driftrider

+1

That was my point for spending more on the scope. I'm not rich (not even close), but I wanted a great rifle with great glass that I'll be proud to own for the rest of my life. Awhile ago I realized I preferred accuracy to volume, so I sold my SKS's and inaccurate semi-auto rifles and started buying bolt action rifles that would shoot 1.5 MOA or better. I could blast all day with an SKS as surplus Russian ammo, but I'd be very lucky to keep all the shots on an 8.5x11" sheet of paper at 100 yards. After serving in the Marine Corps and having the chance to put 10's of thousands of rounds downrange from real machine guns, the appeal of the SKS wore off.

More recently I realized what many hunters don't, that the quality of the glass is every bit as important as the rifle it's mounted on top of. I know many, many guys who won't think twice about buying a $700-1,000 rifle, and then they'll mount a $50 Trashco in the cheapest aluminum rings they can find on it, and wonder why the darn thing gives them fits at the range. Most of them then blame the RIFLE!

Is $700 a lot to pay for a quality rifle? Most would say no. So why then do so many balk at paying at least half that much for at least mid-level glass? If you can save for the rifle, then you can save for the scope, too. It might take you longer to scratch that new-gun itch, but you'll be glad you waited.

Mike

skeeter 7MM

If you feel the Zeiss Z-plex is to small for you in the field and buy a leupold you should be looking at the heavy duplex rather then the standard. Personally prefer the conquest and swaro a-line's to leupold VXIII in all optical aspects...however I'm not you so buy whichever you feel is the best. Leupold may not be the best for the dollars spent at the present however they are still good optics and a solid choice IMHO.

In regards to the nikon monarch I don't care for the bulk of the 2.5x10x42mm and the power ring is very stiff still after a year on my 10 II ML (which sees a lot of action). Optically I am happy for the dollars, though personally would buy a bushnell elite 4200 instead.

As to which mag (X) I personally don't see the need for more then 10x on a biggame setup. I think the money could be used on better things then more mag on my scope. Just my 2 penny's though.

Good luck

Sheridan

Everyone you mentioned is good.




I use Burris; in fact I put this one on every rifle I own




http://www.burrisoptics.com/sigselect1.html#4x16x

schoolcraft

After a lot of looking a long time at the Leupold and Zeiss lineup, I went with ol' faithfull again

Leupold VX3 3.5X10X40mm.

Mounted it on my rifle and after a quick bore sighting, it was within 2" of spot on at 100 yards.

I was amazed!

Took it out right at dusk last night at my hunting lease and could still see well enough to shoot WELL after legal shooting light.

I'm VERY pleased!!!!

Sheridan

aLL YOU MENTIONED ARE GOOD.



dON'T OVER LOOK bURRIS




http://www.burrisoptics.com/sigselect.html

Swampdog

Got a Loopy 3.5x10x50 Vari x III with the heavy duplex reticle on my Model 70 in 7 rem mag Been a great combo for years would not change it for nothing.

Frank in the Laurels

Dollar for dollar and year after year the standard Leupold's are hard to beat.. I own at least a dozen 3X9's, 3.5X10's a 6X18 on my hunting rifles and have never had one fail, fog or otherwise cause me any problems and most of the 3x9's are many years old and cost from
$150--$250, which is no more expensive that the vast majority of scopes produced.. On my target rifles I have the 36d's and Nightforces..both of which are far more expensive but good clear lenses and precise movements..hard to beat
Leupold for the average Joe!!

marlinxl7

i just got a bushnell DOA 600 for my new marlin xl7 and i would like to know if anyone has any experience with this scope.I like the crosshairs thick and i would like to know if it is good in low-light conditions when im normally hunting.Any imput would be nice.