OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Rifle Scopes
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Best money can buy
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Best money can buy

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Message
huntfish View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/02/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote huntfish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Best money can buy
    Posted: September/12/2006 at 20:54
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?)
Back to Top
ceylonc View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: September/13/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 514
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ceylonc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 21:33

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.

Back to Top
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mwyates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 21:44

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.

Back to Top
huntfish View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/02/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote huntfish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 22:27
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.
Back to Top
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Roy Finn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 23:24
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.
Back to Top
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Trinidad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 23:49

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).

Back to Top
huntfish View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/02/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote huntfish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2006 at 23:58
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.
Back to Top
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mwyates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 09:04

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.

Back to Top
huntfish View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/02/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote huntfish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 15:15
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.
Back to Top
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Trinidad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 15:22

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.

Back to Top
Narrow Gap View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: August/16/2006
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Narrow Gap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 17:01
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.
Back to Top
huntfish View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/02/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote huntfish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 17:40
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
Back to Top
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mwyates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 21:09
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.
Back to Top
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Roy Finn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/13/2006 at 22:18
You could try reversing the scope. Objective up front.
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: September/13/2006 at 23:05
Can't you use "higher" rings or am I missing something?
take em!
Back to Top
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mwyates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 12:29
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.
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: September/14/2006 at 13:30
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?
take em!
Back to Top
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Trinidad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 18:21

 

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.

 

Back to Top
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mwyates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 18:35

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.

Back to Top
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Trinidad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2006 at 18:54

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.

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  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 0.420 seconds.