Can't believe how much I spent on a scope

[Sigarms]

Funny thing after thinking about it, I can't remember hunting deer on the east coast and ever having to take a shot past 100 yards:laughing:

Just kind of interesting that nowadays, if you want a gun magazines "good" hunting gun and rifle, you could drop 2k EASY on a rifle and scope (and yes, I've been guilty).

I guess as I get older I look at things differently now.

 

[MossflowerWoods]

SSSSSCHWWEEEEEEET!!!!!!!:licking:

I'm in the market for a new rifle scope combo myself now. I have a lethal Rem 770 30.06 that rocks, but the county I live in only allows sabot/slug and 22 cal.

Now I need a .223 or similar "Varmint Gun" that I could use for hunting deer also...

Good to know about the scope!

Thanks!
David

 

[charlz]

Looks good! Which scope covers are you using? I need to get some for my son's rifle but I haven't looked around too hard.

 

[Knight9]

Those look like Butler Creek covers? Great looking rifle. :thumbsup: I'll be interested in your review of the scope. I have a Bushnell, a Burris, and on my 10/22 a Simmons. Like someone else said, my longest shot on a deer has been under 100 yards....so far, so I just can't bring myself to pay the BIG bucks for the highest end glass.​

 

[beersngars]

I have several older Redfields and have been very happy. No experience with the newer offerings tho. For a hunting scope, it's hard to beat the Leupold VX-3's.

FWIW, I have a Leupold MK 4 that is super nice and quite a bit less than the US Optics and Nightforce.

 

[dusty3030]

Nice rifle. I see you used good mounts too, that helps.

The new Redfields from Leupold. I put a 2x7x33 on my wifes 30/30 to try it out. So far, so good. She doesn't beat on her rifles as bad as I do some of mine so can't say on the rugged yet; however, optics are clear. I can shoot as far as is practical at our place so I have some targets at 300 and 500 yards set up (old brake rotors hanging on a chain, you can hear / see a hit) and although I haven't shot her 30/30 at them I have looked at them at all magnifications through it and scope is plenty clear. Adjustments tracked accurately. Overall a good value IMO.

I've been lucky to shoot and handle a lot of rifles. Both mine and customers.
What I consider to be good values and give good service optics that I personally would not mount anything cheaper on one of my rifles:
Nikon Buckmasters
Burris Fullfield
New Redfield line.
Leupold VX 1's and 2's

Next level, great values and no compromises, should handle anyting you throw at them:
Nikon Monarch (these are as good as anything out there IMO - great value for the money)
Leupold VX 3
Burris Signature

Anything above that you are getting into premium as far as hunting scopes. $1,000 and up. Higher end Leupolds, Zeiss, Swarovski etc. Sky is the limit.

Runners up would be Bushnell 3000 and 4000 series. I've toyed with Sightron, but broke one that shouldn't have and has me leary of them.

 

[RobertN]

My concern is partly ruggedness.

More concern, is low light and sun flare. Not much worse than a scope that does not see well in low light, or flares out when looking to close to the sun.

I have a 2x7 Leupold on a Winchester in 30-06 Ackley Improved. Great scope in all light conditions. Have an older Simmons on a Savage 99; looks fine on the range and average light conditions. Flares out if too close to the sun, and low light is marginal. Yes, even the Leupold will sun flare, but not like the less expensive scopes...

But, have found the same thin in camera lenses... You get what you pay for. Hard to beat a good Nikon or Canon lens with 2.8 apeture...

I put a 2x7x33 on my wifes 30/30 to try it out. So far, so good. She doesn't beat on her rifles as bad as I do some of mine so can't say on the rugged yet; however, optics are clear.

 

[dusty3030]

Light transmission seems more than adequate. I always check them at dusk and this one passed my vote. My test is if you can make out target with naked eye better than through scope in low light, fail. If target is clear in scope but can't see well with my naked eye, pass.

Where I hunt we have pretty strict requirements on what you can take so being able to see spikes or judge a buck on the hoof is very important to me. No "ground checking" at the club / lease I am on.

 

[EddieWalker]

My main hunting rifle is a Remington 700 BDL in 30-06 that I bought in High School around 1981 and my scope is a 3x9 Redfield five star that I bought in 1988 right after getting out fo the Marines. I had it fog up on me one time about 20 years ago while hunting the foothills of CA and Redfield fixed it for me quickly and without charging me anything. I've read so many negative things about Refield over the years and since then that I haven't bought another. I like Leopold and think it's one of the better mid priced scope and binocular companies, but given a choice and that price range, I like Nikon a lot better.

For the money, and just now hearing that Leopold owns Redfield, I'm thinking that I'll have to look at Redfield again. Optics are so over priced, but in my opinion, WAY MORE IMPORTANT then anything else in hunting. You can save a little by buying a lesser priced rifle, you can even get away with basic ammo, but if your scope is off, or fogs up, or doesn't work, then nothing else matters.

My big rifle that I use for those special trips has a Swarvoski scope on it. Absurdly expensive, but twice as bright as my Redfield or anything else in the midrange price of scopes. Zeiss, Schmidt & Bender, and Leica are the only other scopes and optiks that I've seen that compare at low light conditions.

Eddie



Eddie

 

[Sigarms]

Nice rifle. I see you used good mounts too, that helps.

Good eyes. Scope is only as good as the mounts it's placed on IMO, and I didn't want to go too cheap there (figured I had at least some money to play with there LOL).

Caps are Butler Creek.

I'll sight it in on Saturday and see how the package does (as long as it will stop raining).