Print Page | Close Window

Best money can buy

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4472
Printed Date: March/29/2024 at 06:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Best money can buy
Posted By: huntfish
Subject: Best money can buy
Date 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?)



Replies:
Posted By: ceylonc
Date 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.



Posted By: mwyates
Date 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.



Posted By: huntfish
Date 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.


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date 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.


Posted By: Trinidad
Date 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).



Posted By: huntfish
Date 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.


Posted By: mwyates
Date 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.



Posted By: huntfish
Date 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.


Posted By: Trinidad
Date 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.



Posted By: Narrow Gap
Date 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.


Posted By: huntfish
Date 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


Posted By: mwyates
Date 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.


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: September/13/2006 at 22:18
You could try reversing the scope. Objective up front.


Posted By: Tip69
Date Posted: September/13/2006 at 23:05
Can't you use "higher" rings or am I missing something?

-------------
take em!


Posted By: mwyates
Date 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.


Posted By: Tip69
Date 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!


Posted By: Trinidad
Date 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.

 



Posted By: mwyates
Date 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.



Posted By: Trinidad
Date 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.

 



Posted By: mwyates
Date Posted: September/14/2006 at 20:49
The only VX-L I know anything about is mine, and it's been fine.  There's a lot of new technology there; I wouldn't be surprised at a few early problems.


Posted By: huntfish
Date Posted: September/14/2006 at 21:07
Help me to understand this a bit better please. For low light performance what dictates the performance? As I understand the exit puil has a bearing on it plus coatings and glass quality, but does it make any difference when the scopes are not on the highest power? eg, the 2.5-8 on 4 power gives a 9mm exit so do you gain anything by going to the 50mm lense except when using the higher magnifiaction (which I don't use above 4 when hunting)?
Thanks


Posted By: ceylonc
Date Posted: September/14/2006 at 21:45

Just my opinion but since it appears that the Kahles CL (absolutely UNBELIEVABLE scope) is no longer an option, I'd suggest looking at a Swarovski AV. 

 

Maybe I just missed this within your other posts but what made you decide on buying the Kimber Montana in the first place?  Beside the obvious that it's a heck of a nice rifle & stainless, did you select it because you're weight sensitive, do a lot of hunting where you're carrying in heavy brush, etc.?  The reason I ask is you suggested that price isn't an option and that you simply want the best.  Is it of upmost importance that the scope to be have a low profile?  I have two A-Bolt II Synthetic rifles (one in .260, the other in .308) that I use for whitetail & hog hunting.  They're not much heavier than the Montana & are carried through whatever I encounter in the south Alabama woods.  They also both wear scopes with a 52mm & 56mm objective, respectively.  I have NEVER encountered an obstacle where the size of the scope was a hindrance in the woods.  However, I have encountered numerous situations where I was very happy that I had a scope in the woods that gathered a ton of light with the 50mm+ objective.  That's not to say that premium scopes under 44mm objective are inferior but if you want the best from a brightness, clarity & resolution standpoint you're only going to find that in a larger objective...

Just my $.02.

 

p.s.--you can do a LOT better than a Leupold with that rifle.  You'll always feel like you "settled" if you go that route & I'd be willing to bet that you'll replace it in less than a year.  If you're budget is infinite, do it right this purchase. 



Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: September/14/2006 at 22:12

"p.s.--you can do a LOT better than a Leupold with that rifle.  You'll always feel like you "settled" if you go that route & I'd be willing to bet that you'll replace it in less than a year.  If you're budget is infinite, do it right this purchase"

 

Couldn't have said that better if I tried.



Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: September/14/2006 at 22:29

If money is not a option then like Ceylonc said swarovski AV should

be your second choice per your requests not Leupold.



Posted By: huntfish
Date Posted: September/14/2006 at 22:37
Good points, the only reason for looking at that size scope was to keep it balanced. It is a carry rifle as that is how we hunt here, mostly steep hills and dense bush. I would happliy put a big scope on but as per my post above, do I gain anything on 4 power? The bigger scopes such as S&B and similar weigh quite a significant amount more than the smaller ones and I fell this may up set the balance and make it top heavy. I have a Vari - x 111 LRT 3.5-10 x 40 on a very light 280 rem which is I described, unbalanced and awkward to carry for long.
The scope I had always thought would match the rifle was the swarvo but it seems they may not be the cats pijamas?? The dealer who I got the rifle from sells kahles and swarovski and he recommended the kahles over the swarvo, don't know if it was to suit him or me.
So tell me once again, what would YOU put on it?
Thanks


Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: September/14/2006 at 22:39
The Kahles CL.


Posted By: huntfish
Date Posted: September/14/2006 at 22:51
What size?


Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: September/14/2006 at 23:20

2-7x36 with Burris Signature low rings and mounts and a offset insert kit .

You can thank me later with a pic.



Posted By: huntfish
Date Posted: September/14/2006 at 23:26
What's an offset insert kit?


Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: September/14/2006 at 23:33

They are synthetic inserts that will alow you to cant your scope in multiple directions to optimize your scope position on your rifle with enhanced grabbing power and will leave no ring marks.

Instructions included.    

See burrisoptics.com.   

 



Posted By: mwyates
Date Posted: September/14/2006 at 23:54

My priorities are size and weight, and durability.  This is the rifle that will be with me most of the time.  I've used a VX III 2.5-8X36 a lot and know what to expect from it.  As I said earlier, it's never let me down.

 

There may be other options, but I wouldn't consider the Swaro 3-9X36.  I've had one and was disappointed; not worth the money.  The CL is a much better scope.  I might consider one of the new lower powered Conquests.  I'm sure they are great to look through, but I'm not convinced of their durability. 



Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: September/15/2006 at 00:03

I hear you Mwyates, I am also not confident with the construction of the Conquest.

 



Posted By: ceylonc
Date Posted: September/15/2006 at 06:42

Originally posted by huntfish huntfish wrote:

Good points, the only reason for looking at that size scope was to keep it balanced. It is a carry rifle as that is how we hunt here, mostly steep hills and dense bush. I would happliy put a big scope on but as per my post above, do I gain anything on 4 power? The bigger scopes such as S&B and similar weigh quite a significant amount more than the smaller ones and I fell this may up set the balance and make it top heavy. I have a Vari - x 111 LRT 3.5-10 x 40 on a very light 280 rem which is I described, unbalanced and awkward to carry for long.
The scope I had always thought would match the rifle was the swarvo but it seems they may not be the cats pijamas?? The dealer who I got the rifle from sells kahles and swarovski and he recommended the kahles over the swarvo, don't know if it was to suit him or me.
So tell me once again, what would YOU put on it?
Thanks

 

The KAHLES CL...KAHLES CL...KAHLES CL...

 

I think I'm suggesting that you go the KAHLES CL route!!!

 



Posted By: Narrow Gap
Date Posted: September/15/2006 at 19:10
Hey ceylonc! Which part of South Alabama are you from? I live in Baldwin County near Spanish Fort.


Posted By: SwiftKS
Date Posted: September/15/2006 at 22:20
Ok, so you want the best scope money can buy... well that's all relative on use, opinion, etc.  I mean look at all the responses; everything from Bushnell to Zeiss.  Personally, I own Leupold, Ziess, Swarovski, and Schmidt & Bender, to name a few.  Here's how I think they break down... Swarovski 4-16x50 Professional Hunter 30mm & Schmidt & Bender 4-16x50 Precision Hunter 30mm are the best two scopes I think I've ever used, and its a good thing if your not worried about spending money, b/c they are about $1400 and $2000 respectivley    I personally like the Schmidt and Bender the best, I can see just as early or late as the Swarovski, however, the rectiles are so much heavier and are easier to see in low light.  I mean you can have the biggest objective, the thickest tube, and the clearest lense you want, but if you can't see your crosshairs, your screwed.  If anyone knows a better or more expensive brand than Ziess, Swarovski, or Schmidt let me know, I've spent countless hours trying to track down the "elite."


Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: September/15/2006 at 22:35

Hello SwiftKS

 

To bad so many people are weight sensative, the S&B is the best followed by Zeiss VM

and then Swarovski PH  with Kahles CL very close to the PH for hunting in my opinion.

I do not know if you have seen the new movie Silent Hill but this is the best way I can

describe the S&B, first you hear the alarms next the lights go out and its showtime.



Posted By: huntfish
Date Posted: September/16/2006 at 01:14
All very good, but don't you think a 4-16 x 50 S&B is going to look out of sorts and be an overkill on a .260 montana used for deer hunting?


Posted By: ceylonc
Date Posted: September/16/2006 at 11:09

I'm going to try to hunt down my digital camera & take some pics of my A-Bolts with their respective "large" scopes.  Maybe it's just my opinion but I don't think that the large objective(s) look out of place on these lightweight rifles.  Pehaps that could help you a bit in your decision.

 

To me, there are 5 hunting scopes that could be considered the "best."  Consider the following (in no particular order):

--Kahles CL;

--Zeiss Diavari (aka--Victory line);

--Schmidt & Bender Professional;

--Schmidt & Bender Zenith;

--Swarovski Professional Hunter;

I think any of these could be considered the best.  Personal opinion on which to choose based on individual needs, application, etc.  None of these will be found lacking for really any hunting situation.



Posted By: huntfish
Date Posted: September/16/2006 at 15:13
Thank you, I do appreciate the responses a lot. I have sent off for information as to the models available here to our S&B agent so will wait to hear from him. We can only get one CL model here, 30mm tube with multi-zero, so if I have to go 30mm  tube I will now relook at S&B, although I think it would be from the Zenith line if we can get them. Maybe 1.5-6 x 42 or 3-12 x 50 if it looks alright.


Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: September/16/2006 at 22:23
There is also a S&B PH 3-12x42


Posted By: ceylonc
Date Posted: September/16/2006 at 23:50

Originally posted by Narrow Gap Narrow Gap wrote:

Hey ceylonc! Which part of South Alabama are you from? I live in Baldwin County near Spanish Fort.

 

Actually, I live in Memphis, TN.  I hunt in Monroe Co. in S. Alabama because that's where my best friend from college (Univ. of Alabama) has about 800 acres of land.  The land is near Monroeville by the Alabama River.

I'm pretty familiar with Baldwin Co. ("across the bay") as I dated a girl from Daphne.  I've also had quite a few beverages at Judge Roy Bean (aka--"Judges") in Fairhope.  That area has grown a ton since my college days in the early '90's.



Posted By: huntfish
Date Posted: October/08/2006 at 22:43
Update. I have purchased 2 scopes and have found that interesting. One is a Swarovski 3-9x36 and the other is a S&B 4x36. With the swarvo set on 4 power and viewing through both scopes at dusk, the S&B is noticably brighter. I even did a test with my son asking if he could tell any difference without letting him know what I thought and he came up with the same conclusion immediately. The swarvo looks slightly better mounted but the S&B has a clearer picture. I will keep them both and put one on my son's .243 tikka. Thanks for the replies, this was just to let you know the outcome.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net