Variable Power $650 Budget

I've got a Rock River Varmint 20" with NM 2-stage trigger and PRS stock, and am looking for a scope for it.   This rifle will be mostly used on the bench for target ranges from 100-400 yards, with the possibility of also trying farther distances. 

I'm looking to purchase a variable power scope that would be flexible enough at these distances, but still come within my budget of $600 (more or less).  I need enough power to be able to shoot for as much accuracy as I can.

My initial choices are:
- Bushnell 6-24x50 Elite 4200 30mm (with exposed turrets) $570
- Millet LRS-1 (6-24x56 35mm) $450-500

I really like the reputation and quality of the Super Sniper scopes, so I may consider a 16x.  When is their variable coming out?  It may be a no-brainer for me.

What would you recommend and why?

The two choices you have are both very good and should work well for you.

Generally, I seldom use magnifications above 16x or so, even from the bench, so I would suggest looking at some 4-16x scopes or similar:

Nikon Monarch 4-16x50 or 5-20x50
Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x50
Sightron S2 Big Sky 4.5-14x44SS or 4-16x42AO or 6.5-20x50SS or 6-24x42
Vortex Viper 6.5-20x44 or 6.5-20x50

Since you are shooting from the becnh and AR rifles are pretty friendly to large objective lenses, I would probably recommend going with a 50mm or greater objective lens in one of the configurations above.

ILya

The two choices you have are both very good and should work well for you.

Generally, I seldom use magnifications above 16x or so, even from the bench, so I would suggest looking at some 4-16x scopes or similar:

Nikon Monarch 4-16x50 or 5-20x50
Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x50
Sightron S2 Big Sky 4.5-14x44SS or 4-16x42AO or 6.5-20x50SS or 6-24x42
Vortex Viper 6.5-20x44 or 6.5-20x50

Since you are shooting from the becnh and AR rifles are pretty friendly to large objective lenses, I would probably recommend going with a 50mm or greater objective lens in one of the configurations above.

ILya

Look at the new 6500 series elites as well. You can also find some screaming deals on the sample list.

Does anyone think I should just go with the SS 16x42 and be done with it?  Or am I limiting myself here without the flexibility a variable scope offers?

I would go with the variable.  Your choice of the Bushnell up to 24x is not a bad choice if you want to shoot beyond 400 yards.  It is a quality scope and the optical quality at 24x should be good, even though I have never had the opportunity to look through that particular scope.  One thing to remember, it is better to have more magnification with your initial purchase than less, if that is important, as you will find yourself wanting another scope in the future if you feel you are short changed.

Dolphin wrote: I would go with the variable.  Your choice of the Bushnell up to 24x is not a bad choice if you want to shoot beyond 400 yards.  It is a quality scope and the optical quality at 24x should be good, even though I have never had the opportunity to look through that particular scope.  One thing to remember, it is better to have more magnification with your initial purchase than less, if that is important, as you will find yourself wanting another scope in the future if you feel you are short changed.

This is my logic as well, though I have to keep in mind that one scope can't do it all.
I like the Millet LRS-1 on paper, but I wonder where it would fare on the recent chart Chris put up.  If it has the optics of LX-III or 4200, and is built like a SS, then I'd consider it.  But who wouldn't?

http://www.swfa.com/pc-9792-259-zeiss-3-9x50-conquest-rifle-scope.aspx

I would stick with the Elite 4200 over any Millet product.

Dolphin wrote: I would stick with the Elite 4200 over any Millet product.

It may be the obvious choice, but what are your reasons?

Ior 4-14x50

Holy smokes 24x is way to much for 400 yard shooting.  I guess if you want to see the grains of the paper it will work.  10x works great for out to 1000+. 
Over magnification can be a bad thing.  I had a 24x IOR and never used it above 14x for actual shooting, they start getting dark because the exit pupil gets small and you start to loose the quality of the image you are seeing.  I think a scope with 16x is plenty for virtually any type of long range shooting. 

Second Amend wrote: Dolphin wrote: I would stick with the Elite 4200 over any Millet product. It may be the obvious choice, but what are your reasons?

Here is a Kahles that is doing good for me. It is slightly over your budget.  Anyway a budget is nothing more than a target. Something to shoot at.

Edited by 3_tens - March/13/2008 at 18:59

Urimaginaryfrnd wrote: Ior 4-14x50

For under $650? Link?

Dolphin wrote: Second Amend wrote: Dolphin wrote: I would stick with the Elite 4200 over any Millet product. It may be the obvious choice, but what are your reasons?  I have never owned a Millet product, but my primary reason is based on the responses that I have heard on the OT and the failure rate.  Now that being said, I have also heard that they have made improvements.  I have peered through a Millet at our local gun shop and it was optically clean.  But, other than that, I cannot tell you first hand anymore.  I own an Elite 4200 and it is a great scope.  All other, or for the most part, owners of the 4200s feel the same way.  Thus my reasoning.

Fair enough. Points taken, and thanks.

One of my range buddies swears by IOR.

I'm looking at the 4-14x50 Tactical 30mm scope that sells for around $1K.  I can probably stretch my budget a little if I think it's worth the extra money over the 4200.

What do you think of Mil-dot vs MP-8?
Exposed turrets vs non-exposed?

http://www.swfa.com/pc-9798-259-zeiss-45-14x50-conquest-rifle-scope.aspx    

Rapid-z 800 4.5-14x44 Conquest

Great choices you guy are providing.

My budget is now $1K, since it'll be  4-6 weeks before my rifle is ready.
I'm seriously considering the Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50.

I would go with the IOR, the MP8 blows away the mildot reticle.  

superstool73 wrote: I would go with the IOR, the MP8 blows away the mildot reticle.

How so?

The IOR is a contender.

They have half mil marks and multiple widths of the marks that can be used for more measurement in ranging.  It is easier to range with the 1/2 mil marks as sometimes you may need to use 1.8 mils or 1.9 mils to get an accurate measurement for ranging the particular distance.  That is much more difficult to break down when you only have a mark every mil to judge with. Also the center dot that is used in place of the cross hair is much superior in my opinion.  

But all that being said if all you are ever are going to do is shoot on a range at known distances the mildot or MP8 will serve no practical purpose other than maybe hold over.  

superstool73 wrote: But all that being said if all you are ever are going to do is shoot on a range at known distances the mildot or MP8 will serve no practical purpose other than maybe hold over.

Thanks.  You get more refinement with the MP8, but it seems so cluttered.

What's your (or anyone's) take on the illuminated reticle and exposed knobs?

Its not cluttered, they work great. 

Exposed are good if you plan on making adjustments all the time for different ranges and windage.  If you don't plan on that no need to have them.

Lit reticles perform best in low light, at dark they are pretty much over powering even on the lower setting.  If your target is lit up pretty well, they may benefit you some but in darkness they are pretty hard to use as it becomes very hard to make out your target with the bright red light in the scope.