Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Need Scope For Rem 700 .223 |
Post Reply |
Author | |
Tbrake12
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/15/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 44 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: January/15/2007 at 15:44 |
Just got a Rem 700 VSF (Varmint Syn Fluted). I'm looking for the ultimate scope. It will be used for prarie dogs, plinking, maybe an occasional deer hunt. I want around 4-5x on the low side and at least 14x on the top. I also want some type of BDC or Mil-dot reticle and I would like to use low rings. Measuring my other 700's shows that I can mount any 40mm and also the zeiss 44mm (1.890 obj bell dia.) with my low leupold std rings.
I just got a Kahles 4-12x52 Multi-0 for my .300 RUM and I like it alot but I don't want to spend so much ($1200) on the .223 scope and I would like a lower mount (the Kahles 52mm uses medium rings on the .300).
I've read alot of good about the Bushnell 4200 and the 4-16x40 is the right size but they don't offer it with Mil-dot (any future plans?) The 6-24x40 can be had with Mil-dot and side focus which is a big plus although I'm yet to figure out the dimensions of it. Bushnell doesn't even have a pic of it on their site, they just show another pic of the A/O model. I've also seen about 3 different lists of specs for this scope that show it to be anywhere from 13 to 16.9 inches long and the eye relief anywhere from 3.3 to 4 inches. SWFA shows a different pic than Bushnell and it does show a side focus knob instead of A/O. Anybody got one of these they could measure? I'd like to know the length, front bell outside diameter, rear bell outside diameter, and also eye relief if possible. I'm pretty sure this scope would mount with super-low rings on my gun.
I've also been looking at the Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44. This looks to be the largest scope I can mount on low rings and it is available with ZRF and Mildot reticles, it also has a side focus knob. Does anyone know of a website where I can see large pictures of Bushnell and Zeiss reticles?
And last, I like scopes that have a big picture like my Kahles and my Bushnell Trophy 4-12x40 (on my airgun). If the picture in them is a silver dollar size, my Leupold's are about the size of a Quarter. Is this from the longer eye relief of the Leupold? The VXIII scopes have that small picture I'm talking about. Is the field of view that much smaller or is it just an illusion because my eye is farther away? I've never had a scope hit my eye and I'd rather have the shorter eye relief if it means a bigger picture.
I'm open to suggestions and looking for opinions..... Thanks!
|
|
rootmanslim
Optics Professional Joined: June/04/2006 Location: Pinedale, WY Status: Offline Points: 557 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
If you can live w/o a mil-dot (you can on a 223) you might consider the 6-20 Nikon Monarch being closed out by SWFA. VERY good deal to say the least.
|
|
DAVE44
Optics Journeyman Joined: November/11/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 652 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I also like the larger sight picture like the trophy offers. The Nikon Monarchs are nice scopes but I didnt like the small view kind of like looking through a pipe. It may have the same field view but the picture seemed smaller to me. It reminded me of when I once looked through a Simmons 44 Mag scope. Maybe there was a problem with the scope I looked through since it was a display model at Bass Pro Shop, I dont know.
|
|
Dolphin
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 1795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Problem with mil-dots shooting pds, is that they can obscure the target at long distances and would therefore go with a BDC or some type of standard reticle. The FOV on the Monarchs at high mags. are similar to other scopes, so I am not sure what you mean by the picture appearing smaller. With the present sale, the 6.5x20 44mm with a BDC reticle at 349.95 in a matte finish, should fit your purposes just fine. The Bushnell is a fine scope, the equivalent or better than the Monarch and I am sure it is closer to the 16.9 inch mark you mentioned. At the website, all the scopes in that magnification in the 4200 series are listed at 16.9 inches long and one at 13 inches and I am sure the later is a typo. error. You will not go wrong with either. But, I would stay at that high of a magnification, shooting pds with a .223.
|
|
Dolphin
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 1795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
NIce rifle, by the way.
Edited by Dolphin |
|
jonbravado
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Status: Offline Points: 1131 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
the monarch UCC w/ the BDC reticle would be a fine choice - and on closeout pricing, you can't beat that.
J |
|
Tbrake12
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/15/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 44 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thank you all for the replies! Still waiting for someone to show up with measurements of a 4200 6-24 side focus. I haven't looked through any Nikons yet but will try to soon. Does anyone know if Bushnells 4200 Mil-dot is thick or thin? Big dots or small? I saw a tasco that had a very fine mil-dot with small dots. Thanks! Todd |
|
Trinidad
Optics Master Joined: May/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hello Tod the Mil-dot in the 4200 is slightly thicker with slightly larger dots than the Tasco. Not as thick but with similar size dots as the Burris,If you srearch online you will find actual deminsions of that reticle in a numeric form. The 4200 is a very nice bright scope for the money. |
|
Tbrake12
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/15/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 44 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks for the replies...... I stopped by Basspro and looked through some scopes this week. I tried the 4200 6-24x40 with side focus and mildot, another 4200 bushnell, zeiss 4.5-14x44 and 4.5-14x50, and the big swaro 6-18x50.
The 4200 6-24x40 is indeed shorter at about 13 inches, very compact and looks about like the average 3-9x40. It is a very handsome piece with side focus. It has the "small picture" look that I mentioned above, probably because the eye relief was lengthened to 4 ". It reminded me alot of the vxiii Leupold when I looked through it. Hard to keep my eye in the right spot and the edges weren't crisp. I wonder if this is a long-eye-relief issue that I can't get used to?? The mildot looked decent and usable but the reticles looked gold and I couldn't seem to make them solid black no matter which way I turned. The next 4200 I picked up was about a 2.5-10. The picture was bigger and less sensitive to eye position but the outer 50% of the picture was blurry and only the center section was clear. As much as I wanted to, I couldn't get happy about either 4200.
The swaro 6-18x50 looked very nice but was huge and super heavy.
Ziess 4.5-14x44 Conquest was perfect. It was more like my Kahles CL which I am very pleased with. The ziess had the nice big picture, more FOV (comparing all scopes on 6x looking at an archery target on the shelf) and the eye position wasn't as sensitive. The picture was clear all the way to the edge (swaro was too). I could be satisfied with this scope but I can't find a good picture of the mildot reticle for the conquest and basspro doesn't stock it. Not crazy about the plastic turret caps, anybody found any metal ones that fit? Thanks!
|
|
Dolphin
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 1795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Your experience with the 4200s are odd. Admittantly, I have never looked through the model you did, but all of the other 4200s I have looked through and the ones that I own are crystal clear, from edge to edge. No blurring, distortion or chromatic aberration. Does anyone else, Roy Finn, have any experience with these models? |
|
Trinidad
Optics Master Joined: May/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I think Roy has like 6 of those and he loves them all.I have not seen a 4200 with blurry edges. I do know that sometimes scopes are shipped out with a slight amount of grease around the part of the Obj glass where it meets the tube and alot of places do not do a good job of cleaning this part and leave a slight amount of residue behind. The plastic on the Conquest sucks and I do not know of any quality replacements for that available. The glass on the conquest is nice but at the price of a 4-14 I would go with a IOR Valdada,Meostar or Kahles. Edited by SVD666 |
|
Dolphin
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 1795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Actually the grease issue is what I was thinking, but thought surely the people at Bass Pros Shops should know better, or maybe not. I have never been in one. Then, I was thinking, finger prints. But, why weren't they on the other scopes? Oh, they cost more and they make more money. I guess I am just being cynical.
|
|
Tbrake12
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/15/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 44 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I must admit, I didn't look at the front lense for grease, I guess it's possible. After what SVD666 said, I looked up IOR. Does anyone have any experience with the tactical 4-14x50 scope? It seems to have everything, side focus, nice reticle, weighs a Lb and a half though.... Here is a link.
http://www.riflescopes.com/products/IOR414X50T/ior_4-14x50_t actical_30mm_rifle_scope.htm:// |
|
Tbrake12
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/15/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 44 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
That link doesn't work, try this one.......
http://www.riflescopes.com/products/IOR414X50T/ior_4-14x50_t actical_30mm_rifle_scope.htm |
|
ceylonc
Optics Journeyman Joined: September/13/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 514 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I own an IOR 6x24 50mm with the 35mm tube. I am a BIG fan of the scope. Optical quality is outstanding, the adjustments are accurate and the MP8 reticle is fantastic for holdover shots. I cannot say enough good things about the IOR I own and I can't imagine a reason why you wouldn't be just as happy.
If there is a negative then it would be the weight of the scope. However, it's not like we're talking about 3-5lbs here. We're talking ounces difference and unless you're climbing mountains then I wouldn't let a strong, durable scope with a little more heft scare you. |
|
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 |