New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Scope purchase dilemna
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Scope purchase dilemna

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/06/2008 at 15:40
en4h View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: March/06/2008
Location: Manchester, CT
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Long time reader, first time writer.....
I just sold my Leupold Vari-x III because it was illuminated (illegal here) so I'm in the market for a new scope.  I've got budget constraints so I've been looking on Samplelist and SWFA for some really sweet deals.  My dilemna is this.  In doing quite a lot of research over recent weeks, I've discovered that I really like the Kahles CL scopes.  The multizero is really attractive to me as I do primarily whitetail hunting in the northeast, but I'm headed to Wyoming in October for Antelope and hopefully setting the stage for more "out west" hunting.  I also like punching paper and making really tight groups out as far as I can shoot.  3-9x42 seems to make the most sense but I've been entertaining 2-7x36.  As for parallax adjustment, I can take it or leave it in a 9 power scope. 
My other choice is the Zeiss Conquest in a 3-9x40.  A pile of great features not the least of which include a little more eye relief, and a great Z600 reticle.  I've experimented with Zeiss' Rapid Z Calculator to use the reticle.  I have to say it's pretty cool.  Nutshell, you put the scope on a precise magnification and you're set up for 100 yard increments on the long hashmarks as indicated by the reticle.  These hashmarks increase in length as your range increases.  Would these be for windage?  Leupold Boone and Crocket reticle is similar and they write that theirs is for 10mph cross wind.  Is this the same for the Conquest???  Kahles CL with MultiZero doesn't care about the magnification - I don't think.... or does it???  Kahles doesn't have any provision for windage as it is only available in Plex and 4A reticles. 
 
Having made my long-winded rant, which would I be better suited for on my Thompson Encore .270 ???  Are the optics comparable?  Realistically, will my eye see a difference?  Do I need a windage reticle?  Is my Encore "not worthy" of such optics as the Kahles?  On another post, from tahqua on March 2, 2008, 2008 Rifle Rating Scale scored the Conquest a 6/10 and the Kahles a 9/10.  Is the difference that great?  Any thoughts would be great.
 
Still up in the air.......
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/06/2008 at 15:57
helo18 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: December/02/2006
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 5432
Go with the Kahles.  Better Glass.  If you get the multizero you will be able to zero at different ranges ( one for where you hunt currently and a longer range for hunting out west) and won't need a drop compensating reticle.  If you site one of the setting on the kahles for 300 yards, with a 270, you will be good out to 400 and can just hold a little high for 500.  If you can afford the Kahles get it!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/06/2008 at 16:03
3_tens View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: January/08/2007
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7182
I just recieived a Kahles 3-10x50 CL Yesterday. WOW!!! It is so clear, and this scope really showes its stuff at night. I had it out before I left the office last night and watched the gangers slim jim a car in the apartments across the street. They were as clear as day over 350 yds in the dark.. It beats the 3-9x50 conquest hands down. Kahles at $799 on the sample list. For the best scope I have ever looked thru.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/06/2008 at 16:07
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087

why is illuminated illegal?? anyway remember seeing a kahles (3x9) in a local store with a tds which is similar to the windage ones your talking about.  windage with most of these type of bdc reticles are marked of in 5 moa increments. usually with a 10 moa limit. Sooo this means they are are too slow for wyoming, which needs about a 40 moa. --just kidding-- (a windy day in wyo is just another day-- if they think its windy, the interstate will be closed).

a bdc with 100 yd increments can be approx. pretty close on an antelope sized animal, say if it is 137 yds. in actual.  or you can simply dial in the click differences. one can't compare a reticle hold over with a dial in --- the hold overs are structured for (usually) the highest magnification  while the multi is a dial in no different than dialing in moa inany scope. (although possibly more convient). (actually dial ins like the multi and m2 on mk4 leo are done at the highest mag also, but the error is really small for ranges out to 600 yds on flat shooting cartridges. )

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/07/2008 at 08:52
en4h View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: March/06/2008
Location: Manchester, CT
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Thanks everyone for your input.  I'm pretty well sold on the Kahles.  In reading the post from Antleraddiction and his Browning 7mm-08, the idea of the Kahles 2-7x36 was touched upon.  The 7mm-08 has very similar ballistics to my .270 so I wonder how well suited the 2-7x36 would be for my .270?  Or should I just focus on the 3-9x42?  Anyone have any thoughts on that?  Is 7x enough to reach out and touch 400 yards, assuming I could muster up the confidence? 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/07/2008 at 09:00
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131
i think either one would be a solid choice - you are on the right track.
J
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/07/2008 at 09:57
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
You really can't go wrong with either...... I'm more familar with the 3-9 and that is what I would go with, but I can't site any good reasons for it.  Do you do a lot of tree-stand hunting?  If most of your shots are pretty close.... like under 50 yds.... like what can happen in a tree stand, I think the 2 power would be great!  I guess what I'm saying is, I wouldn't buy a scope for "out west" until you really start going out west!  If you do get to do that on a regular basis, that's a great reason to buy another gun or barrel and have 2 scopes!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/07/2008 at 10:15
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 en4h en4h wrote:

Thanks everyone for your input.  I'm pretty well sold on the Kahles.  In reading the post from Antleraddiction and his Browning 7mm-08, the idea of the Kahles 2-7x36 was touched upon.  The 7mm-08 has very similar ballistics to my .270 so I wonder how well suited the 2-7x36 would be for my .270?  Or should I just focus on the 3-9x42?  Anyone have any thoughts on that?  Is 7x enough to reach out and touch 400 yards, assuming I could muster up the confidence? 
.................................Yes! The 7X setting is good enough for the longer shots on medium sized game and larger! In fact most of the time, a variable scope in most hunting situations, will not be used above 5 or 6x, if that!.................If better target precision shooting is a concern with a lower powered variable, don`t let it be a concern. There is an article on,,, shootingtimes.com,,,I believe under the optics section, "magnification vs. group sizes," where the writer compares group sizes using a 1.5x, a 2.5x or 5x and goes up to a 35x............Hardly a difference to really be concerned about at 100 yards! A 2x7 suites the 7/08 very well!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/07/2008 at 11:54
edsguns View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: February/29/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 35
Originally posted by en4h en4h wrote:

Thanks everyone for your input.  I'm pretty well sold on the Kahles.  In reading the post from Antleraddiction and his Browning 7mm-08, the idea of the Kahles 2-7x36 was touched upon.  The 7mm-08 has very similar ballistics to my .270 so I wonder how well suited the 2-7x36 would be for my .270?  Or should I just focus on the 3-9x42?  Anyone have any thoughts on that?  Is 7x enough to reach out and touch 400 yards, assuming I could muster up the confidence? 


I'll agree that 7x is plenty of magnification for big game shooting at up to 400 yds. I own a T/C Encore too, with two barrels 25/06 and .35 Whel. I'd say the 25/06 is pretty much on a ballistic par with your .270 and the clincher for me would be that the 2-7x36 would look much better on that compact platform. I actually felt a 3-9x40 Looked a bit too big on mine. A matter of opinion, of course.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/07/2008 at 12:29
medic52 View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 893
IMHO- I vote for Kahles ....
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/08/2008 at 08:16
en4h View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: March/06/2008
Location: Manchester, CT
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Thanks everyone for such great advice.  You all could have told me I spelled dilemma wrong every time I used the word.  Now I look like "en4h, the new putz on OpticsTalk"....  Big%20Grin
 
I took the plunge and bought the Kahles CL 3-9x42 Multi. off of samplelist.  I think I'll be really happy with my decision.  I was hoping that they would inadvertently ship it next-day-air but no luck.  I have to wait 5 days until next thursday to get it.   My next question is about rings and mount. 
 
On my Encore, I have the Encore Weaver style "see-thru" mount because I also have open sights on my 270 barrel.  Open sights are more for back-up if something happens to the scope.  I don't use see-thru rings.  When I sold the Leupold, I kept the Leupold QR Weaver style rings in case I decided to put them on the new scope.  Now with the new Kahles on the way, I'm not sure that they are the best choice.  The rings are steel and the top half of them wrap around a little more than 180 degrees making them very difficult to install without scratching the scope.  Not only that but the screws don't seem to want to stay tightened.   After a few boxes, I notice groups getting a little sloppy and when I investigate, I find that the screws have backed out a quarter turn or so.  I retighten and things come back together.  This happened more than once.  I didn't use lock-tite on the screws but maybe I should have. 
 
Which rings would be best suited for the Encore Kahles 270 ???  Looking for some more great advice.  Any other comments would be awesome too.
 
Thanks again...   
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/08/2008 at 08:32
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483

I would recommend the Warne rings and they work with Weaver style mounts.  I'm not a fan of see-thru mounts/rings because usually they make you lift your head to see thru the scope.  Just go with the regular mounts.  You should be able to use Med. Warne rings with this set up and maybe even Low rings.

Good pick with the CL....... Welcome to the land of awesome glass Baby!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/08/2008 at 08:40
edsguns View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: February/29/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 35
I concur with Tip69, as I think Warnes are the best of the many types of rings I've used. Because your .270 barrel has sights I'd go with the Warne Maxima QDs and I'd think medium should suffice for the 42mm objective. As a vertical split ring design, I don't think you can beat Warnes.
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Scope purchase dilemna"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Help With First Scope Purchase bigbadwolv Rifle Scopes 16
New scope purchase question jackofalltrades Rifle Scopes 3
Sightron 6-24ffp scope purchase for hunting and LR dibbs Rifle Scopes 1
Need guidance on a scope purchase RobsonT Rifle Scopes 5
Bino dilemna arshutr Binoculars 1
Weaver Choice Dilemna philgood80 Rifle Scopes 5 3/16/2004 5:40:25 PM
CZ 527 SCOPE/ NO SCOPE? JAMINGRIZZ Rifle Scopes 16
Which scope to purchase? osucowboy76 Rifle Scopes 4 9/7/2004 1:32:08 PM
help w/ new scope purchase RogernAl Rifle Scopes 6 9/2/2004 5:13:19 PM
Newbie Scope Purchase Advice hbus1300 Rifle Scopes 11 10/17/2004 9:18:47 AM


This page was generated in 0.423 seconds.