibility than a variable of comparable quality despite the variable's larger objective lens? Coatings and everything else being equal that is.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 14:41
John Barsness View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist


Joined: January/27/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
A fixed scope tends to have fewer lenses than a variable, so is a little difference, as each lens-to-air surface tends to scatter a little light.
 
On the other hand, a fixed 4x scope with a 28mm objective allows all the light through it that the human eye can use. The exit pupil of such a scope is 7mm in diameter (28mm divided by 4 is 7mm) and the average human eye can only expand to 7mm in diameter.
 
If we turn a typical 3-9x40 scope to 4x it will have a 10mm exit pupil, but our eye can't use the "extra" light.
 
A 6x scope with a 42mm objective also has a 7mm exit pupil, and a 3-9x40mm scope will have a slightly smaller exit pupil when turned to 6x. In that case the 6x62mm scope would be slightly brighter in dim light than the 3-9x40 set of 6x, assuming equal quality lens systems, both because of a very slightly larger exit pupil and fewer lenses in the 6x.
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 14:48
seattlesetters View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/20/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 136
JB - I agree all individual experience is different.  I have found different needs hunting in the thick rainforests of the PNW. If I were to used a fixed-power scope up here, it would be a 2.5x at the very most.

I once passsed up a quick, going away shot on a big bull elk at 30 yards because I just couldn't discern enough elk through the 6x scope I was using at the time. Just saw too many tree branches, ferns, bushes, alders, etc. I can't say for sure if I'd had my trusty 2-7x variable (which would have certainly been set on 2x in such terrain) if I would have been able to make a shot or not. If so, that certainly means I could have made the shot with lower power fixed like a 2.5x. But on that day, a 6x fixed was a handicap (not because it was a fixed power scope, but because it was a 6x) which caused me to pass up a shot at the bull of a lifetime.

If I were to ever purcahse another fixed-power scope, I'd go with a 4x for sure for the type of hunting I do, and maybe even a 2.5x.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 15:05
300S&W View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: January/27/2008
Location: Burlington,WV
Status: Offline
Points: 10592
   We could really use more low to medium power fixed power scopes on the market. I've got my steel tubed Weavers in 2.5x,4x,and12x;a Denver Redfield in 2 3/4x;and a Weaver GS in 4.75x which,and someone correct me if I'm wrong,was the last attempt at bringing out a REALLY new fixed power scope for hunting. Of course,until the demand increases I guess we'll not see too many new additions.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 16:10
ar15a292f View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: May/26/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 77
For under $200 I'd go with the Burris 3X-9X-40mm Fullfield II with the Balistic Plex reticle.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2009 at 16:41
300S&W View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: January/27/2008
Location: Burlington,WV
Status: Offline
Points: 10592
  Here's another good Burris selection. I'd really like the reticle I believe.
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  < 12 3>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Rugged Budget Scopes?"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
In need of a rugged and reliable scope Novusordo Rimfire / Airgun 23
new target scope on a budget cjmac Target 11
budget Scope mini 30 marine one Rifle Scopes 3
$400 scope budget muleymaddness Rifle Scopes 9
Extreme budget scope FegelVuzela Rifle Scopes 21
Recommend me a scope on a budget trjones87 Rifle Scopes 30
What's The Most Rugged Scope Bad Bob Rifle Scopes 82
Need A Rugged Scope Wild In AK Rifle Scopes 7 10/12/2005 10:43:28 AM
Need advice: Budget scope comparison CDMMA Rifle Scopes 11
Budget 308 scope cdowell1972 Rifle Scopes 3


This page was generated in 0.609 seconds.