jandrey

hey guys i'm also looking for a scope for my .308 which will strictly be a deer gun. the one I'm heavily considering is the Vortex Diamondback 3-9x40 BDC reticle for $200. the max I want to spend is about $200 and cabelas is offering $50 cabelas cash with the purchase of that scope too. Any experience with this scope or suggestions about others?

buffybr

A year or so ago, Cabela's had Nikon Prostaff 4-12x BDC reticle scopes on sale so I bought one, thinking it would make a good long range scope for my .300 Weatherby. It's a good clear scope that has an easy to turn (easier than my Leupolds) variable knob.

After I got it home and read more about the BDC system, crosshairs zeroed at 200 yds, and elevation circles for 300, 400, 500, and 600 yds, I decided not to put it on my .300 Wby. First, out of all of the big game animals that I have shot, only a handful were shot at over 300 yds, and none at over 400 yds. Then I checking the BDC circles on live game animals, and even at 12x, the 600 yd circle completely surrounds an entire deer at that range. That would not make an accurate shot.

I ended up putting that scope on my 7mm Rem mag, but I haven't hunted with it yet. I first want to do a lot of range shooting with it, checking the impact point for each circle at least at lowest, mid, and highest power settings. The longest target berm at our range is 430 yds, so I will not be able to test the 500 and 600 yd circles there.

Knowing what I do now, I think I would like a BDC scope for a .22 rimfire rifle, but I don't see them as a viable long range big game rifle scope.

rugerno1

Although it's a little over your budget, I'd look at the Burris C4. Adjustable elevation, single crosshair reticle and a custom elevation knob for your gun.

Nomercy448

Straight forward question:

What makes you think that you need a different scope just because of a few hundred feet per second, for essentially the same type of game and hunting?

No reason the answers from your other thread on this same topic for a .300win mag wouldn't equally apply to a .308win. For all intents and purposes, the only difference between the two will be felt recoil, no reason one would need a different scope from the other.

FlDeerman

I like the Swift,great in low light.

jandrey

.308 has significantly less recoil than 300 win mag so I figured I wouldn't need as great of eye relief and was hoping the vortex diamondback would be sufficient for this rifle.

Nomercy448

I get it, you'd use a different knife to cut an apple than a pear...

Short eye relief scopes are of poor design. Extra long eye relief scopes have limitations as well. No need for an "extra long" relief scope on a .300win mag, and no reason to use a poorly designed short relief scope on a .308win. You're making up a problem (or alternatively, a benefit) that doesn't exist.

That's not to say there's anything particularly wrong with the Diamondback, although I think the Vortex fad has nearly ran its course. Nothing makes the VDB any better than many other options in its price class. They used to be a bit cheaper, and they were new, and a lot of guys lied in reviews saying they were as high quality as their Leupolds (maybe on par with the VX-1's or Rifleman's), so a bunch got sold. Check classified listings for optics, you'll find tons of Vortex's on the list. Nothing bad, but there's nothing particularly great either.

hubby11

I have the Vortex Diamondback 3-9x40 on a muzzleloader. For the price I paid ($200), very good glass and build quality. I could use a smidge more eye relief but for a .308 you should be more than fine. In fact, I have a .308 Sako mounted with a Vortex Viper 2-7x32 and will likely switch scopes in the off season.

SecondChance

+1!! I have one on my inline ML with illuminated reticle and it is a really nice scope. Never failed to perform in all conditions so far. Have had for 10yrs.

Murdy

I have a Viper and a couple of comparably priced Nikons, and guess what? To my eye, they are very similar. I think Vortex puts out a good product, and I would buy another one in the future. But you're right in that, if they were superior, they'd be worth more and cost more. (actually, I'd give a slight edge to the Viper, but it did cost a little more than the Nikons, as I remember).