Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
savage .204 |
Post Reply |
Author | |
kerndoo
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/22/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: May/22/2006 at 00:05 |
Just bought a savage 12 low profile .204. Money is tight so I would like to get a scope for under $300. I will use this gun primarily for prarie dogs and would like some kind of variable powered scope zooming up to 16x or so. Any suggestions?
|
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x40 can be had for right around $300.
In that price range, that's probably your best bet. ILya |
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Try a look at the bushnell 6-18 trophy , I've used the burris and bushnell and the bushnell is a better dog scope. (even though it's not as well made). If you could go another $50 the new Nikon buchmaster 6x18 is better than either.
|
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Why do you think that Trophy is a better dog scope than Fulflield II?
I would certainly disagree with that, but I am curious as to how you came to that opinion.
ILya |
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
2000 rounds in each of 3 different guns with scopes used alternately in real shooting situations (crow and dog hunting)
|
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Does that mean that Trophy, in your opinion is beter optically, or mechanically or more durable?
I do not doubt your experience, but I have both Fullfield II and Trophy and FFII has better glass, more repeatable adjustments, and better build quailty the best I can tell.
In what way id Trophy better than FFII?
ILya
|
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Dog guns are different, the gun and scopes can be bigger and more awkward. While the Bushnell is about 2x times the size in length and breadth, it doesn't matter because of no carry. It works better in the "flow" of shooting. After having, a burris 6x, 2x7 handgun, 4x12 compact, the one with the iris, a ballistic plex, 3x9 and a 4.5x14 I found the repeatability in the bushnell to be as good as any of these. No doubt I got one made in the middle of the week after the crew settled to work (saki wore off). Usually in dog hunting (and tactical long range shooting) percentage of hits is the best indicator. Even the best long range shooters feel good at an 80% and dog hunting can go a lot lower. (Oh forgive me all internet guns shoot 1/4 moa what was I thinkin). As an analogy there are many guns out there that are mechanically build better, more durable, better designed etc. but few that can outshoot a cheap Rem. 788. in triple deuce. Both of the Fullfields had viscosity problems. Not only in the erectors, but worse in that the european focus and the power selector are in the same unit- soooo when they get sticky it takes two hands to operate, the european focus and power selector on the bushnell are seperate. Last but not least 14x is to low for dog hunting, and the junction of the cross hairs was too thick. I guess I have to ask--how much have used a trophy? |
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I've used a Trophy a fair bit although it was a 3-9x40 model for the
most part. I've looked through the higher magnification model,
but have not had a chance to play with it too much. My problem
with a high magnification Trophy was that the resolution went down
significantly in the upper quarter or so of the magnification
range. I could actually resolve better with it at 12x than at
18x. No such problem with a 3-9x40, which is an awesome little
scope for a $100. Neither trophy though could compare favourably
(or equally for that matter) to the FFIIs I had at around the same
time: 3-9x40, 4.5-14x40 and 6.5-20x50. I have not had a whole lot
of problems with FFII power adjustment although I tend to not play with
it too much. My bigger concern was optical quality and adjustment
repeatability and their FFII was better than Trophy in every way I can
think of.
As for Sake wearing off, I can't recall exactly, but I do not think Trophy is made in Japan (at least not any more). It is some other Pacific RIm country. I want to say Korea, but I could be confusing it with something else. ILya Edited by koshkin |
|
kerndoo
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/22/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thank you koshkin and dale. Very good informaiton. I currently own a burris signature select 4-16-44 on my .270 and am very pleased with burris, so I like the fulfield for that reason. I also agree that with prarie dogs and a ten pound gun, size and bulkiness of scope is not a factor. I like the idea of an 18x zoom for this kind of shooting. Dale, with the lack of quality in the bushnell, would bouncing around on an atv cause problems foreseeably?
|
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Yup made in Korea-- Kerndoo how about teenager tested in a 4x4 pickup?
|
|
Brady
TEAM SWFA - Admin Casino Cruiser Joined: May/20/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I wouldn't know what I would do without mine in 22-250. |
|
kerndoo
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/22/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
well, its all over, I bought a nikon 4.5-14x40 buckmaster. Price was $280 so that was my motivation. I am still questioning a little whether I did the right thing, but this gun project went a bit over budget. I went and shot today and was grouping about 1.25 at 200 yards with about a 16 mph crosswind. I was pleased. Thanks for the advice.
|
|
Post Reply | |
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 |