New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - How to decide?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

How to decide?

 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: November/21/2008 at 21:22
Bboy623 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 370
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/21/2008 at 21:31
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
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
 
welcome to the ot
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/21/2008 at 22:14
Bboy623 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 370
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?
 
If you would appease my car analogy. The Corvette Z06 is a fine sports car and has a 0-60 time of 3.6 seconds, top speed of 198MPH and costs $73,925. The Lamborghini Murci√©lago is a super sports car and has a 0-60 time of 3.7 seconds, top speed of 205 MPH and costs $313,000. Granted the Lambo can go 7mph faster than the Vette but the Vette is a forth the cost. With all that the Vette is the BETTER VALUE. This is what I need related to scopes! Is the Nikon a Vette? Is the Zeiss a Lambo? Thanks in advance.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/21/2008 at 23:09
Big Squeeze View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
GOOGLE NINJA

Joined: August/30/2007
Location: Anaheim, Calif.
Status: Offline
Points: 3143
Originally posted by Bboy623 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!! Head Banger
 
I`m going to refer you watch this short audio/video at,,,,,,,,,shootingtimes.com,,,,in the video section,,,,click on "optics" and look for "Variable vs Low Power Fixed Scopes" with Wayne van Zwoll.
 
I`m not saying buy a fixed, as even I prefer the variables. But certainly a lower powered variable than a 4x16 is better and far more ideal. Remember that for 300 to 500 yard shots, most hunters will seldom set the power beyond 5x or 6x for the reasons Wayne talks about in the video. And he`s 100% correct.
 
If your hunting in timber or brush where shots may be less than 100 yards, 4 to 4.5x on the low end is too much because the FOV is narrower and it takes more time to acquire your target, aim and fire.
 
I don`t use a BDC reticle and never have. I simply use the KISS method and keep things as simple as possible. With my 300 WSM, I use a 300 yard zero, I know my bullet`s velocity and therefore I know the trajectory. With a 300 yard zero, a shot out to 400 yards has little to no guesswork.
 
You didn`t specify the rifle and cartridge your shooting, but if your using anything from a 25 caliber to a 338 mag, a 2.5x8 or a 3x9 is certainly all you need. On my own 300 just for fun, I remove my 2.5-8x28 Nikon Monarch EER scout and put on a 1.5-5x20 Leupold VX3 (from off my 375) and mount it in the conventional position over the receiver. Set on the 5x, a 400 yard shot on deer sized game is no problem with that Leupold.
 
Many also think that their groupings from the bench on paper will be better with a higher powered scope. Not necessarily! With that VX3, I have shot 3/4" OD groups and less at 100 yards. In fact, for group sizes, the low variable VX3 does just as well as my former 3x9 4200 on that same rifle.
 
Though some will disagree, I`d first take the 2.5-8x32 Nikon Monarch, the 2.5-8x36 VX3, the 3-9x40 Elite 4200, the Zeiss 2.5-8x32 before any 4-4.5x14 or16 with either a 40 mm to 50mm objective. They are heavier, more costly and won`t offer any major advantage in filling the tags. I`ll not only have the closer range advantage quickness, but I`ll still be able to produce successful kills at 400-500 yards. A 50 mm may offer a little more low lite performance, but not enough to really make the difference.
 
   
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/21/2008 at 23:30
Palehorse View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 135
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 07:07
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024

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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 09:40
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12711
Originally posted by Palehorse 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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 14:23
Bboy623 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 370
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: Head Banger
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 14:40
Bboy623 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 370
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?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 14:45
Palehorse View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 135
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 14:46
Palehorse View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 135
2.5-3" HIGH
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 14:52
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 15:09
Bboy623 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 370
Whats the 4, 5, 6 stand for?? 400 , 500, 600 yards?? What happened to 200 and 300 yards?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 15:30
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
Originally posted by Palehorse Palehorse wrote:

2.5-3" HIGH
 
With a 270 Win a 2.5" or 3" high 100 yard sight-in will put you about 4" high at 200 , dead on about 275, and a couple of inches low at 300.  Just remember to hold a speck low at 200 yards........Basically, hold dead on all the way out to 300 yards......Bandito
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 16:04
ops View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: November/22/2008
Location: TN
Status: Offline
Points: 2
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 16:17
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4294
Originally posted by pyro6999 pyro6999 wrote:

this is a z-600 reticle
 
 
Here you go. Zero for 200 yards, use the calculator on thier website to optimize the scope for your load, and knock them flat out to 600 yards. Works great. If you are really looking for bang for the buck, the Conquest is a Corvette. Another option, although a little step down, the Nikon Team Primos has a BDC, and is on sale right now for $199. You will not buy a better scope for $200 than this.
 
 
I still think the Conquest is the best bet. I own both, and would still pay the extra for the Conquest.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 17:02
blacktails View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/18/2008
Location: Washington
Status: Offline
Points: 76
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. 
 
With that being said, the two scopes that I'm strongly considering are the Sightron SII Big Sky 3-12x42 (about $436 on-line), which is highly rated, comes with a lifetime warranty, great cs, available with a "hunter holdover reticle", is fairly compact and light, and which one website listed it as their "scope of the year".  Most people consider Sightron's Big Sky a very good bang for your buck.  The other scope is the Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 (about $640 on-line), which I'm leaning towards because of the 14x, 44mm lens, transferable warranty and resale value.  I'm sure you've read about everyone's thoughts on the Conquest quality posted on various forums, so I won't go into that here.  IMO, there should be no problem woods hunting with a low end of 4.5 power, because certainly my 3.5x has been MORE than adequate for me, and in fact I rarely use it, preferring to leave my scope on 6x-8x most of the time. 
 
Whatever brand/model you choose, you can save some serious money right now with a discount of 25% off of ebay store "Buy it Now" purchases by using Microsoft's free live.com search account, and using PayPal.  Also, ebay has a 10% off coupon that expires in a couple of days that can be stacked along with the other discount.  This makes the Conquest scopes much more reasonable if you like Zeiss.  Good luck with your decision.
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 18:42
Bboy623 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 370
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? Head Banger  Head Banger Head Banger
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 20:42
ops View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: November/22/2008
Location: TN
Status: Offline
Points: 2
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 20:43
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
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.
 
the team primos is the old monarch ucc except it has the bdc reticle, the new monarchs are a little bit different than the primos are, they have some small upgrades. the 4200 is a nice scope, the eye relief on the 4200 isnt as good as the conquest or primos  but those scopes dont have rainguard either. optically you would be hard pressed to tell a noticeable difference between the three, but during the low light times i think the zeiss is better than the other two by a bit.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 23:05
jonoMT View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: November/13/2008
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 4615
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/22/2008 at 23:25
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9530
Originally posted by jonoMT 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. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/23/2008 at 09:18
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
Originally posted by supertool73 supertool73 wrote:

Originally posted by jonoMT 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. 
 
which i also agree with, which is why i think a good 3x9 is all that is needed
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/23/2008 at 14:54
Bboy623 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 370
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/23/2008 at 15:05
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
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.
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "How to decide?"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Help me decide, please on rings... NoahbodyImportant Rings and bases 5
New here, help me decide encoreguy Varmint Scopes 1 3/5/2006 6:10:53 PM
Help Me Decide Between Kahles 8X42 and 10 Capphd Binoculars 7 1/8/2006 8:54:43 AM
I can’t decide which one to get Osiruscyn Rifle Scopes 2 1/16/2006 1:53:27 PM
help me decide nohornes Rifle Scopes 8 12/23/2006 10:17:13 AM
binocular experts help me decide nohornes Binoculars 11 1/9/2007 11:36:38 AM
help me decide? hexcentric1 Binoculars 1 8/6/2007 8:46:55 AM
cant decide storm2844 Rifle Scopes 5 9/6/2007 4:47:53 PM
Help me decide on a Kahles scope Plumbergeek Rifle Scopes 8 10/1/2007 8:15:48 PM
Can someone help me decide? windstrings Binoculars 6 10/25/2007 5:04:39 PM


This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.