One scope to rule them all? Is there one??

[TassieTiger]

Is there a scope out there that suits numerous and many applications that doesn’t cost the same as an island in Jamaica?

Eg
I want a hunting scope, that can be used to target shoot as well, 3x on the bottom for close hunting and 25x or better up top for paper punching to a 1000.
It has to be light enough to carry 500gns or better), have crystal clear lenses at all ranges, have a simple and very thin reticle, side focus, 1/4 Moa turrets or programmable turrets like the CDS from Leupold, have somewhere near 100moa of elevation built in, a 30mm tube...a 40mm bell end with a 4 inch eye box.

And yeah - cost under a grand or two...is it possible or am I the real bell end here?

[bigrich]

Is there a scope out there that suits numerous and many applications that doesn’t cost the same as an island in Jamaica?

Eg
I want a hunting scope, that can be used to target shoot as well, 3x on the bottom for close hunting and 25x or better up top for paper punching to a 1000.
It has to be light enough to carry 500gns or better), have crystal clear lenses at all ranges, have a simple and very thin reticle, side focus, 1/4 Moa turrets or programmable turrets like the CDS from Leupold, have somewhere near 100moa of elevation built in, a 30mm tube...a 40mm bell end with a 4 inch eye box.

And yeah - cost under a grand or two...is it possible or am I the real bell end here?

tall order taz . my best scopes are all leupolds . 4-14x40 vx3 on my 222, i'e also got a older vx2 6-18x40 adjustable objective that would suit what you want reasonably well as a all rounder that i bought second hand for $550. crystal clear with nice fine recticles with ballistic drop marks as well . adjustable objectives are more cr@p you really don't want in a hunting scope in my opinion. all ya want to have to worry about is the magnification. zap it down low for close in, zap it up high if a long shot presents itself . no guessing about distance for the objective adjustment . JMHO .

[Sergeant Hartman]

40mm objective and 1000m... hmm tall order.

There is an athlon ares btr scopre 4.5x27x50 with HD glass and 80moa adjustment. Probably the only thing in your price range. The yanks love athlon.... the cheaper ones are China made.. not sure about the ares... might be Japanese

[bladeracer]

Is there a scope out there that suits numerous and many applications that doesn’t cost the same as an island in Jamaica?

Eg
I want a hunting scope, that can be used to target shoot as well, 3x on the bottom for close hunting and 25x or better up top for paper punching to a 1000.
It has to be light enough to carry 500gns or better), have crystal clear lenses at all ranges, have a simple and very thin reticle, side focus, 1/4 Moa turrets or programmable turrets like the CDS from Leupold, have somewhere near 100moa of elevation built in, a 30mm tube...a 40mm bell end with a 4 inch eye box.

And yeah - cost under a grand or two...is it possible or am I the real bell end here?

I use the AR Optics 4.5-18x40 on everything. The reticle is thicker than some would want for shooting paper, but it's fine enough for field work. Has 105MoA of adjustment in a 25mm tube, and 1/4MoA turrets. Focuses down to 10m, and the glass is good enough for my old eyes to see .22-caliber holes in paper at 180m. What is an "eye box" - do you mean eye relief?

[TassieTiger]

Eye box / eye relief - I refer to both terms sometimes.
I have an AR 4.5-18 in the 223 and it's sitting on the shelf...I used to think it was decent, but have now changed my mind.
It is okay with glass (I think it loses clarity from about 14 x onwards) but I hate the reticle and I hate the weight and you must have superman eyes to see .22 at 180m.

BR I also have a VX2 6-18 and I love it, BUT the 6 x is too large for closish hunting and I think at approx. 400m or so with my eyes, I start to struggle and from memory it only has 15 moa per rotation.. If it was 4-30x...it would be my perfect scope...and then id want one on every rifle I own lol.

It's the same old problem - hunting scope is a different beast to a target scope...maybe I should tape two together and quick release them upside down.

Z - I'd consider a 50 bell, but want to keep the scope low profile as possible. I've heard about Athlon previously but I've bought and tried so many different scopes now I want to make sure that I get a really good look see before committing this time - and I know absolutely no one with a Athlon....I feel the budget is going to have to be increased...maybe significantly....

[bladeracer]

I've heard about Athlon previously but I've bought and tried so many different scopes now I want to make sure that I get a really good look see before committing this time - and I know absolutely no one with a Athlon....I feel the budget is going to have to be increased...maybe significantly....

My neighbour bought two Athlons recently. I think for pure target shooting they're probably excellent, but the reticles are too fine for field work, although it was suggested that if they offered an illuminated reticle that would help - I don't know if they do. I prefer a reticle I can see.

[SCJ429]

You might have to up your objective lens size and your budget if you want 25x magnification and good quality glass.

[GQshayne]

A 3-25 is going to be big ask - does any manufacturer even make one??? I recall seeing 5-25's but all high price stuff as you would expect. S&B & Nightforce come to mind.

But, I reckon it will be a compromise whatever you get. How about two scopes with QD rings? That way you can have two specialised optics, each one better suited to their task, and each one at a much lesser cost. You can also then sight in each scope for its purpose too, with a zero for the task, and for the specific handload as well.

I am not a target shooter, only a hunter, so what I would suggest depends on what you are using it for. I have a 1-6 on my pig gun, and I think that is about ideal for that purpose. But the old 3-9 covers a lot of bases if you need a bit more range. One of those can be had for a lot less than $1000. You could then look for a dedicated target scope, and seeing it would not need the low end magnification, it would be easier to find too I would think.

[Bent Arrow]

?

_20190523_202024.JPG (111.02 KiB) Viewed 7678 times

[TassieTiger]

A 3-25 is going to be big ask - does any manufacturer even make one??? I recall seeing 5-25's but all high price stuff as you would expect. S&B & Nightforce come to mind.

But, I reckon it will be a compromise whatever you get. How about two scopes with QD rings? That way you can have two specialised optics, each one better suited to their task, and each one at a much lesser cost. You can also then sight in each scope for its purpose too, with a zero for the task, and for the specific handload as well.

I am not a target shooter, only a hunter, so what I would suggest depends on what you are using it for. I have a 1-6 on my pig gun, and I think that is about ideal for that purpose. But the old 3-9 covers a lot of bases if you need a bit more range. One of those can be had for a lot less than $1000. You could then look for a dedicated target scope, and seeing it would not need the low end magnification, it would be easier to find too I would think.

That might actually be a viable option...QD rings and two scopes as long as tube was same, etc...
Some of the bigger names have bigger and better mag ranges than I’m seeking - but most are $3k plus, weigh 1.5kg, have reticles that are busy as a 1 arm bricklayer and usually have a 50mm or larger bell end which means taller rings.

You have me thinking with QD mounts...cheers.

[TassieTiger]

?

_20190523_202024.JPG

I have only heard good things about the 6500 series and to be honest I had (still?)considered one - but I did want to keep the bell to 40mm if possible to keep a low profile on the rifle - my 40mm scope at present doesn’t have 5mm clearance which means I’d have to increase ring height and then that has its own issues as I’m sure your aware....fine for target shooting where distances are known and zeroed. But - cheers for response, it’s still a consideration!

[Sergeant Hartman]

I don't get the 40mm objective thought. Look at target shoppers they have 50 or 52 or 56mm obj. Hunting is lower mag and obj... so maybe get 2 scopes

I have an athlon argos btr 6x24 first person focal. I thought it was good until I bought a Leopold vx3 lr now consider it next to nightforce etc It is not as good. But the other scopes have higher mag also. Also i find the thicker reticle at higher mag.

A 50mm obj is basically 5mm. Higher centre point than your 40mm but it collects much larger amount of light so might even be slightly better if you wanna hunt at dusk/dawn

[TassieTiger]

I currently have a 24mm tube and 40mm obj. So by my understanding- that will equate to a 10mm height increase...
My reasoning which may / may not be correct, a higher scope is fine when distances are known but poi is more closely aligned, over a longer distance, with low profile. Ie if barrel was a laser and scope was a laser, the closer they are aligned to each other means the lasers would stay in contact for a much longer period...which is what’s needed hunting.

Are you saying Z you rate Leo above nightforce?

[Sergeant Hartman]

No I mean consider the athlon with the NF and Leo the athlon is not as good. While the US guys think itS supposed to be.

I don't really hunt so have no experience, so cannot comment regarding 40 or 50 better. But I see not many new scopes above 18x with less than 50mm obj.

The 5mm is how much higher the middle point of the scope lens will go. So the scope is only raised 5mm or so depending on how thick the tube part around the objective is.

[TassieTiger]

My understanding is 50 is def better for view / light etc. and high mag needs extra light...

This is why I wondered if a scope was out there to tick all boxes - I know the high end ones do but the particular rifle it’s going on will see light of day maybe 6 times a year...
I figured if I got the bigger main tube, but kept the 40 objective, I’d retain close to the same projectile path that I enjoy now...

Maybe it’s a 2 scope deal. A mid range 4-12 for hunting and a vx3 6.5-20 for target on quick release mounts...

That 6500 looks decent, bit large though, but has excellent reviews...

Hmmmm....

[solarpak]

Tassie,
i agree with the other posters.... two scopes to do what you want to.
Your hunting scope is probably best suited to a 1-inch tubed body in order to meet your 500gram weight limit. A 3-9 or 2.5-10 or similar with either a 40, 42 or 50mm objective would suffice. Illuminated reticles will ad weight due to the electronic circuitry.
I recently was looking into a sub - 500g scope for my Tikka T3x 308 and noticed the Swaro Z3 and Leupold VX3i do have models under 500 grams which may suit your need. (I opted for a Hawke Vantage 4-12x50 illuminated which weighs bang on 500g)

For target work - yes a 30mm tubed scope in the order or 4-16x , 5-15 x etc.... with half decent glass would be my pick. Lots of options out there -just depends what you like.........

CK

[bladeracer]

I currently have a 24mm tube and 40mm obj. So by my understanding- that will equate to a 10mm height increase...
My reasoning which may / may not be correct, a higher scope is fine when distances are known but poi is more closely aligned, over a longer distance, with low profile. Ie if barrel was a laser and scope was a laser, the closer they are aligned to each other means the lasers would stay in contact for a much longer period...which is what’s needed hunting.

Are you saying Z you rate Leo above nightforce?

I really would not get too caught up in sight offset. If you are spotlighting small game then perhaps keeping the sight low might be of value. Otherwise, increasing the offset between the bore and the sight increases your point-blank zero. For example, shooting .308 at medium game you might allow a 150mm kill-zone. With a sight mounted 25mm above bore axis you could zero at 200m and hold dead-on out to 240m, and all your bullets will hit within 75mm above or below your point of aim. If you raise the sight to 75mm above bore axis, you can zero at 225m, and hold dead on out to 260m. This is a secondary advantage to mounting tall sights on assault rifles, combined with a very large incapacitation zone (rather than a kill zone).

Mounting the scope conventionally on my RPR .22LR puts the sight 45mm above bore axis. The M16A2 sights are 60mm above bore axis, mounting the scope on the carry handle puts it at 90mm above bore axis. The drawback of course, is at very close ranges - under about 20m your bullets will be hitting about 50mm low, something to remember when making a close-range coup-de-grace shot.

The Bushnell is the closest I've found to a do-everything scope so far, except it doesn't do springer air-rifles.

[bigrich]

hey taz, unless i missed the info in a earlier post , what rifle and caliber are you wanting to scope ?

[SCJ429]

The cheapest best quality optics which weigh the least are fixed power. A fixed power 36x might do the trick for target work.

[marksman]

decide on a good long distance scope and put detachable rings on then shoot close with iron sights

if your eyes are good enough
mine are not

[GQshayne]

I will mention, once again, I am not a target shooter, so keep this in mind with my comments, as they will no doubt be hunting biased.

I would be getting a good quality variable for your hunting scope. My experience leads me to value low light performance highly, and that only comes with scopes in the higher price categories. But the mid range stuff is a good compromise. As an example, I recently set up a rifle for a grazier friend, and had to decide on a scope for a middle aged bloke whose eyes are not what they used to be - like many of us I suppose. He had an old Leupold 3-9 x 40.

So as the day got dimmer I lined up what I could between myself and my dad to do some light testing. I am very fortunate to have a Z6 Swarovski, and Dad a Zeiss. We put these beside the old Leupold, and my Meopta Meostar. Dad also has a Burris Fullfield. As expected the Zeiss and the Swarovski were excellent, and priced accordingly. The Meopta is cheaper, but still highly priced, and I cannot tell the difference. The Leupold and the Burris followed along.

But the Burris 4.5-14x42 is only about $700 and is pretty darn good for that price. My dad is 74, and he likes it. I would be quite happy with one too. It is not as good as the Meopta Meostar but is less than half the price. In a similar price point is the Meopta Meopro range. I have not looked at one, but they get good reviews.

Not sure what your hunting comprises of, but for me the Burris would be a great for a sit and shoot or spotlighting scope. For offhand shooting, close range hunting, or fast moving game like pigs, I would want a lower power variable. My .243 pig gun has a 1-6x24, and my other .243 has a 2-12x50. Both have good fields of view at low power for their intended purpose, but the 2-12 is bigger and heaver etc.

[TassieTiger]

So, I went over to a friends place where he asked a couple of his mates over so we could all talk guns and let me sample a few scopes on rifles.
It’s the first time I’ve been really able to look through a very large number of different scopes - all in one place and in one set of conditions.

It was very, very interesting and I am thinking that I am finally understanding the differences between top end scopes, middle range and lower end...some of which cannot be put into words...some of it’s almost a “feel”...

The ability to look through a top end scope like a swarkovski, literally side by side with a Zeiss, a Burris, a Leo, a bushnell, a vortex, Nikko, etc - and do it quickly, showcases the steps in quality...it was a privilege doing this.

What we did was ranged a matchbox at 80m and another at just shy of 400m and then I was asked to pick up a rifle / scope combination and then write down a number from 1-10 on if I’d happily take the shot from various power settings / focus / parallax set up per each range...

At the end of the test, there were 5 (out of 18) scopes that clearly stood out above all others, so then I looked at the weight, eye relief, price, what rings and bases I had already available, etc.

I finally got to look at a Burris 6500 - 4.5-30 what a beautiful scope for the money! The one I was looking through had a tiny scratch on objective lens and it hurt my evaluation - cause it ****** me lol. The real issue for me was the size of the thing and the busy as reticle - seriously, the optics are pretty great but if your barrel gets hot - take the scope off and play baseball with it...or club a seal or bash in a star picket. The reticle also obscured detail on higher mags - frustratingly, once passed 16x for this test, the box was being covered up by cross hairs and wind ages, bdc dots etc. If not for the weight and reticle choice...hmmm. For a carry rifle though?

The mark 5 Leo in 3-15 was amazing but at $2200 it was not a huge step forward in optics from the mark 4 or even vx 3 Leo...and this unit had target turrets that just felt too big. They stood very tall and it was a little off putting but what I found was the very very fine duplex reticle helped make the most of the magnification that was actually available and swapping between the Burris on say 24x and the the Leo on 15x found the Leo clearer with more detail available - so I scored the Leo higher, despite having more mag available on the Burris.

The swarkovski z8 2-16 was similar to the mark 5 Leo but much more expensive...but it had a feel about it that oozed an indescribable quality or maybe it was placebo - but the turret turns felt engineered by a scientist...I’d not be happy if I scratched it hunting! Price was more than I’m happy spending on a scope and in real world terms, I couldn’t see huge optical steps over the others.

The zeiss z8i 3-20 was the standout for my eyes. At 400m I could see detail on the little box like no other scope. I understand why ppl would pay $5k for this thing and it’s going on my vision board...once I get a vision board. Fark it was nice - and perfect for hunting and target shooting - THIS met all my design brief requirements bar 1 aspect....$$$

So what did I end up with? Well - I spoke with a lot of hunters and target shooters that night. I discussed the two scope option, quick release rings, etc. we discussed the type of hunting I do, the type of target shooting I currently do... the range distances I have access to. Etc. I looked again and again...

So I’ve settled on a mark 4 Leupold, 4-14 with fine duplex - But haven’t yet decided on 40/50mm bell as yet. Will need to measure but I think the 40 will suffice to help keep it low on the rifle.
The little Leo mark 4 was great at close distances with side parra adjustments and exceeded my expectations at 14x against the tiny target - with detail readable that really shouldn’t have been.
This scopes super fine reticle will allow for close quarter hunting, target shooting out to medium ranges, weight is 500 odd gms, eye relief is over 4 inches...price is around $1200.

I don’t think I’ve selected the best scope for either hunting or target shooting (the super fine reticle May be a hinderance when hunting in low light) - but I think I’ve settled on the best compromise across all aspects.

It was an experience doing this - I was lucky I had a friend who heard my frustration and helped out big time by getting together a collection of equipment - and now, I can finally understand why ppl lay down the $$$ being asked. Some of it is really not something that can be explained in type...

I’m Shopping now
Cheers TT.

[Stix]

Hey Tas....

Good story...& that would've been a good opportunity...

For what its worth...i too used to think & mount scopes as close as possible to the barrel was paramount.

My opinion of this has changed over time, & i find having my line of sight a few measily millimetres cliser to the bore makes bugger-all difference in killing things.

Infact, ive found the further away (higher mounted) the scope, the more versatile the outfit when it comes to taking prone shots in hilly terrain.

For me, id go the 50mm objective...i recently mounted a 40mm 6-24 on a rifle after having the same mag but in 50mm on it, & have noticed the light difference at dusk.

I feel there are more benefits/or the benefits are greater for a 50mm scope mounted less than 6mm higher.

You still get a good enoigh cheek weld, & its easier to shoot up hill when plonked over a pack, a log or bipod from prone....
& its better in low dim light--that would surely help on deer at dawn/dusk...

Line of sight distance to bore is really only applicable to shooting very close--so that <6mm would really only make a difference in hold-over if head shooting mice at less than 50 yds....& with a 30-06...

Just my thoughts...

[bigfellascott]

Bell End? What the hell do you want to be looking through the head of a penis for? Objective Lens Son that's what it should be really referred to, if ya keep running around referring to a 40mm bell end you might get some pommie dropping his out for ya to look at.

[TassieTiger]

It’s an interesting discussion re 40-50 bell ends...sorry, ob-gektifve lens.
It was broached at the gathering and promoted a shared response...lower mounts catch less in the bush, higher mounts give better clearances, lower mounts align line of sight to barrel, high mounts allow more light via larger obj and so on...it was a bit of a split decision to be honest.

[TassieTiger]

Bell End? What the hell do you want to be looking through the head of a penis for? Objective Lens Son that's what it should be really referred to, if ya keep running around referring to a 40mm bell end you might get some pommie dropping his out for ya to look at.

I’m not named Big Tassie Tiger...I’m just Tassie Tiger...now if I prefaced my name with BIG I’d expect a 50m bell end would be a minimum and would expect ongoing scoffs at mere mentions of 40mm bell ends, even if they were 12inch long scopes.

“Hey babe, wanna go and play with my objective lens”...doesn’t sound right...

[bigrich]

Ya won’t go wrong with a Leo taz , and they have a lifetime garuntee. Meopta are the only other mid range scope that I like , but they can be a bit too beefy for bolt clearance, like a zeiss I used to have

[bigfellascott]

It’s an interesting discussion re 40-50 bell ends...sorry, ob-gektifve lens.
It was broached at the gathering and promoted a shared response...lower mounts catch less in the bush, higher mounts give better clearances, lower mounts align line of sight to barrel, high mounts allow more light via larger obj and so on...it was a bit of a split decision to be honest.

I like 50mm bell ends betterah, they just let that much more light in than the 40mm bell ends which suits my needs better, as for mounts just buy the ones that allow the scope to sit as low as possible to the barrel, that's all I've ever done, as for mounts making a difference in the bush, f*** knows, never noticed any diff to be honest, I don't drag my rifle behind me so it can get caught on anything, it's always cradled in my arms.

[bigfellascott]

Bell End? What the hell do you want to be looking through the head of a penis for? Objective Lens Son that's what it should be really referred to, if ya keep running around referring to a 40mm bell end you might get some pommie dropping his out for ya to look at.

I’m not named Big Tassie Tiger...I’m just Tassie Tiger...now if I prefaced my name with BIG I’d expect a 50m bell end would be a minimum and would expect ongoing scoffs at mere mentions of 40mm bell ends, even if they were 12inch long scopes.

“Hey babe, wanna go and play with my objective lens”...doesn’t sound right...

Do you really think your mother, brother and sister are that fussy as to the size of ya bell end? I'm sure they still love it no matter what size ya bell end is

[TassieTiger]

Geeezus... are we going to walk down this road are we...originality’s getting hard to find.