The Very Best Scope For Your Money

[Prose]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/recommended_riflescopes.htm

I find that the list in this article is a very accurate representation of scope quality. There are some scopes that perform "above their budget" such as the Japanese scopes with LOW glass.

Leupold is a known quantity. You know exactly what you will get every time and is the standard of which all other scopes are compared when trying to save a buck.

I like to write down my requirements in a scope in order of importance, and then remove the chaff to limit my choices. Once I'm down to 4 or 5 then I can look at value. For me, reticle is very important, followed by power, parallax adjustment, eye focus, then eye relief. Sticking to the four star scopes and above doesn't allow for the opportunity to get mad about the other features of the scope. You may even find a scope in the lower classification that meets all your needs and also offers the quality you desire.

Eurooptic has a search feature that you can enter your parameters in to help whittle the options down.

 

[CharlieNC]

Everything approaches a point of diminishing returns, where spending twice as much buys you less than 5% improvement in performance. For a scope the definition of performance depends upon who is judging, since some weight consistent turret response as much more important than optical quality, etc. And there is the aspect of adequate vs better; again if the turrets are accurate then the degree that they "click" doesn't concern me but it does others. Given my limited experience I would say that the Sightron SIII is an excellent value, adequate in all factors that concern me plus the best optical quality for the money. Clearly not the best, but not seriously lacking in any regard either. Everyone will come to their own best compromise. But I drive a base model Tundra 4x4 which has AC, power windows, etc. not fancy but handles my desired functionality well and in reasonable comfort.

 

[DirtySteve]

I have Leupold MK4's on nearly all my rifles. I like to keep things simple. But I hunt and compete in F-class with any rifle in my safe. For a strictly hunting rifle I would get a good 3-9 or 4-12 power good quality scope with out the target knobs. The older I get the more I am thinking of building a light gun...

I would lean toward a VX3 or VX6..

 

[Paul Seaman]

I've got a R700 in 308, Burris XTR II is great scope, mine is 4-20x50 but there are others available. Prices range from a grand to around $1300. Depending on power!

I had a hard time choosing, there are many good choices out there. I found mine used on this site but, I waited a while. Good luck with your research!

 

[onelastshot]

Thanks for all the suggestions, I did a lot of research and made my decision; there was a Schmidt and Bender 3x12-50 offered on this site and I purchased it. I don't think you can beat German glass, S&B make some of the best optics available. The 3x12 gives me twice the power of my previous scope, which is one of the key things I was looking for. The scope is more money than I wanted to spend but I believe that this scope will be my go to hunting scope for a long time to come. As they say, buy once, cry once. I'm sure this scope will provide the light and clarity that I've been looking for.

 

[ttfreestyle]

You will never regret upgrading glass, good luck.

 

[nakneker]

You made a great choice.

 

[msinc]

I have spent way more money than most people will ever dream of on glass, but I have never regretted one dime of it that went towards a Schmidt and Bender.

 

[JRS]

Everything depends upon your use for the scope, along with the distances at which you will be shooting.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I'm not understanding why the OP says "buy once, cry once," when this was a replacement scope or an upgrade.

As some of you know, I consider that mantra to be childish and absurd, especially in the fast evolving world of optics. But JRS is right on and I will add that if the 3-12X50 fits the needs of the OP, then it's all good. 3-12 is 4X in zoom, nothing spectacular there.

I think the scope is the 3-12X50 Zenith (or maybe the Klassik.) This scope is about $2000 new, so around $1,500 or under, used. That's a nice scope, I hope the OP enjoys it and that it works well for his purposes.

 

[Macropod]

Just bought a March 10-60x56 High Master. Initial impressions are very favourable. Pricey but no denying the quality. Time will tell I guess.

 

[onelastshot]

I'm not understanding why the OP says "buy once, cry once," when this was a replacement scope or an upgrade.

As some of you know, I consider that mantra to be childish and absurd, especially in the fast evolving world of optics. But JRS is right on and I will add that if the 3-12X50 fits the needs of the OP, then it's all good. 3-12 is 4X in zoom, nothing spectacular there.

I think the scope is the 3-12X50 Zenith (or maybe the Klassik.) This scope is about $2000 new, so around $1,500 or under, used. That's a nice scope, I hope the OP enjoys it and that it works well for his purposes.

Frankly, there are many of us who don't give a damn what you think. Your myopic commentary is caustic and condescending. You may consider the comment childish and absurd but to many its application is appropriate. The fact that I'm replacing a scope is irrelevant. When I purchased the original scope I didn't spend the money I should have and now I'm paying for that mistake. You may think an investment of $1,500-$2,000 is nothing but to most members it's an investment. Regardless of what changes in glass occur in the next generation of optics, I see myself keeping this optic.

 

[Nature Boy]

I'll tell you this. I screwed up recently and bought a Kahles K624i. This was a HUGE mistake. Now every other scope I own sucks.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[onelastshot]

I'll tell you this. I screwed up recently and bought a Kahles K624i. This was a HUGE mistake. Now every other scope I own sucks.

Be careful what you wish for.

This is what prompted me to get the 3x12; I own a Schmidt & Bender 5x25 and the glass is incredible, my other scopes simply don't compare and most of them are considered good glass, Leupold, Ziess, etc.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Frankly, there are many of us who don't give a damn what you think. Your myopic commentary is caustic and condescending. You may consider the comment childish and absurd but to many its application is appropriate. The fact that I'm replacing a scope is irrelevant. When I purchased the original scope I didn't spend the money I should have and now I'm paying for that mistake. You may think an investment of $1,500-$2,000 is nothing but to most members it's an investment. Regardless of what changes in glass occur in the next generation of optics, I see myself keeping this optic.

Fair enough, but I should think that before you get on a tirade you should at least make sure you don't contradict yourself right off the bat; it renders your argument worthless.

The fact that you are replacing a scope is totally relevant. It is even more relevant because the scope you replaced it with is not equivalent to the scope you got originally.

You said yourself, and I quote:

The key issue with my initial scope was power, it was a 1.5x6-42, just not enough power for me so I doubled it.

That very statement is the poster child of the stupidity of the childish mantra “buy once, cry once,” and it totally contradicts your statement above, to wit:

When I purchased the original scope I didn't spend the money I should have and now I'm paying for that mistake.

If you had spent the money on the 1.5-6X42 but you really needed a 12X top end, you would be crying more than once.

I participate in several firearms-related (and photography-related) discussion forums, I have seen countless threads where people were asking what riflescope (or lens) to buy and people were responding with pricey items followed by the ever-so-deep(ly stupid mantra) “buy once, cry once.” There were also a whole slew of threads about people bemoaning the fact they had bought an expensive riflescope (or lens) but it really wasn’t was they needed; wrong magnification, wrong objective size, weight, etc. They were selling it at a loss because they could not afford to have it lying around doing nothing. Not everybody has $1500-$2000 to spend on a riflescope that no longer fits their needs; to many people, that’s a sizable investment to waste on a childish mantra.

When you figure out exactly what you need; when you can ask “which scope should I get?” with a long list of specific features and requirements, then by all means spend the money and enjoy the riflescope knowing it fits your exact requirements.

That is very rarely on the first scope.

In your case, you actually did everything correctly. You started with an inexpensive scope and used it long enough to come to the conclusion that you needed more magnification. So when you bought the next scope, you could spend the money knowing this one was going to be THE scope for your needs. That is the proper way of doing things

 

[JRS]

As long as you are satisfied with your purchase, nothing else matters. I have a number of scopes to use for hunting, but have always preferred my 6x scopes.

Edit: IMO, too many hunters are over-scoped.

 

[onelastshot]

The rings arrived 20 minutes ago, the scope should be here within the hour!

 

[BoydAllen]

I have only one bone to pick here. The title seem to be a mismatch with the posts. Nothing wrong with either. I have never owned an expensive scope....but I have gotten very good results with the ones that I own. Waaay back in the day, I spied a used but in good condition Simmons 44 Mag variable that tops out at 20x and bought it for $85. The owner had upgraded all of his scopes to Leupolds. That scope has never given me any problems, for what I bought if for, shooting California ground squirrels. It continues to work to this day, many years later. Yes, I understand about superior optics, but I also know that if I can see the target well enough to obtain a good sight picture and my scope holds its adjustment that as far as accuracy is concerned I cannot improve on that. So many fellows write about optical quality. Of course that is always desirable, but many seem to stop there, and for really accurate rifles that will be tested to their full capability there is a more important issue, and that is how well they hold their settings from shot to shot. Certainly I don not worry as much about this for a varmint rifle as I do for a competition rifle but I still expect to hit what I am aiming at. For my bench rifles I have a couple of B&L 36X scopes, a 4000 and a 4200. As far as I am concerned their glass is just fine for the use that they are put to. At this point it would be very difficult for someone to prove to me that a more expensive scope would improve my results. We do have some hope on the horizon. Scope checkers are back in production and some results from testing using those has been published, with more to come.

 

[IdahoSharpshooter]

Plus One! for what Barlow said. I have 2.5-8X Leupolds on four different rifles. Everything from my 6,5-68 S for deer sized game to my 458 Rigby that took a Cape Buffalo.
Working Man's price, made in the USA, and a forever no BS, no fine print warranty.

Ask anybody who's ever owned a foreign made scope where they send the scope for repairs.

 

[onelastshot]

The scope has arrived and it's mounted, I think I made the right choice.