ndnMOJOman

Thinking about buying a better scope for my Win. mdl 70 300 mag. Considering Leupold VX-III 6.5-20X 50 However they are pricey, also looking at the Bushnell 4200 2.5-10X50. Which leads to my main question
A) "How important is the higher magnification for long range shooting?"
The local range max's out about 500yrds. I know the rifle is capable of longer distances and would like to buy a scope that will eventually let me shoot further while staying accurate.
I have noticed while watching various programs on tv that long range shooters don't always us high magnification scopes.
B) Is there a brand of scope thatwill give me quality at a more reasonable price?
I can't afford a swarovski or Zeiss. I know that the quality and clearity of the lens are important and with opics you should buy the best you can afford. Just looking for some helpful information from my fellow hunters and range shooters that might save me some time and money. THANKS,

stubblejumper

A 6.5x20x50 is overkill for any big game hunting rifle.I use a 3.5x15x50 scope to shoot 1000 yard targets.If the same scope was available with a 40 mm lens,I would have it instead.I shoot out to 500 yards with 3x10x42 scopes.

Because they aren't necessary.

If you can afford a VXIII,you can afford a Zeiss conquest,as the prices are comparable.I would go with an elite 4200 2.5x10x40 if your budget is limited or a Zeiss conquest 3x9x40 or 3.5x10x44 if your budget is a little more.
You don't need huge magnification or a 50mm lens for that matter on any big game hunting scope.

bugsNbows

+1 regarding the Zeiss Conquests. Very good for the $.

robbcayman

TRUST ME, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A NIKON!! They offer awesome optics at a value price.

I just bought a Nikon buckmaster 4.5 x 14for my 300 win mag and I couldn't be happier. I looked at everything from Leupold, Zeiss and the Nikon Monarch.

In the end, I couldn'tsee a big enough difference between the buckmaster and the higher end scopes. I was prepared to throw down $600 bucks on a good scope, but when I couldn't tell any difference in the"higher end" stuffI wentwith the Nikon. Go to cabelas, bass pro etc.. and read the reviews.

Lastly, I would go in and look at all of them, but I'm willing to bet you leave with the Nikon. Just my. 02 cents.

jemrami9

I'll throw another shout out for the Nikons as well. I had buckmasters and still have a Monarch and they are great. Depending on your budget, I picked up my Meopta Meostar R1 4-16X44 for $525 shipped. That scope rocks! PM me for more info if you like. Good luck!

stubblejumper

Going in and looking at them in a store will prove very little.The differences in a lit store will be marginal at best.The only way to see the differences in optical quality is at first or last light,with no artificial lighting.The best thing to do in most cases,is to go at dusk,on an evening when the store is open late,and have a clerk accompany you outside to compare scopes.

ndnMOJOman

Thanks for the response everyone!
Made a few calls today and learned a few things I would like to run by you all.
- A 40mm Obj. works better than a 50mm obj. due to the height it takes to mount the larger obj. on top of the rifle. Proper alignment when looking through the scope, Cheek to stock I believe. The larger obj. also shows more mirage in the field of view.
- The higher magnification is not needed. 12x to 14x is all the magnification that is needed even for long distance shooting.
- A 30mm main tube is better than the 1in. tube. Larger field of view.
So at this point a Nikon Monarch 3-12X42mm or 4-14X42mm is looking good. The Leupold 4.5-14X40mm w/30mm tube looks good also. But, I don't know if it is worth the 200. more dollars over the Nikon.
Does this information sound correct? Has anyone used these scopes or both by chance?
Like I stated before looking for the best Bang for the buck if you know what I mean. Thanks

stubblejumper

Not necessarily.30mm scopes are generally used for long range shooting because they offer a larger adjustment range.If you sight in at 100 yards,you may only be able to adjust the elevation to hold dead on to say 600 yards with a 1" scope,and out to 800 yards or more with a 30mm scope.Depending on the cartridge,you may still need a tapered base to reach 1000 yards with a dead on hold.

As far a field of view is concerned,compare the 1" Leupold vxII 3x9x50 and the 30mm Leupold European 3x9x50.The 30mm tube is larger,but the field of view is the same.

Mojotex

If you can go Leupold Vari-X III, look at the Zeiss Conquest series. Prices are close. I have both lines and like the Conquest better becauseit appears to me to be a bit crisper in very low light and has a bettercontrast, making it easier for me to pick out game in the brush.

I have no scopes in excess of 12X. And that one is a variable from 4-12X that seldom gets set above 6X. My shots are not long down here in the deep south so 4x to 6X is plenty for me. Frankly, most of the time I stay on 3X.

I have hunted in eastern Montana several seasons.Wide open. There my shots beyondmy "comfoprt zone" ... which is about 350 yards. I had , took and made two shots on mule deer rght at 325 yards. The 9X - 10X range came in handy on those longer shots. Guess what I am saying is, at least for me ... longer distances, I was better served by greater "X".

stubblejumper

I much prefer the conquest over the VXIII myself.I have taken several big game animals at over 400 yards(verified with a laser rangefinder),and a couple of dozen at over 300 yards with 3x9 or 3x10 scopes.The longest was a pronghorn at 480 yards,and 9x was adequate even for pronghorn.