New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Best money can buy
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Best money can buy

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 20:54
huntfish View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/02/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Hello, I have a new kimber 84m in 260 rem and want to put on the best scope I can, what would that be? I am considering Swarovski, Kahles, Ziess, VX111 or Elite 4200 up to around 8-9 power for ranges 300yds max.
Thanks

Edit: Low light performance is critical, as is waterproofness. (is there such a word?)
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 21:33
ceylonc View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: September/13/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 514

Do you have a budget?  How much you looking to spend?  There is a big difference between a $400 Bushnell 4200 and a $1,400 Zeiss Divari.

 

Congrats on the purchase!  Sounds like a great rifle.  I've checked out the Montana and they're really nice.  You're going to LOVE the .260 Remington round.  Whitetail drop like they've been hit by lightening when hit with 120gr. ballistic tips.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 21:44
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196

I have a Kimber 84 Classic in .260.  You are going to love it.  .260 is one of those calibers that kills "deader than it should".  Something about the sectional density and length of those 6.5mm bullets (I prefer Nosler 120 gr Ballist Tips at aobut 3000 fps for my whitetail and hog hunting.  I've got a Leupold FX III 6X42 on this rifle and like it a lot.

 

I just bought a Montana in .243 (See 'new rifle" post below in Anythng Goes) and chose a Kahles CL 2-7X36 for it.  I didn't want anything bigger on a trim, lightweight rifle like the Montana.    If you really think you need 9X, the Kahles CL 3-9X42 is as good or better than anything I've seen.  As far as low light performance, I've used a Leupold VX III 2.5-8X36 for a good while and have always had enough light for legal shooting hours.  The FX III is better, and I expect the Kahles to be, too.  I'll have it tomorrow.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 22:27
huntfish View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/02/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Thanks guys. ceylonc price not an issue, just want an awesome rig. As for power range, I don't need 9x. I have a VX111 2.5-8 on a sako vixen .222 and really like it and would happily consider another as an option but wanted to know if there is substantially better avaliable. Do the euorpeans perform that much better? I have the opportunity to do it right from the start and purchase whatever I want, hence the questions for those who know a lot more about it than me.
Thanks again.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 23:24
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Those who know me know I am no huge fan of Leupold, but I don't feel that you will see a "substantial" difference with the above mentioned euro's. The difference is there, no doubt about that. Perhaps one of the new midrange Zeiss Conquests would be right up your alley. They are better than Leupold's optically, but cost less than the Kahles CL or Swarovski AV's. If price is truly not an issue, an AV in 3-9x36 would be the cat's meow for that trim rifle. I don't think you are going to to like the looks of the rifle with a 40-42mm objective hanging out there, I didn't on my Kimber 7-08. Hope this helps.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 23:49
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555

Hello Huntfish

 

See Mwyates "New rifle" post in the anything goes section,

I fell he has a exellent setup that is perfectly matched. I would

not go with anything over a 36mm obj for your rifle. I second

the swarovski AV 3-9x36 as a alternative. As far as "best money

can buy" scopes I feel that those scopes will not be a good match

for your rifle(to big).

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 23:58
huntfish View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/02/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Great comments and very helpful, thanks. Yes I like the set up mwyates has and will now decide between the Av 3-9 and the VX111 2.5-8. Still open to more usefull feedback if anyone has something else to add.
I read this site a lot and think it is awesome, the only negative for me is that they do not ship internationally so I can't support them financially. So thanks SWFA for a great site.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 09:04
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196

The 6X42 I have on my Kimber looks OK, but it is a short scope and it fits in low rings.  Other 40-42mm scopes required medium rings. 

 

I'm anxious to see the Kahles CL 2-7X36.  About a year ago I had the Swaro 3-9X36 and the Kahles CL 3-9X42 side by side for a couple of days.  The CL was way better; not so much brightness, but the view through the CL's is amazing.  The new enlarged ocular makes the view thrugh other scopes seem limited.  After looking through the CL, most other scopes looked like the 3/4" Redfield I've got on one of my old .22's. 

 

The Swaro is agreat scope, but once you look through a CL, you won't like the Swaro.

 

I'm hoping the 2-7 will be the same.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 15:15
huntfish View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/02/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Cheers, is the CL the multi-zero one? We do not get the AH as you do, we get what they call the CT (compact I think) but also have just started getting the multi-zero scopes. To me the only benefit of the multi-zero I would find is that I would be able to set it up for different bullet weights as I wouldn't need 3 or 4 long distance ranges. Hmmm, more food for thought. Will be trying some this week. Thanks.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 15:22
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555

The CL in America comes in both Muti-Zero an non Multi-Zero.

It is of much better quality than the AH we get here in America.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 17:01
Narrow Gap View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: August/16/2006
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 125
I will suggest either the Zeiss Diavari with either a 3 post German style reticle or illuminated reticle. Hard to beat this set up in extreme low light. I would take a look at the Schmidt & Bender Zenith in the 3 post German reticle or illuminated reticle. These scopes I mentioned are very expensive, from $1350 to a little over $2000 US dollars, but they are the very best riflescope money can buy.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 17:40
huntfish View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/02/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Thanks, I have had a look at the S&B, Nightforce and Ziess but they are quite heavy and would likely detract from the advantages of a light and handy set up. I think it will be a VX111 2.5 -8 or tha Kahles 2-7 x 36
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 21:09
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
Bad news. The Kahles CL 2-7X36 won't work on my Kimber 84.  The big objective bell doesn't provide enough clearance for the bolt handle.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 22:18
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
You could try reversing the scope. Objective up front.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 23:05
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Can't you use "higher" rings or am I missing something?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 12:29
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
I could, but I've tried medium rings on a Kimber and it felt all wrong.  I don't think you could use the Kahles lens covers even with medium rings.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 13:30
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
From everything I've heard about how wonderfull the Kahles are, I'm thinking the Leupold is better than given credit for if you are opting for it!  Would that be a fair conclusion?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 18:21
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555

 

The VX III is very good if it is not a low light situation. Good low light glass costs money,

Kahles CL has the low light advatage at a exeptional price. If low light performance is not

a feature you are looking for then you can save alot of money and go with something down

the ladder.

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 18:35
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196

Tip69, you are correct, but you have to take into account I'm the "Leupold guy" here.  The VX III 2.5-8X36 has never caused me to miss a legal shot, but there have been a few times I wished for something brighter.  Those times were VERY late, and probably past legal shooting hours.  It is a fine scope, especially if you want small and light weight.

 

SVD666, the Kahles would have some advantage, and not just in low light.  It is a superior scope, as it should be for twice as much money.  I hated sending it back, but ...

 

If I upgraded for the Montana, I'd probably get a VX-L 3-5-10X50.  I have one on another rifle and like it.  The big objective looks a little funny on a trim rifle, but you can use low mounts, and that helps a lot.  It has noticeably better low light performance than the 2.5-8X36, and is still less money than the Kahles.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 18:54
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555

Yes I agree the VX-L would be a better choice than the VX III and I have seen

some very good prices on the VX-L recently. I am intrested in the Red Mist

LRXV for a custom benchrest rifle that I want to build and I will be keeping

a eye on this scope. Mwyates I heard a couple of reports of people having

problems with the VX-L breaking on them but I have not seen one fail myself,

do you have any info on this.

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 20:49
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
The only VX-L I know anything about is mine, and it's been fine.  There's a lot of new technology there; I wouldn't be surprised at a few early problems.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 21:07
huntfish View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/02/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Help me to understand this a bit better please. For low light performance what dictates the performance? As I understand the exit puil has a bearing on it plus coatings and glass quality, but does it make any difference when the scopes are not on the highest power? eg, the 2.5-8 on 4 power gives a 9mm exit so do you gain anything by going to the 50mm lense except when using the higher magnifiaction (which I don't use above 4 when hunting)?
Thanks
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 21:45
ceylonc View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: September/13/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 514

Just my opinion but since it appears that the Kahles CL (absolutely UNBELIEVABLE scope) is no longer an option, I'd suggest looking at a Swarovski AV. 

 

Maybe I just missed this within your other posts but what made you decide on buying the Kimber Montana in the first place?  Beside the obvious that it's a heck of a nice rifle & stainless, did you select it because you're weight sensitive, do a lot of hunting where you're carrying in heavy brush, etc.?  The reason I ask is you suggested that price isn't an option and that you simply want the best.  Is it of upmost importance that the scope to be have a low profile?  I have two A-Bolt II Synthetic rifles (one in .260, the other in .308) that I use for whitetail & hog hunting.  They're not much heavier than the Montana & are carried through whatever I encounter in the south Alabama woods.  They also both wear scopes with a 52mm & 56mm objective, respectively.  I have NEVER encountered an obstacle where the size of the scope was a hindrance in the woods.  However, I have encountered numerous situations where I was very happy that I had a scope in the woods that gathered a ton of light with the 50mm+ objective.  That's not to say that premium scopes under 44mm objective are inferior but if you want the best from a brightness, clarity & resolution standpoint you're only going to find that in a larger objective...

Just my $.02.

 

p.s.--you can do a LOT better than a Leupold with that rifle.  You'll always feel like you "settled" if you go that route & I'd be willing to bet that you'll replace it in less than a year.  If you're budget is infinite, do it right this purchase. 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 22:12
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856

"p.s.--you can do a LOT better than a Leupold with that rifle.  You'll always feel like you "settled" if you go that route & I'd be willing to bet that you'll replace it in less than a year.  If you're budget is infinite, do it right this purchase"

 

Couldn't have said that better if I tried.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 22:29
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555

If money is not a option then like Ceylonc said swarovski AV should

be your second choice per your requests not Leupold.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Best money can buy"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
So What Is It That More Money Buys macky Rifle Scopes 8 3/20/2006 8:44:53 AM
Vortex Viper Scopes -- Good buy? zwbonner Rifle Scopes 6
buy cheap buy twice! darren Varmint Scopes 26 2/19/2007 9:10:57 AM
Best scope for use/money markshoreline Rifle Scopes 18 1/22/2007 7:19:44 PM
best bino for the money lesun Binoculars 6 11/21/2006 9:07:42 PM
Best tripod for the money? gremlin Spotting Scopes 2 7/30/2006 12:20:32 PM
stoney point gauge pyro6999 Reloading & Ballistics 7 9/15/2007 2:43:45 PM
Stoney Point Target Knobs wrenchman Varmint Scopes 3 2/1/2006 7:03:32 PM
brightest scope for the money? clipboard Rifle Scopes 10 11/29/2005 5:20:42 PM
Burris signature worth extra money? otis348 Rifle Scopes 7 10/31/2004 12:56:14 PM


This page was generated in 0.391 seconds.