Scope recommendation, especially Burris

[artpreusser]

I’m in the market to replace a Monarch 4-16x42 that I really do not like (feel free to make an offer). I have owned this scope for about a month. It sits atop a Tikka 243. I find the Monarch to be dim, unforgiving with respect to eye position and lack contrast & resolution. I have not looked through a lot of scopes and have no hope of finding a retail store where I can eyeball quality, expensive scopes in person.

The other scopes I have are a Leup Vari –X III 3.5-10x40 and a Burris FFII 3-9x40. I owned a Leup VXII 4-12x50 as well.

This particular rifle is a target and varmint rifle shot mostly from a rest at less than 500 yards. I do not want to load it up with so much weight and bulk that it is strictly confined to the bench, I’d like to be able to sling it and hike/hunt. I am not concerned with having a ton of internal travel either and I am afraid that’s all I’m getting with a 30mm tube.

I’ve formed the opinion that at higher magnifications the “sweet spot” for eye position, brightness and overall image quality suffer, even in the best scopes. I do not buy into getting more magnification than I might need as it adds weight/bulk and cost. For those reason, I think something that topped out at 16x would be ideal. I see many people here really like their SIII’s but there’s a huge gap in their offerings with max magnification jumping from 10x to 24x.

I am not positive of the benefit of a 50mm objective. I understand it gathers more light and offers a larger exit pupil. Does that translate into a larger sweet spot (eye position)?

My criteria:

Forgiving eye position
Contrast
Clarity/resolution
Weight/bulk (ideally, less than 22 ounces)
Price ($800 or less)
Side parallax

I am heavily considering another Burris in Black Diamond or Signature Select and would love to hear from anyone with experience. If anyone can quantify the difference between a sig select and black diamond, besides the 30mm tube, that would be appreciated. I am of the opinion the Leup’s are overpriced and the Conquest is no better than a Black Diamond. For $150 the FFII is one fine scope even though it distorts around the edges. I guess I’ve formed a good opinion of Burris.

When I have been unsure of things in the past, I have taken the safe route and just thrown money at the problem, hoping for the best. I do not think that method will work with this endeavor. So please don’t tout a nightforce.

 

[mj2evans]

I'll start - yes, I love my new SIII 6-24 and yes its large. I would have to agree that large 30mm tube/50mm obj have limited use on a true hunting only rifle (talking about deer/hogs here). Yes, when you crank up magnification eye position is more critical (stock fit can help here and I put adj buttplates and cheeks on rifles). My go to deer rifle has a Burris FF 4-16 1"tube (older scope) and I happy with it. Have heard good things about the new SS HD 3-9 if that is enough mag for you.

 

[artpreusser]

I really need 16x mag. I think this would be an easy choice at low magnification given my criteria. I'm just sort of scared. Specifically, that at 16x any of the scopes I am considering are going to suffer in the areas that are important to me. My only experience is from the Monarch I have and I have heard a lot of good comments from Monarch owners - so it scares me a little. Like maybe I'm being too picky.

I am okay with a medium sized scope as most of its use will be tearing up paper and aluminum. I'm just trying to avoid turning it into the hubble telescope.

 

[dreever]

A Super Sniper 10X42 with side paralax is $399.00 I have had one on a .308 for years with nary a problem. Target knobs and clicks are positive. You can crank the windage and elevation all day long and when you put it back to zero it's right where it's supposed to be. Scope is VERY bright and clear. Forgiving eye relief, meets all your criteria. They do make a 16 and a 20X version also.
Sold at SWFA. http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-10x42-Tactical-Riflescope-P500.aspx

Danny

 

[NateHaler]

I am not positive of the benefit of a 50mm objective. I understand it gathers more light and offers a larger exit pupil. Does that translate into a larger sweet spot (eye position)?

Yes.

 

[GentleBen]

I feel your pain. I've been all over the place looking for the ideal varmint/target scope $800-$900.

Last month I returned a Nikon Monarch 4-16x42 because it just didn't do the job, not enough power. So I traded it in for a Nikon Monarch 6-24x50 and yikes! It was even worse. Would not focus between 20 and 24 power and view was slim or none if you were off just a tad on cheek weld. Thought it might be my eyes, so I pulled out my other rifle with a Leupold VX3 6.5-20x40 (varmint hunter reticle) and the target was clear, crisp, great. Love the reticle.

(Nikon perplexes me because I once owned a Nikon Monarch 6-20x44 with an illuminated mil-dot and it was fine. Should not have sold it -- bad advice. But Nikon discontinued it and went to that wretched BDC crap reticle. By the way, I also have a 4.5-14x42 Nikon Buckmaster with a mil-dot and it is great, but not enough power. Buckmasters are better than Monarchs ... go figure.)

People here started bemoaning Leupold and touting nothing but Sightron SIIIs or Nightforces. So ... I then bought a 6-24x50 SIII with mil-dot -- all was great, with resolution, focus, etc. but the dots looked like softballs. It was sold. I then got an SIII 8-32 and that 1/4-inch center dot was too big, the scope was a cannon and getting a good sight picture was a bitch. Gone.

Now, I'm like you, still looking ... wishing and hoping for the ideal. So, here is where I am looking now -- a Leupold VX3 8-25x50 with varmint hunter reticle (mid $800s), or a Leupold VX3 6.5-20x50 with varmint hunter reticle, or a Bushnell Elite 6500 4.5-30x50 Tactical with mil-dot, but I can't find out how big the dots are on the Bushnell.

The SIII 6-24x50 would be ideal if not for the softball mil-dots and the big center dot. This would be the best of all worlds if Sightron put its hunter holdover reticle on it.

And, I can't afford $1,200 plus for a Nightforce. Sometimes you have to draw the line, and mine is at $900 (preferably high $700s).

Maybe another 6.5-20x40mm or 50mm Leupold and add a 3.5 BulzEyeReticle to it ... hmmm.

 

[acloco]

Believe there is a Leupold Mark 4, M1 16x40 with mildots in the classified. I just bought one for long range varminting. The reticle lines are NOT too thick for prairie dogs. Has 148 MOA adjustment vertically. These are $1600 scopes...believe the one in the classifieds is listed at half that.

I have one Burris Black Diamond - the reticle is way too thick and has a very low amount of verticle adjustment for a high end scope....so...I don't recommend them.

 

[fdshuster]

Art & GentleBen: I also had a Nikon Monarch 4-16x- 42mm, for a very short time. It was returned, approx. $100 added for a Leupold, what I should have bought in the first place. The Nikon was "o.k." at the lower power settings, but when increasing magnification to 12x and higher, it looked like a layer of fog between the rifle and the target. A really big disappointment after all the advertising hype. Was recently fortunate in finding a used, as new Nightforce 12-42x Benchrest, at a very fair price, (considering what the new cost is), and am extremely satisfied with it. It is now my top-of-the-line choice, and while still very good, the Zeiss and Leupold's have been moved to second place.

 

[artpreusser]

I went ahead and ordered a burris 4-16x44 in signature select. I got it from cabelas at $489 with no tax. I usually find cabelas to be a little higher on price, but not this time. I ordered it there on purpose for the ablity to return it for a full refund. If it doesn't work out I think I'm going to try a Sightron SII big sky, which I think is the same as a SIII without the 30mm tube.

I think I'm a little picky on these optics. I really need a forgiving eye position. My friggin' neck start to get sore if I'm forced put it in the exact right spot and hold perfectly still (I know that speaks about the fit of my stock too). I also believe that at high mag. no matter how good the scope is, eye position suffers - it's physics. That leaves me afraid to go to something like a 6-24.


I'm a member on another shooting forum. There are some members who use the Monarch's and swear by 'em. I trust their opinions too. I have either heard really good things about the monarch's or really nasty things. I'm starting to form the opinion Nikon's QC is lacking. I have a suspision that some of the coatings are missing on my scope, or not right. Someone else put it very well, it has a "milky" picture at high magnification. My dog looked through it and agreed - "dad, it's milky!" It's unfortunate because I tried my hardest to like the darn thing.

I went with the burris because I am so impressed by the two $150 fullfields I own they, are almost as good as my vari-X III. I think Burris & Leupold are very similar, only Leupold can get away with charging more because of their reputation, especially outside of BR circles.

Frank, I have to mention the other forum I participate on is chuckhawks. Otter, who is a member here is also a member at chuckhawks. He mentioned, on the other board, your expertise and how much you have helped him. I feel fortunate that you chimed in here and seemed to back my opinion of the Nikon. Thanks for your comments.

 

[GentleBen]

Well I have it down to a new Bushnell 6500 Elite Tactical 4-30x50 mil-dot that I found on the Internet for $750 ... and a new Sightron III 8-32x56 with a target dot 1/8 in. dot reticle for $800 at another Web site. Vendor tells me the Bushnell is making a strong bid for the market in this price/value range and has opened up the lead ahead of both Zeiss Conquest and Leupold. But I still need for him to give me his opinion on the Bushnell vs. the Sightron. I'll let you know how it comes out ... and the $50 difference in cost will not be a big issue. Did say Bushnell's new 6500 is brighter and sharper than Leupold and Conquest and he has no reason to lie cuz the other lenses are more expensive. Bushnell also showing it has less parallax problems and have better resolution. He says Bushnell is trying to make a big push and pricing their scopes low ... for now.

ps-- also told me that Nightforce is planning a price jump in May.

 

[artpreusser]

Ben: If it makes you feel any better I know someone who bought the 6500 in 2.5-16 and is very happy with it. This same person looked through a monarch in the flavor I have and shared the same low opinion.

If the burris & sightron fail me, I'd go with a 4200.

The Burris I bought will be here the 13th. I will come back and let you know what I think. Since we seem to have similar tastes in scopes, I'd like to hear your view on which ever you pick.

 

[GentleBen]

Pulled the trigger on the Bushnell 6500 Elite 4-30x50 mil-dot tactical for $749 from Bear Basin. Will arrive next week.

Spoke to some guys (a veteran gunsmith/shooter/dealer, a former state trooper sniper, a gun counter retailer, and another scope retailer) and all told me that the new 6500 Elite was a big jump up for Bushnell optically...significantly better than their 4200 Elite line. Much brighter and sharper than Leupold and slightly better than any Conquest or Sightron out there right now. They said weird things going on with Sightron, big changes coming again maybe. Also, said Nightforce still better than Bushnell but are nearly twice the price and are going to up prices in May, making Bushnell 6500 best deal on market right now. They all said Bushnell is trying to break out of the "for hunters only" niche.

I always passed on Bushnell in the past because it seemed to be geared mostly for hunters and not many target gunners were buying them or talking about them on these forums, but this scope will hopefully change my mind.

We'll see.

 

[GentleBen]

Oh, yeah, and I am also so disappointed with Nikon Monarch. What has happened to them? Someone sold them a bill of goods on that BDC reticle and they hardly have any other choices.

In my newspaper photography days all I used was Canon and Nikon when I could afford it. And at the paper I work for now, all we use is top of the line Nikon and they are flat out fantastic. If they wanted, Nikon could knock everyone out of the park optically -- everyone ... except maybe for some of the untouchables (S&B and the like). I guess they just don't see a big enough market for rifle scopes and are just in it to keep teasing us or something. I don't know, really disappointed in them the last three years.

By the way, their cheaper Buckmaster line is just as good as their Monarch line. Go figure.

 

[fdshuster]

Ben: Maybe the place of production has something to do with the Nikon problem. The Monarch that I had for a very short time (less than a day/ how's that for "short") was "made in the Phillipines". Bought a Nikon Fieldscope 11 ED, 82mm obj. 25-75x eyepiece, last Summer, and am extremely satisfied with it, "made in Japan". Are they making their lower priced optics in the Phillipines and the higher end in Japan? Just a thought. Gotta wonder how long before the lower end will be "made in China".

 

[Tozguy]

I can identify with the disappointment of using low/mid end scopes. Nothing bothers me more than not seeing well. All the reviews of NightForce scopes that I have read are positive so the money spent on a 'sure thing' NF now looks very good compared to taking a $900-1000 risk on a scope that might disappoint again. Because of the high resale value of a NF, it seems like a good investment even if it costs more than the rifle it sits on.

 

[captben]

Guys I have several Bushnell 4200 and 6500 series scopes. I think "for the Price" they are nearly unbeatable. I would use them for anything except pure Benchrest. Mine are Either duplex Or Mill dot in 4x16x50 or 4x30x50. Has anyone tried the new 4200 6x24x50 1st focal plane Version?

I would like to hear from someone who has one.

thanks,

Capt. Ben

 

[GentleBen]

Capt. Ben ... from GentleBen: Why not use it as a benchrest scope? Hate to hear you say that, cuz I will be using the 6500 Elite 4-30x50 mil-dot a lot from the bench. Please explain. Am I going wrong? I am not a hunter and will only take one or two long-distance prairie dog or nutria shoots a year. Now you have me worrying about it again. Should I have gone NightForce and bought my wife something as well to settle the $1200 argument?

 

[captben]

Gentleben,
The reason I don't like them for Bench rest is I like Thinner Crosshairs for bughole shooting. I don't think Any of the 30mm Bushnell 4200 or 6500 tubes Have Fine Crosshairs available. I could be Wrong. If they did I would Use one. Hard to beat a Leupold 40x Weight and Quality wise for Benchrest. Just an opinion.

Capt. Ben

 

[GentleBen]

I see what you mean CaptBen.

My Bushnell 6500 Elite came in today, and it's going back tomorrow.
Didn't even have to mount it to see it would not work for me on benchrest.

The Mil-dots are small and fine, great, but then Strike 1: The portion of the reticle that leads into the mildots is really thick and longish. Strike 2: The tactical model that I ordered features all of the numbering on the turrets in dark olive green rather than white. I can hardly see any numbers or letters on the scope. Strike 3: the 4-30 variable power is almost too much to put into this 13.5 in. scope length, meaning that there is hardly any zooming distance between the 24x and 30x power marks. Hard to find an in-between range.

However, IT IS extremely bright and sharp as a tack. I can see why it is popular with hunters. Optics are great for those who don't mind the clutter and can see olive colors in dim light.

So, I'm back to Leupold, Sightron or NightForce. Considering I can't swing another $500 for the NightForce, I will have to decide between Leupold and Sightron (another notorious maker for lacking reticles.)

Still frustrated but still confident I will find what I need.

Like the 'Stones sang: "You can't always get what you waahnnnt; but if you wait long enough, you just might get what you neeeed ..."

 

[GentleBen]

UPDATE:
Bought another Leupold: VX-3 8.5-25x50mm, 30mm tube, varmint hunter reticle, $886 at MidwayUSA with dealer discount, plus I had a $204 credit. Will be in Monday. It won't be a surprise because I already have a VX-3 6.5-20x40mm, 30mm tube with same varmint hunter reticle (on my customized CZ527 .223 bull barrel) that I really, really like. Just hope going to a 50mm is worth it. Should be. It is going atop a Rock River AR-15, 24 in. varmint bull barrel.

I am very particular about reticle thickness, brightness and resolution upon max range focus -- my existing Leupold (about 8 mos. old) is fine on all counts. I also have little trouble with eye/alignment.

BTW, Leupold site says that actual magnifications are: 6.5-20 really 6.5x-19.2x / and that an 8.5-25 is 8.3x - 24.3x. It also shows 90MOA of elevation on the 6.5-20 and 94MOA on the 8.5-25.

Also, sorry to buck the trend, but I've already tried two Sightron SIIIs... 6-24 mildot and 8-32 regular dot and did not find them to be better than Leupold. Mildots were like softballs, and regular dot too big and I found it difficult to get a good sight picture with the 8-32.

One of these years, I'll fall into some money and buy me a NightForce, but so far I don't have the money. Trouble is, I have more than one rifle and can't put out cash for too many high-end scopes. If I bought a NightForce, I'd be putting cheap Weavers and ProStaffs on other very good rifles.