How to decide?

I am looking for a new scope for my deer rifle. I set a budget and set out looking. I learn that I can't get what I am looking for in my particular budget. So, the budget increases. Now I have so many choices that just when I'm about to make up my mind, I can't decide. I take shot anywhere from 100 yards to 300+ yards. I need some type of bullet drop compensator for the long shots. This has drew me into looking at the Nikons. Right now I'm looking strongly at the Nikon Monarch 4-16X50 SF BDC. But the more I look on this forum and others the more I just don't know. I need a product. I don't mind spending a little extra to get a better product if I can truely SEE the difference and USE it. I am having a hard time finding unbias information. I DO NOT know about optics. I am definitely NOT an expert. How good is Nikon? I'm sure many of you will say the Zeiss Conquest is better. I pretty much understand that Swarovski is the best of the best. There are several scopes out there that are recommended that I have never heard of OR haven't heard of until recently. Some of them include: Sightron, Nitrex Optics, Meopta, Vortex. I could go on and on.

do you really need a 4x16? usually 3x9 2.5x10 stuff in that range is all you will ever need even if you take shots at 500yds. sightron zeiss meopta and nikons are all fine, the zeiss has the z-600 reticle the nikon has the bdc, burris has there ballistic plex also, i like my nikon with the bdc on it and it doesnt bother me at all at the range either, remember that when you go higher in magnification you need more light to be able to see out the other end, so cheaper glass with higher powers wont help you at all, which is why i would get the best 3x9 or 2.5x10 you can afford

That's just it; I don't know what I need! I just don't want to spend a lot of money on a scope and wish I had a tad more magnification. Who makes the best glass? It seems that this is up to interpretation. But for all practical reasons is it the GERMAN/AUSTRIAN manufactuers?? How does European glass compare to Japanese glass or even American glass?? Aren't Nikons made in Japan?

Bboy623 wrote: I am looking for a new scope for my deer rifle. I set a budget and set out looking. I learn that I can't get what I am looking for in my particular budget. So, the budget increases. Now I have so many choices that just when I'm about to make up my mind, I can't decide. I take shot anywhere from 100 yards to 300+ yards. I need some type of bullet drop compensator for the long shots. This has drew me into looking at the Nikons. Right now I'm looking strongly at the Nikon Monarch 4-16X50 SF BDC. But the more I look on this forum and others the more I just don't know. I need a product. I don't mind spending a little extra to get a better product if I can truely SEE the difference and USE it. I am having a hard time finding unbias information. I DO NOT know about optics. I am definitely NOT an expert. How good is Nikon? I'm sure many of you will say the Zeiss Conquest is better. I pretty much understand that Swarovski is the best of the best. There are several scopes out there that are recommended that I have never heard of OR haven't heard of until recently. Some of them include: Sightron, Nitrex Optics, Meopta, Vortex. I could go on and on. What I am looking for is the "best bang for the buck". I need excellent low light performance as most of the deer I see are at sunset and the 30 mins after sunset of legal hunting time. I don't want to spend more than I have to. I don't want to pay for just a name, if I'm not getting any better glass etc etc. Again, I'm looking at the Nikon Monarch 4-16X50. The cheapest I have found it is $429. So, what would be the best scope for the money in the $400-$500 range. Its almost like there are TOO many choices, and i can't make my mind up. Please help and give whatever advice you can. Thanks in advance and sorry for the long post.

............................Yep! The more bucks ya go up, the more difficult it is to decide on one!!

The last 3 scopes I purchased:

VX-III 1.5-5x20mm
VX-III 2.5-8x36mm
Nikon Prostaff 2-7x32mm

I dunno where you hunt (terrain and cover) or how (walk, ride, stand, blind) but for all around ease of use and packability, the VX-III 1.5-5x20mm has been on everything from .22's to 7 mm high powers to 54 caliber inline muzzleloaders.  The only complaint I have ever had is that it looks a tad small on a full/magnum length action.

i wont recommend leupold, the are like lambo's just buy a zeiss conquest in a 3x9 or 2.5x10 you wont be sorry they have great reputation and great cs dept. ive owned  at least 5 different nikons in the last few years and yeah they are ok, but the zeiss is better in clarity and they seem a little better in the darker times of day also.

Edited by pyro6999 - November/22/2008 at 07:15

Palehorse wrote: The last 3 scopes I purchased: VX-III 1.5-5x20mm VX-III 2.5-8x36mm Nikon Prostaff 2-7x32mm I dunno where you hunt (terrain and cover) or how (walk, ride, stand, blind) but for all around ease of use and packability, the VX-III 1.5-5x20mm has been on everything from .22's to 7 mm high powers to 54 caliber inline muzzleloaders.  The only complaint I have ever had is that it looks a tad small on a full/magnum length action.

I hear there's going to be some great sale prices on vxIII's after Thanksgiving.

I still hunt with a .270 Browning, 150 gr Remington Core Lock. I've always been under the impression that you do a 100 yard zero, so you can drop things out to 100 yards. Without a BDC of some sort I'd be "guessing" on how high to raise the rifle on 200 or 300 yard shots. I definitely need low light performance! I was thinking of the 50mm bells for that reason. Would a 30mm tube be better for low light than a 50mm bell? What if I got both? Would that be the ideal scope for low light? OR does it just mainly depend on glass and everything else is secondary? How much can I expect to pay for a Zeiss Conquest 3X9? Thanks for all your help so far; but I do feel like this:

Forgot to ask how ya'll felt about illuminated reticles. Worth it? It looks like they would help in low light situations. And is the zeiss the "vette" or is there a better bang for you buck scope?? Sightron? Meopta?

I do point blank sight in, usually 2.5-3" at 100 yards (depending on the load), then hold dead on out to 300 yards.

2.5-3" HIGH

this is a z-600 reticle

Whats the 4, 5, 6 stand for?? 400 , 500, 600 yards?? What happened to 200 and 300 yards?

Palehorse wrote: 2.5-3" HIGH

I agree: 100-300 yds don't require no BDC. Any of today's modern calibers focused on deer can be sighted-in at 100 a little high and still be on at 300. ACCESSORIES? BDC means the sight picture will be more cluttered with mil dots or whatever too. I'd feel better just knowing the range (step it off first, use a topo map with scale, or rangefinder and memorize those values for wherever you're at) and having standard duplex reticle (clear sight picture) with a good mental handle on by bullet drop chart. Summary: Simpler is better, and even cheaper! The more things you use that are in your head don't have to come with the scope! That's my motto. Optics? Number one: decide how good you think your eyes are. If great or decent, you need no illuminated reticle. If poor, IR would be advantageous but I would do a field test comparison with someone else's. Price & Quality ? I choose the mid-range and I've have no dissatisfaction whatsoever with my choices. I have two 6.5-20x40mm VXIII's, one 3-9x40mm VXI, and one 3.5-10x50mm Monarch. Can't beat the clarity (I doubt) and I myself have been able to tell very little difference (well, maybe none) between them in low light. If I went to the $1,000 price range on a scope, it would be because of more rugged internal construction, because my Monarch did a backflip off the cab into the truck bed and knocked the 100 yd zero setting way off. I'd rather my zero not be able to be moved. But then again, you're not supposed to put your scope in an abusive situation (unless you're in the military). The ability to set and mark your zero is a very nice feature on a scope. I paid $549 (TOTAL) for my newest 6.5-20 VXIII EFR target scope 2 months ago. Beats the norm of $679 ! 5-20x Monarchs were $419, but Leupolds are easier to sell I believe.

pyro6999 wrote: this is a z-600 reticle http://www.swfa.com/pc-9790-259-zeiss-3-9x40-conquest-rifle-scope.aspx

I'm also looking for a new scope, similar needs and shot distances as you mentioned, plus I just enjoy punching paper at the range also.  I have been using Leupold VariX III scopes, a 2.5-8x32 and a 3.5-10x40.  Both  have been great scopes, but I really appreciated the extra magnification when I got the 3.5-10x scope.  I use Swaro 7x42 SLC binos, and the extra power on the scope helps quite a bit for verifying target details when the binos aren't quite enough.  I would rather have more magnification and be able to turn it down THAN not have enough. 

Forgive my ignorance, but how does the Nikon Team Primos compare to Nikon Monarchs? Also how would Monarchs and Conquests compare to a Bushnell 4200 Elite? I just can't seem to make up my mind. One other factor I'll throw in if ya'll will chime in is ballistics. I currently shoot 150gr but I believe 130 gr has better balliatics and knock down power. Should I switch when I re-scope?    

Ballistics? I'd say if you're trying to bust a rhino from butt to brisket, definitely go with the heavier bullet. With deer, up to 300 yds, it won't amount to much difference. JBM ballistics software will give you a good comparison if you search it on the web. "Team anything" products are generally more economically priced I think, and on purpose. Clarity usually suffers. Don't know about 4200, but a guy showed me a couple of months ago what a REAL set of binos looked like. They were Elite 6500's with Baush & Lomb's name on them. Best set of glass in ANYTHING I've ever looked-through. Now the B&L design has been taken over by Bushnell, or something like that.

i will address the rifle issue first since thats more my thing, the .270win came out in 1925 and at that time the .270 was designed to shoot the 130gr bullet, now you say you shoot the 150gr bullets out of your rifle, if they shoot accurately and you like the way they perform then leave it be, if not the 130 is a good choice for deer the 140-150 are better for elk.

I won't claim it's any better than anyone else's approach or hunting style but I really thought long and hard recently about upgrading the scope on my rifle and decided against it. In my case, I have a Rem. LTR in .308 with a 20" barrel. I've been pretty happy with the Leupold FX-II fixed 4X scope that sits on it now.

You have a .270 ( a necked down .30-06) so you can reach out farther, but as long as you are thinking that 0-300 yards is your desired range, you really don't need to worry about BDCs or high magnification. For practical purposes, I don't consider the .308 that lethal beyond 300 yards - at least on elk - so I have standardized on one load and used the ballistics calculator at http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/calculations/traj/traj.html to figure out my maximum point blank range zero for an 8" dia. vital zone. That is great for antelope and works even better for bigger animals. At 100 yards, my aim point is 3.5" high and at 300 it is 4" low. It worked just fine on the two antelope I shot this year - one at 310 yards with a 15 mph crosswind and the other at 230, both off a Harris bipod.

Despite what one poster said, at least for me, at short range 4X is not a problem. Mostly that's because I shoot a lot of .22 through a 4X scope. I got a cow elk at 35 yards when I jumped her in thick timber this year. It was no problem getting accurate placement even through she was running.

Again, I'm not trying to claim this style is better. You have to do what works for you, but if nothing else, play around with the ballistics calculator and consider what you can do with a maximum point blank range strategy of some sort.

Jon

jonoMT wrote: Despite what one poster said, at least for me, at short range 4X is not a problem. Mostly that's because I shoot a lot of .22 through a 4X scope. I got a cow elk at 35 yards when I jumped her in thick timber this year. It was no problem getting accurate placement even through she was running. Jon

I have found this to be true as well.  I have used 3 and 4x my whole life and have never ever been over scoped for any shot I have ever taken.  Even running deer, elk, small game within 30 yards have never been a problem. 

supertool73 wrote: jonoMT wrote: Despite what one poster said, at least for me, at short range 4X is not a problem. Mostly that's because I shoot a lot of .22 through a 4X scope. I got a cow elk at 35 yards when I jumped her in thick timber this year. It was no problem getting accurate placement even through she was running. Jon I have found this to be true as well.  I have used 3 and 4x my whole life and have never ever been over scoped for any shot I have ever taken.  Even running deer, elk, small game within 30 yards have never been a problem.

ok, but here is my delimma. I don't want to spend $200 and wish I had a better scope for low light. I don't want to spend $500 and the 2 or $300 one would suffice for my needs. I know you get what you pay for, but then there's the line where you are only paying for a name. I just don't know where that line is for scopes. Zeiss, Nikon, Burris, Leupold,...they all have great names and great reputations. But when is enough enough?? A local Sporting goods shop that is privately owned sells more Nikons than anything. Does that mean Nikon is better than the others listed??------not neccessarily. I just want a really good scope to take home my Trophy buck and put meat on the table.

buy the zeiss, i currently have 3 nikons on three of my rifles i also have a 4200 elite on one, i will tell you that there isnt any hype about the zeiss conquest, the down fall with nikon is there poor customer service dept. leupold is one company that you pay for a lot of name.