've been debating on getting some new glass for my T/C Omega.

I've read that in order to get the same optical quality as a given fixed power scope in a Vari that you have to spend big bucks, or at least alot more than the price of the fixed. If this is true it seems as though the gain in optical quality would be worth the cost of the lost option of vari-power. the only time I ever turn up the power on my varis is when I'm sighting in, if I want to judge a rack I use my Bino's.

this line of thinking is leading me towards a 4x40 Nikon Buckmaster.

Am I errored in my line of thinking?

Optical flaws aremore noticableas the mag. is increased. As well fixed have less moving parts so theory is better then a comparably priced variable. So you are thinking correctly. Wheter it is the right way of thinking, you'll have to deceide.

I personally like variables on the range and in the field. On the range the ability to better see my target via increasing the mag. means better groups which for me gains confidence - quint essential IMO for hunting. In the field I like the ability to power up or down for different situations. I run my variables at 6x most of the time, though if I am in tight I power down to the lower end and if a longer shot presents itself I power up. The fact it is going on a ML means the range of shot isn't as vast as say a CF, though I treat it the same as one and just prefer to adjust the power as I see fit. So my Ml's all wear variables as well.

So is afixed 4x or variable the best option based on your prefences/experiences????

Best of Luck.

IMHO go for the variable. You can get an Omega 3x9x40 on SWFA's samplelist (demo's usually) for about $185 and they are made for muzzleloaders. Whatever you buy, don't buy a cheap scope.

You know, years ago I would have agreed with your line of thinking, but not today. Most companies are really geared toward making a decent variable since this is what most will buy now a days. I would say they really make their bread and butter of the 2-7 and 3-9 power variables.

It is true that a fixed power scope is less complicated and will have less to go wrong with it, does that you mean you will get twice the scope for the money, most likely not unfortunately.

I did a quick look on cabela's website, I didn't see a fixed power buckmaster listed, which doesn't surprise me, fixed power scopes are getting harder to find these days since less people want them. I did however find some fixed power scopes in the Pro Staff line up. I'm not telling you they don't make a fixed power buckmaster scope, just that cabela's doesn't carry it and I want to compare prices for you.

Looking at the Pro staff scopes they have a 4X for $110 and a 2-7X for $130. Other than the magnification the specs are pretty much the same, especially if you set the variable at 4X and compared them. They have the same objective, reticle, eye relief, field of view, length and pretty close to the same weight. Maybe not exact, but so close you wouldn't be able to tell. The only real difference is the magnification.

They will use the same lenses, same coatings and same internals for adjustments. I highly doubt one will look any better than the other, if anything the variable will look better because you can turn the power down farther which will make it brighter and more crisp to your eyes.

The price difference is only 20 bucks and the only thing you gain or lose is the ability to change the power of the scope. I'm sure it cost a lot less to make the fixed power but you are not seeing much of the benefit from it, they just make more money off from them is all. They don't offset the price by using better optics or anything.

Where you would see the difference would be switching from one line up to another, or from a cheaper brand of scope to a better one. Like instead of getting a 3-9x50 Pro Staff for $200 you settled for less power and a simpler design in a better grade of scope, like a 4X40 or 4X32 in a Buckmaster or Monarch. You lose features, but you gain better optics and possibly build quality.

This really holds true when talking about high powered scopes. QUALITY magnification cost money, period. Good quality simple 3-9's start around $200, maybe less if you get a good deal on one. So you can't expect to get a 6-24x50 varmint scope with adjustable parallax and other bells and whistles for 175 bucks. You might get one that is usable, but I wouldn't call it "good". And you won't either if you look through one that cost more and compare them at the highest settings. To get a quality scope of that caliber you would probably have to spend at least twice that.

Here is a good scenario for you. I am thinking of getting a centerfire rifle. I'm thinking a .243 so I can varmint hunt and deer hunt, I might even get a .270 or a 7mm. I'm probably going to pay $500 or $600 for the rifle. I'm poor though, so I have to sell stuff or trade it in to get it so cost in very important to me. Now I need a scope and I can't afford to drop another $400 or more on a scope.

I can get a BSA target 8-32X target scope for around 200 bucks with mil dots and adjustable parallax. That would be cool because the .243 can really reach out there if you want it to. But it's a BSA, they are ok for the money, but lets be honest they are not known for high quality optics or stringent Quality control. Or for around the same money I could get a quality 3-9 or 3.5-10 like a Nikon, Cabela's Alaskan Guide, Bushnell 3200 or a Burris. Or I could get a Bushnell dusk to dawn or Trophy scope for nearly half that and it would still be better than the low priced high powered scope. It just wouldn't have oodles of magnification or all the fancy options.

I know that is more info than what you wanted, but do you get what I am talking about now?

Good luck,
Paul

Here's what I would do. Order a fixed power (my choice a Nikon Monarch 4X or 6X) and variable of your choice and compare them side by side under low light conditions. Ask yourself what scope delivers the most useful image under those conditions the fixed or variable. That is what I did with a 4X Monarch I ordered and a Leupold VXIII I currently own at the time (twice the cost and more weight).I kept the Monarch and put it on my "mountain rifle" and sold the Leupold.

I would personally go with the variable, you can always turn the power down....

The reality is, that most people do not beat a rifle in the woods bad enough to worry about the extra moving parts issue. If you are a tactical shooter (swat, military, etc) you might get a fixed, or go ahed and spend the BIG money on a variable. Personally, and I am a tactical shooter, I prefer the variable power. It is nice, to be able to lower the power if you are shooting close cover, and to jack it up, if you are shooting distance, or want to better ID something.
I strongly recommend the Nikon Buckmaster. I had one in 4.5 x 14 power. I shot it in Sniper Competitions around the US, and used to hunt. Shot it from 50yds, out to 1200. Cost wise, not too bad. Less than 400 if I remember right. I bought mine about 6 years ago at a Bass Pro. At the time it was the best I could afford, and now, comparing it to a $1000 leupold Mk 4, I wish i had it back. Don't buy into the school of though that more expensive is always better, or that variable isn't worth anything. Just my $.02

good luck

i would get a 3-6x40nikon omega with the bdc reticle out to 225yrds

Thanks for all the replies, my concern wasn't so much about dependability as much as clarity and brightness. My thinking was that with fewer pieces of glass for the light to pass through you might gain some clarity and brightness but it sounds like you don't gain enough to make up for the advantages of vari-power. for example 4x40 buckmaster vs. 3-9x40 buckmaster.