OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Rifle Scopes
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Scope vote everyone please participate
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

Scope vote everyone please participate

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Message
white cloud View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/10/2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote white cloud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Scope vote everyone please participate
    Posted: January/10/2005 at 20:42
I would like to cast a vote of experienced opinions on a scope for a .257 weatherby magnum. Price does not matter since there is little price difference.The choices are the following. Leupold vx3 3.5-10x50, pentax lightseeker2  4-16x44, zeiss conquest 3-9x50 or nikon monarch 3.5-10x50
Southeast Georgia Boy
Back to Top
Bart Simpson View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: August/25/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 56
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bart Simpson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/10/2005 at 21:05
I sold my Nikon 3.5-10x50 on a rifle recently though I liked it alot. The Leupold never looked quite right to my eyes( shot on a friends rifle). No experience w/ the Pentax. Put a conquest 3-9x40 on a Rem 760 carbine and love it. Scoped a buck in SC at 55 minutes after sunset a few weeks ago though I decided not to shoot. Some ambient light, good sight picture, strong reticle- just passed. Scope was excellent. Good luck.
Carl in N. FL
Back to Top
KYHunter View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: December/10/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 25
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KYHunter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/10/2005 at 21:05

Zeiss Conquest.

Back to Top
power-strings View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: November/26/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote power-strings Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/10/2005 at 23:35

Now that I've had and used my conquest 4.5x14x44 for a couple of months even shooting two hogs when it was too dark to see without a scope.  I can't help but to believe that for some reason my vxII 3x9x50 was clearer and brighter.  I would love to try the vxIII especially if it is better than a vxII.

 

Now I don't understand this because most people own here says the conquest is considerable clearer and brighter than Leupold but I just can't see that.  I think I'm going to send the conquest to Zeiss now that Deer season is over and let them see if there is anthing wrong with it.  It also seems like if my eye is not very close to center that I will see black spots on top and on bottom, but the vxII was not so sensitive to eye position.  I also had a full view on any power.  I did try to email zeiss but never got a return email.

Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/11/2005 at 02:53
Zeiss is probably the best glass of the bunch, but Pentax Lightseeker2 is quite good also.  Is there a particular reason you want to go with a 50mm objective bell?  There is really very little difference (if any) between 40mm and 50mm objective bells in the field.

Have you considered other comparable scopes like Burris Signature Selec 3-12x44, 3-10x40 or 4-16x44?  These are quite good, in your price range and available with Ballistic Plex or MilDot reticles.

Ilya
Back to Top
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mwyates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/11/2005 at 08:31
Power-strings knows what he's talking about.  Go with the Leupold.  I've got a 3.5-10X40 on my 223 WSSM and love it.  I'd also recommend the 40 instead of the 50mm objective.  It fits on low rings and is plenty bright.
Back to Top
Grubbs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: August/18/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grubbs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/11/2005 at 09:41
mwyates doesn't know what he's talking about unfortunately.  The Zeiss Conquest is superior to the Leup every time.  The Pentax is too (I have both of them).  I would take Koshkin's advice on this matter.  Leupold would  be my last choice here.
Back to Top
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mwyates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/11/2005 at 11:19

I might not know what I'm talking about, but I did spenf 2 full days with identical rifles, one with a Conquest 3.5-10X44 and the other with a VX III 3.5-10X40.  Here's what I found:

 

Image quality - equal

Build quality - Leupold wins; just take the caps off and turn a few clicks; you'll see the difference.

Eye relief - Leupold wins, unless you really like fixed.  I'd rather have more eye relief.

Customer service - everybody agrees that Leupold is the best

Price - Leupold wins by over $100

Overpriced German name - Zeiss wins

 

 

Back to Top
chasseur106 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: March/12/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chasseur106 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/11/2005 at 15:11

My thoughts are as follows.

        If I were considering the three that you mention, I would opt for the one with the smallest objective bell, as that would assure me, that while I am aiming with it I would be getting the best cheek to stock weld possible.   So that I could return to that same position time and time again without uncomfortable head contortions.  The reason being is that I would want accurate and consisitent shot placement without sacrificing shooting comfort, which will make a difference on those occasional long shots in the field.

        My preference is also for an American manufacturer even if they are using imported glass.

Back to Top
Grubbs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: August/18/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grubbs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/11/2005 at 16:15
I bought my Conquest's (2)  3.5x10x44 for $410/ea.  I've never seen the Leupold you rave about for $310 anywhere.  I did the same comparison you did with my hunting buddies from Louisiana.  Everyone agreed my scope was superior optically, and time will tell if it's as "tough" as your Leupold.  Zeiss wrote the book on optics many, many, many years before Leupold was ever even and idea.  You are just what Leupold likes in a consumer....blinded by their marketing genius with mediocre, overpriced products.   
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/11/2005 at 16:41
Grubbs, I certainly would not call Leupold products mediocre. 

They are, typically, well made pieces.  I do agree that they are overpriced.

Leupold is incredibly successful in their marketing endeavours, and they do stand behind their product 100%.  They are not top of the heap optically though.

Ilya
Back to Top
redneckbmxer24 View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/02/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1055
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote redneckbmxer24 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/11/2005 at 16:44

how about a bushnell elite 4200 2.5-10X40??? right under $400, and its brigher (i know this is going to cause some people to holler, but Roy will agree with me) than the others, and has rainguard coatings.

 

cory

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, I'll be only one of millions!!!
Back to Top
BillD1 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/30/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 31
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BillD1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/11/2005 at 16:48
Let's throw in the Bushnell 4200 it is also in this price range.  This scope's quality is probably better but at least as good as most of White Cloud's selection.  And I do believe that if White Cloud is not happy with this scope within the first year of it's purchase, Bushnell will refund your money.  Like White Cloud I am also it the market for a scope in this price range and the Bushnell 4200 is tough to beat.            
Bill D
Back to Top
white cloud View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/10/2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote white cloud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/11/2005 at 20:31
I;ve heard many times that 40's and 44's are just as bright as 50mm, if this is the case then what is the purpose of 50mm scopes. Are these ideas true are only biase comments of 40 and 44 mm scope owners. No offense to anyone but i just dont want to spend extra money on a bulkier scope with no advantage over the more low profile 40's and 44's.
Southeast Georgia Boy
Back to Top
carolinaflats View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/14/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 44
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carolinaflats Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/11/2005 at 20:47

I had the same question and from what I understand the little bit of light gained from a larger objective adds weight, bulk, and can sometimes mean the need for higher rings(since you said such things are an issue for you).  Many say that better quality glass in a 40 or 44mm can end up giving better performance than a lesser quality scope with a 50mm objective.  Also, I would strongly consider a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x44 while you are looking(the other scopes you listed seemed to be similar in magnification and obj. size). Like Grubbs said, you can find one for around $410 if you look hard, and if it is at a gunshop or online store SWFA has the 110% guarantee so you could get it even cheaper! I Good luck!

 

Back to Top
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mwyates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/12/2005 at 07:58

Guess I'll change my name to LeupyPimp; they must have a ring through my nose

There's a few people here who make a lot of sense, like those that recommend spending your money on binoculars instead of scopes.  Truth is, most of us spend way too much money on scopes for hunting.  A scope does not need to be incredibly sharp or bright to shoot a deer with it.  I counted last night, and I have 17 scopes (4 are Leupold).  The oldest, and cheapest, is a Redfield 2 3/4X on my Marlin 30-30.  I bought this scope used 30 years ago.  It still works perfectly and holds zero through lots of banging around.  I've used it for the majority of deer I've taken, and the biggest.  What more do you need?

Back to Top
Grubbs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: August/18/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grubbs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/12/2005 at 16:12

mwyates....guess what?.....I agree with you this time.  Koshkin, I agree with your response also.  Leupold is a marketing genius. 

Back to Top
chasseur106 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: March/12/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chasseur106 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/12/2005 at 21:20

    This response is addressed to the person who does not think that image quality in a rifle scope is of major consequence.     Image quality in a rifle scope is of major consequence because being able to differentiate between a bare branch and the buck's rack while he walks casually through the fading twilight and into the forest can mean the difference between legally taking a trophy or legal deer, and missing the opportunity that might never present itself again.  

          If all you are looking for is a sighting system, then Tasco (read as Crapco) is the scope for you.  If, however, you want to not only see what you are aiming at clearly and also know for sure that where you are aiming is a safe shot then stop trying to save a nickel while losing dimes on a cheap scope. 

             Yes, it can be expensive, but if you are going to hunt the whole proposition is expensive.  It is far cheaper to give it all up and go to the store and buy your hamburg  and steaks there.

           

Back to Top
carolinaflats View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/14/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 44
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carolinaflats Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/12/2005 at 22:34
I agree with chasseur106. The fine for shooting a button buck that appeared to be a doe is 100 bucks at the club where I hunt.  Makes sense to me to have good optics to make sure you know what you are shooting.  Sure good binos could help identify your target, but the scope that sits on your gun is whats going to make it count. If you don't mind spending the extra cash for a good scope, then why not get something with good light transmission and clarity?  To me spending the extra money now will save me from paying hundred dollar fines for years to come. Also, I'd hate to be able to see a nice buck through my good binos and not be able to get a good sight picture through my cheap scope. 
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/12/2005 at 23:39
I am not advocating using crappy scopes.  However, scopes are not there to count points on the antlers.  Any decent scope will allow you to see the animal and place your shot.  A decent scope to me is Burris Fullfield II or better.  In my opinion there is not enough difference in performance between a $1300 Swarowski and $400 burris to justify the difference.  With the Swarowski you'll see clearer but both scopes are clear enough to place your shot.  By the time your are ready to shoot you should have identified the animal using your binos.  The scope is for shot placement not for trying to resolve the animal's eye color.

Anyhow, this is just my opinon and I could be wrong.  If I had enough money I'd be buying all sorts of very expensive scopes simply because I like fine optical instruments.  If you can afford to put a $1000 optic on every rifle, more power to you.  It certainly won't hurt you in any way (other than your wallet of course).

Ilya
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.594 seconds.