BEST scope for your MONEY
 

ok guys, what is the BEST scope for your MONEY...regardless of price. Is it a $500-600 Zeiss Conquest? IS it a $400-500 Nikon Monarch? How about Meopta R1? Bushnell 4200? Out of MY price range but...Swaroski Z3? Z5? Z6?

I just want to know what the best all around bang for you buck is on a quality well built scope. I keep second guessing my choices for my Browning BAR .270. I had picked out a Monarch 2.5-10X42 that I was going to save up and get, but after reading and reading and reading people are saying the Conquest is better. I think the Meopta R1 is a better value for your money versus the Conquest as it is a 30mm tube versus the conquest being a 1 inch tube. Optics are amazing through a Meopta.

So let the debate begin. Please advise PERSONAL experiences!!! I'm hoping this thread will help me as well as others in a similar situation. I don't want to spend say $500 on a scope and wish I had gotten the one that was $650.---DrAsus

$220 nikon team primos (old monarch)

$320 sightron big sky (after $50 rebate)

$500 zeiss conquest (would have been at the top for $400)

Bushnell 4200 Elite 3x9x40 for about $250
Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40 for about $420

Best value IMO is a Bushy Elite 4200 3-9 X 40. The Rainguard is also a big plus with these.

Sightron is also VERY solid and the Big Sky units have rebates. They also have a climate control type of lens coating.

The Vortex Vipers I've seen have also been sweet, and their warranty and CS is top notch from what I hear. I have never owned one myself.

I would term those (above) as great, value packed mid-range units.

In a somewhat lower price point. the Nikon Team Primos is pretty good too.

As the price goes up so does lens quality, features etc. to a point of diminishing returns. What's one person's limit may not be for another. Me, personally, I like the "better" units and am willing to pay for such. I would not trade my AV Swaros'...they are that good. I'd love a top of the line Zeiss Diavari, S&B or even a Nightforce but I'm not willing to go that far (at this time) with the cost / benefit aspect.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. :patriot:

This is an easy one:

Leupold 4.5x14x50 Matte

After 42 years of hunting I nor anyone I have ever known has ever had to send one back for repairs.Lifetime warranty.Not many companies will replace a scope -questions unasked.
One thing about a Leupold-you dont eevn have to be the original owner to warranty ot replacement of any scope.What company does that..thats true confidence in their product.

If your wondering about the power range..

I am x-military..still believe in the old addage-the better you see the better you shoot!!

I have a 4200 elite and monarch mounted on ML's both are decent though I agree with the 4200 elite for value for price/optics. My Big Game CF's have Zeiss Conquests on top - 25-06, 7mm rem mag & 338wm. My 22-250 also has a conquest on it. Some others mounted with leupold's (Vari X III's & M8 fixed), Bushnells & elite 3200's, simmons (on a couple of rimfires), etc.

Swaro Alines are nice scopes, just didn't find the kind of prices I have with the conquests.

I respectfully submit this is the wrong question. You are the only one who can really decide what is the BEST scope for YOUR money, because only YOU know what "BEST" means for you. For instance do you mean, "best":
- resolution?
- low-light performance?
- ease of adjustment?
- repeatability of adjustments?
- reticle design?
- length?
- weight?
- objective size?
- ocular size?
- finish?
- coatings?
- durability?
- customer service?

All of these factors, and more, come together in one pot, and there are inevitably some tradeoffs.

I always suggest that a scope buyer go to several places with a large selection, & let their eyes do the deciding. After looking through the scopes (outside, at dusk, if possible), then try looking at the scopes held next to your gun. Do they look "right" to you when paired with that gun?

There are folks who drool over Corvettes, but there are also those who think the same cars are revolting. So it is with scopes. I recently saw a post from a guy who said his Simmons Aetec compared extremely favorably (in some aspects) with a Swarovski. Does that make him wrong? Not at all - he's just listening to his own eys!

I've got a buddy who, after looking through both scopes for 25 minutes, couldn't see any difference between a Leupold VX1 and a Zeiss Conquest. In the final analysis, he was just as happy with the less expensive scope, and his eyes saved him a bunch of money. And, since I'm not the one shooting his rifle, I have no right to tell him what he chose was wrong. (Even though he clearly was! :s1:)

Pick a purpose for the rifle, set a budget, then take your eyes shopping. Then, you can tell us what you bought, and why!

Good Luck,

FC

I think FC has given you the best advise so far. I will say that when it comes to optics, you get what you pay for. The RainGuard on the Bushnell Elites are nice but to me the extra eye relief on the Leupolds are the deal maker. Like I said in your other post, the Zeiss optically and quality wise is the winner to my eyes and 4" of constant eye relief is very very nice. The main reason I didn't buy a Zeiss before this is that it was the point of diminishing returns, I couldn't see spending the extra cash if the VXII gave me everything I wanted in a less expensive package. I got my Zeiss for the same price as a VXII so that made my decision easy.

Swaroski Z6 if you "want" the best !

I'm a Nikon fan-boy. IMO you just can't go wrong with one.