Scopes

[Beekeeper]

I'm sure it has been asked a thousand times and gotten a thousand answers but haven't been able to find it anywhere.

I am an old milsurp shooter with iron sights.
Now I have gone and bought my first brand new gun.
I bought a H&R Handi-rifle in .223.

It comes with scope ramp and I (having never owned one) am looking to buy a scope!
I was thinking Bushnell Banner but am open to all types.
If I follow the 1/3 rule the bushnell falls about in the right price range.

Having never owned one and being a complete newbe to H&R and new weapons would like to hear from everyone on their thoughts about a good scope.
I am not against paying whatever but want a good usable scope I am not afraid to take hunting or rough country shooting.


beekeeper

[oldhickory]

For scopes on sporting rifles, I personally like Burris. I think the quality is better than Leupold at a better price. They're made in the U.S.A. and wear like iron.

[Ben]

For a " tad bit " more you can buy a nice scope with a lifetime warranty that is a proven and has a reliable warranty.

No more cheap scopes for me :

http://www.grafs.com/product/233569

[atr]

Bushnell makes a pretty good scope,,,,but Burris makes a much much better one.....
I have Burris, Leupold, Weaver and Bushnell
I think the general quality of the optics on the Burris and Leupold are better than on the Weaver and Bushnell.
I especially like Burris because it it make in the USA

I you are shooting a 223 then I suspect that you are shooting at long ranges and I would opt for the more expensive scope for its improved optics

[Ben]

Ditto ..................ATR's comments ! ! !

[Jaybird62]

On the upper end of the scale, I like the Kahles the best. It's got the quality of a Swarovski but at a better price. They don't import any more, but there are quite a few still in inventory in the on-line dealers sites.

It's hard to beat Burris' prices for their quality. I've got at least a dozen and they hold up well. They don't have the light gathering ability of the Kahles or the upper end Leupolds, but they're a great general scope. I hunt whitetails to the end of legal shooting hours 30 minutes after official sundown. A Burris cost me a huge buck a few years ago when he stepped out in front of me on a overcast evening with about 2 minuntes to go. Try as I might, I couldn't put the cross hairs on him at 30 yards with the Burris. I swapped to a Kahles the next morning but I never got a crack at him again. When I'm in that mode of trying to kill a buck of a lifetime I'll stick with the best quailty optics. When the priority is trying to get some blood on a gun or cartridge the chances of having a Burris mounted is pretty high.

[CSH]

My only experience with Bushnell was one of their budget 3x9's that came on a sporterized '03 Springfield. To the best of my knowledge the rifle had not been fired after the scope was mounted. Instead of just replacing the scope, I thought what the heck I'll leave it on here and use it until it breaks. I boresighted the scope and headed to the range. The first shot was about 2" low and 4" right at 100. I adjusted the scope the advertised amount and fired again. The 2nd shot was lower and further right. Did I adjust in the wrong direction? I double checked and no, I had adjusted in the direction indicated by the markings. Well, maybe the marks are somehow backwards. I adjusted in the other direction and didn't a bullet hole on the paper. I moved the target to 25 yards and fired 3 more shots and what resulted couldn't even be called a group. The scope had broken on the first shot. No more Bushnell scopes for me, unless it's the Elite line that were formerly labeled as Bausch & Lomb.

I've had good experiences with Burris, Bausch & Lomb (now Bushnell Elite), Leupold, Nikon, Meopta, and IOR. The eye relief isn't the best on the Burris, but for shooting a .223 this shouldn't be a factor. IOR and Meopta don't have a budget line of scopes, but all of the others do and IMO would serve you better in the long run than the Bushnell. I don't know who originally coined the phrase, but there's a saying about optics that bears repeating.

"You only pay once for good optics. You will pay for poor optics for as long as you own them."

[EOD3]

I've got a lot of scopes ranging from one Simmons through several Leupold with a few Bushnell Elite 3200.

I refuse to buy Leupold scopes since they "adjusted" their product line and devalued their older scopes.

IMNSHO, the Bushnell Elite 3200 is the best bang for the bucks. The Elite series have a lifetime warranty, very good optics, the rainguard coating, and can be had for around $200. I have a couple of the fixed 10X Mil-Dot that are darn good scopes.

[captaint]

Believe it or not, scopes do not all adjust the same. If your shot lands left of target, most of us would say OK I have to adjust the scope to the right. Only you're actually moving the crosshairs left. Remember, gun shoots where it shoots. You only change where you look. Mike

[BD]

I've only owned about 10 or 12 optics in my life. Currently, the only ones I have mounted are 3 Leupolds. All the others are broken, or back for repairs. I can be a bit hard on my stuff, but I've never broken a Leupold. Lately I've been thinking about a Burris, and may try one.

EOD3, what do you mean by leupold "devalued" their older scopes? I have a Vari-X III that I bought used. It's been on my .270 WBY for 14 years, (maybe 350 rounds?). Is it no longer covered by warantee or something? I've killed a bunch of game with that rig and I was kinda hoping it would last forever. I bought one of the cheap Vari-X I's last fall as an emergency replacement for the Ultradot on my slug gun. So far it's held up good to about 50 rounds of 3" 1 1/4 oz 12 guage slugs using a Knoxx comp stock. I had thought the UltraDot to be pretty tough before mounting it on that shotgun.

Jaybird, I've never been hunting anywhere where it was too dark to put the Leupold crosshairs on something, but it was still legal shootin' hours. I'm afraid to put the money into a Swarovski or even a Kahles as it might jinx me into failing down a ravine or into the river or something just so the scope would get busted.

BD

[largom]

I have Leupolds, Zeiss, Old Weavers, Old Simmons, Pentax, Bushnell Elites, Old Redfields, and Burris. I own more Burris scopes than all of the rest put together. It's a shame that the old Weaver and Redfield company's no longer exist, they were good scopes at a good price. Today the best bang for your buck is a Burris. I might add that the top of the line Pentax scopes are made by Burris while the economy ones are made in China.
Larry

[Wicky]

The only thing I would add - 'cause there is a bunch of good scopes mentioned already - get a 3-9x or a fixed 6x and you will be well covered for all your shooting with the Handi Rifle.
I have a few variable but find the 3-9 adequate on most of them. I use smaller - 1-4x and 2-4x on my big bores and I do have a 6-18x on my 22lr, for Silhouette, but I find the 3-9x the most versatile.

[oldhickory]

One more scope that these fellows haven't mentioned, Shepherd. They're pricey, (I think around $600.00-$700.00 now a days) but they're worth every penny of it! You won't find a brighter, easier to use scope under $2000.00. I have a PS2 3.5-10X and can define things better at 1000yds than my brother can with his 20X Leupold under any light conditions. I mounted that thing on a heavy .308 12 years ago and haven't had to adjust it yet...It's THAT good!

[Leadforbrains]

Almost all my scopes are Leopolds.

[wiljen]

Nikon makes a good scope and they are extremely aggressively priced.

[280Ackley]

I agree with most of what has already been said. I currently have more Burris's mounted than anything else, but own Leupolds, a Bushnell 3200 some Weavers, some old Redfields and a couple of Sightrons. Since no one else mentioned the Sightron I thought I would because it is a very good glass for the price especially the Big Sky model. If I were looking for a glass for a 223 right now that is what I would go with.

[leadman]

If you are just going to punch paper with the NEF and don't want to pay a large sum for a scope Natchez has a Simmons Whitetail classic line that has decent optics for the low price. I have 3 of them and have had no problems.
For my hunting rifles I have Leupolds. I like the VXIIs better than the new VXIs or Rifleman. Can't afford much more than that.

[runfiverun]

i have a couple of the newer 200 dollar plus bushnells and simmons scopes they are good enough. i also have burris and leupold scopes mounted on my no-nonsense rifles.
the 3200and 4200 bushnells are NOT the 59.00 models in the plastic packages.
having said that .the nikon scopes especially the monarch series is affordable and the clarity is all you could ask for.
what has been said from all this thread is get a scope that is in the 300.00 range and you will be pleased with it.

[AZ-Stew]

Jaybird62's comment about losing a buck to a Burris scope (he assumes he'd have been able to make the shot with a higher-priced scope) could only be verified if both scopes were available for comparison at the same moment under the exact same lighting conditions. To say otherwise is pure conjecture.

I have one Leupold, and it's certainly a nice scope. I have a BUNCH of Bushnells, and none has ever failed. One of them (not a high-end model, it cost about $150) is mounted on a Remington 700 BDL in 375 H&H. I've fired several hundred full-power rounds through the rifle and the scope works as new. I've fired sub-MOA groups with this setup using full-power 270 grain loads. I also own a couple of Burris scopes, and like them a lot. The latest one, a 6.5-20x50, purchased within the last month, had a "Made in Philippines" sticker on it. I particularly like the Ballistic Mil Dot reticle. It makes hold-off at long range a snap. I also like the Burris Signature rings with the plastic inserts that allow a perfect mount without reaming the rings and they protect the scope tube against ring dents and scratches. The offset inserts also allow setting up a rifle for long range while keeping the internal adjustments nearly centered. I plan to keep buying Burris scopes. They're fine optics, on a par with Leupold, and at their prices, I can outfit three rifles for what it would cost to outfit two with similar Leupold scopes.

I often hear folks mention that the Leupold warranty is great. They've sent back X-number of scopes for repair and never paid a cent for the work. On the other hand, Burris carries the same warranty, but I've never heard of anyone having to send back a Burris. What are the Leupold owners doing with their scopes? Using them for carrying handles or hammers? Treat optics as you would any fine instrument, such as a camera, and you'll likely never have a problem with it. Use it for a club and you'll get to test the warranty, regardless of make.

Regards,

Stew

[Jaybird62]

Stew:
My comparison of those particular optics wasn't pure conjecture. I have compared those and other optics under the same light conditions. There's a difference. I ran a division of the conglomerate that owns Burris, so I've got a pretty good understanding of what goes into making a scope do its thing.

[corvette8n]

I have a Burris and a Leupold like them both, had a bad warranty experience with BSA, they wanted more money to replace my under warranty scope than it was worth, I told them to keep it and I wouldn't buy another BSA.

[AZ-Stew]

Jay,

After comparing the optical specifications of the two brands for a typical 3.5-10x50mm 1" tube scope, I can't see enough difference in the two where it would make any difference in the field. The Kahles has an 8 percent larger exit pupil at low magnification, but no advantage at full power. Glass is glass and full multi-coating is full mulit-coating. When both brands claim 99.5 percent light transmission, I seroiusly doubt that any difference can be detected except with laboratory instruments.

I'll have an opportunity to find out next week at the NRA convention. I'll try out both of them looking into some dark recess of the Phoenix Convention Center exhibit hall.

I have a lot of practical experience with camera optics and I can tell you that most people can't tell the difference between lens brands. Generally speaking, like firearms optics, they're so good across the board that no one even thinks about them any longer. Any remaining difference these days is largely a matter of manufacturer name prestige and $$ spent to purchase. I've seen some models of lenses made by highly respectible manufacturers that had crappy performance when compared to the rest of their lens models, and it wasn't a matter of a bad "individual" lens. The entire run of that model had poor performance, due to marginal design. I've also seen lenses from not-so-well respected manufacturers that would perform on a par with the most respected names in the industry.

Regards,

Stew

[mike in co]

not sure about your comment about a 1/3 rule...the rifle should cost 1/3 of the scope ?

cause if the scope cost 1/3 of the rifle why did you spend so much money on the rifle ?

if you are hunting, seems silly to spend 500 on a rifle, 150 on a scope and waste the hunt when the scope fails to perform.

i only hunt paper and steel so a scope failure to me at the worst is a match lost..it has happened.

if its a full on competition gun or your hunting rifle, i think, one to one for the scope and the rifle: a $500 rifle gets a $500 scope.
my 1000yd rifle will run about $1000 and the scope is about $800....cause i ran out of money.


mike in co

[Firebird]

Glass is glass and full multi-coating is full mulit-coating.

This is VERY far from the truth. Glass is glass? How about flourite or other apochramatic glasses. Do you keep seeing a colored fringe to everything through your scope? NOT having APO glass in it;'s design is why. Crown, flint etc all have different indexes of refraction and clarity; this makes a big difference in the actual design of a scope. Multi-coating means at least two coats, how about three or four or five? What material is being used to do the coating makes a difference as well, all the coating is intended to do is to form a half-wave reflective barrier so that some of the light that would normally be reflected by a surface of the lens gets reflected again back to it's original direction. Are they using a soft easily scratched coating, or have they covered the lens with a very hard coating on the surface to prevent scratches? Lens design can also make a big difference, aspherical lenses are more expensive, but can give a wider, less distorted view with fewer lenses needed resulting in a lighter weight product.
Seemingly small changes can make a big difference in how well a scope lets you see, and also in a scopes price. And specifications can always be fudged. MOST scopes, even a few with uncoated lenses, have a frequency band (light color) where they can claim 99.5% light transmission. How much light gets transmitted across the entire visible spectrum can vary widely between scopes that all claim 99.5% light transmission.

[AZ-Stew]

This is VERY far from the truth. Glass is glass? How about flourite or other apochramatic glasses. Do you keep seeing a colored fringe to everything through your scope? NOT having APO glass in it;'s design is why. Crown, flint etc all have different indexes of refraction and clarity; this makes a big difference in the actual design of a scope. Multi-coating means at least two coats, how about three or four or five? What material is being used to do the coating makes a difference as well, all the coating is intended to do is to form a half-wave reflective barrier so that some of the light that would normally be reflected by a surface of the lens gets reflected again back to it's original direction. Are they using a soft easily scratched coating, or have they covered the lens with a very hard coating on the surface to prevent scratches? Lens design can also make a big difference, aspherical lenses are more expensive, but can give a wider, less distorted view with fewer lenses needed resulting in a lighter weight product.
Seemingly small changes can make a big difference in how well a scope lets you see, and also in a scopes price. And specifications can always be fudged. MOST scopes, even a few with uncoated lenses, have a frequency band (light color) where they can claim 99.5% light transmission. How much light gets transmitted across the entire visible spectrum can vary widely between scopes that all claim 99.5% light transmission.

Your last paragraph is telling. Visit the Kahles web site and note their description of their product's optical properties. They claim their scopes to be "optimized" for low-light conditions. Quoting from their web site:

"KAHLES AMV-Coatings (Achromatic Multi Coatings) - Optimized for Maximum Light Transmission between 500 and 540 Nanometers for Ultimate Low Light Performance"

Which means they're optimized for the green portion of the spectrum where the human eye is most sensitive. Increasing light transmission here gives the impression of a brighter image. Burris's web site doesn't mention the light frequency they're optimized for, but I'd be surprised if there's much difference. I'll make a point of asking about this at the NRA convention next week.

The optical formulae are pretty much determined by physics. All quality optical manufacturers use several different types of glass in their products to eliminate various abberations, and lens coating materials are not much of a secret, either.

I bought one of the first Asahi Pentax cameras (early 1971) offered with multi-coated lenses, and Pentax was the first to offer multi coating. There was a noticable difference in color saturation and contrast with their product as compared to the competition (Leica, Zeis, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Mamiya) because they were all still using single layer coatings. Pentax's multi-coatings, each optimized for a different wavelength, made a big difference. Now, everyone uses multi-coating and the difference between brands is very small, to the point of being indistinguishable.

My point is, that until I actually see any difference for myself, I'd have a very hard time justifying the 3x difference in price between a $500 Burris and a $1,500 Kahles. Can YOU actually see 3X better using the Kahles?

Regards,

Stew

[giz189]

I agree with Jaybird, for years all I could afford was Tasco or Bushnell. Then I got a Leopold VXIII, before it was changed to the new Vari X III. There is no comparisons between a cheaper model and an upper end model when you compare them in low light conditions.

[Ken 45LC]

I readily admit to not being a scope expert in any way. But I did want to mention that about 2 years ago I bought the Bushnell Banner because while looking thru it in the store it seemed like it was worth the money. It wasn't until I mounted it that I found out how bad it really was. Thru some error of mine, the scope seemed completely different in the gun shop, even taking it outside to look at far away objects.

I took the scope back and traded it towards an elite series scope (since I already own about 4 of them) and the difference is night and day. Around my area you can purchase the 3200 3 x 9 for about $179.00. It is a much better bargain than the banner. I also have a few Nikon Monarchs and I've been very pleased with them as well.

Since you were considering the banner, I take it you didn't want to spend a fortune on a scope. You may want to check out Natchez, they have some reconditioned scopes fairly cheap. But in the end it is your money and your decision to make, but I believe you will be much happier spending a little more on your scope.

Ken

[Trey45]

I had a banner scope on a 223 rifle, it sucked. I put it on a 22lr rifle and it doesn't suck anymore. I can only assume it's recoil sensitive, even on the 22lr it will lose zero from time to time.

[southpaw]

"You only pay once for good optics. You will pay for poor optics for as long as you own them."

I love that quote :drinks: When talking new, you get what you pay for.

As for the original question get the best scope that you can afford that petains to the application that you wish to use it for. For 223 I would go with a 14-18 at the high end unless you want to shoot little targets over say 500yrds then I would go with a 24. Anything over that takes some practice to get used to.

Personally I would get a Burris 4.5-14 fullfield 2. Just checked on evilbay and you can get one for $275 shipped.

Good luck!!:Fire:

Jerry Jr.

[Boerrancher]

"You only pay once for good optics. You will pay for poor optics for as long as you own them."


Many good scopes have been mentioned, as well as many brands that 20 years ago were good scopes and now what these companies put out for scopes are not worth the effort to take them out of the package. I personally will no longer buy a scope that costs under $300. That is why I haven't bought a scope in a while except for a Tasco world class, which use to be a good scope. I put it on a target 22 rim fire and was never able to get it zeroed. I thought it might the rifle so I put it on a rifle that I know shot well, and still could not get it zeroed. Now I am saving up for a good Burris or Leupold.

Best wishes from the Boer ranch,

Joe

[oldhickory]

Just remembered something!...There's a member here that sells some old Weaver scopes from time to time at a very reasonable price. Why not post something in WTB for one of these scopes?:drinks:

[Beekeeper]

Thanks all for the excellent answers.
I must admit some of them are way over my head but I learned a bunch.
I think I will start with a bushnell elite 3200 and go up or down from there.

Moke in Co.,
I can't even see 1000 yards and with my old eyes I don't think I would even try to shoot that far.

I am going to go for 250-300 yards and hope for the best.

I hope without getting a storm started some one will answer this question!
I did my homework and checked the different web sites for the different scopes.
One site I went to was Barska as it seems to be well thought of here.(where I live)
The specs match the others pretty well and the guarenty seems to be equal to bushnells.
Was wondering what someone else has to say about them?
Havent bought one and am still looking in to all types.

For a guy who has never owned a scope there sure is a lot of info to digest but it seems to be buyers choise and whatever has worked for you in the past.

Again thanks for the info.


beekeeper

[Bladebu1]

mueller (http://www.muelleroptics.com/products/lists/tactical-scopes.html)
this is what I just got for my .223 Mueller 8.5-25×44AO but I am a shooter only with it not a hunter and I can say I am happy with the $194. I spent the foucel leath is very defined not alot of wiggel room

[mike in co]

Thanks all for the excellent answers.
I must admit some of them are way over my head but I learned a bunch.
I think I will start with a bushnell elite 3200 and go up or down from there.

Moke in Co.,
I can't even see 1000 yards and with my old eyes I don't think I would even try to shoot that far.

I am going to go for 250-300 yards and hope for the best.

I hope without getting a storm started some one will answer this question!
I did my homework and checked the different web sites for the different scopes.
One site I went to was Barska as it seems to be well thought of here.(where I live)
The specs match the others pretty well and the guarenty seems to be equal to bushnells.
Was wondering what someone else has to say about them?
Havent bought one and am still looking in to all types.

For a guy who has never owned a scope there sure is a lot of info to digest but it seems to be buyers choise and whatever has worked for you in the past.

Again thanks for the info.


beekeeper

it was just a reference to the dollars spent on the gun and the scope.
i would stick with your plan..and skip the barska.

mike in co

[mike in co]

mueller (http://www.muelleroptics.com/products/lists/tactical-scopes.html)
this is what I just got for my .223 Mueller 8.5-25×44AO but I am a shooter only with it not a hunter and I can say I am happy with the $194. I spent the foucel leath is very defined not alot of wiggel room


i guess my only questions is"where are they made"...the seem to skip right over that on thier site.

mike in co

[atr]

OLDHICKORY

yes,,his name is Ken and he sometimes posts in the selling link of this website.
I got a nice 4 power old style steel tube Weaver from him..

[txpete]

from the burris site
We manufacture most of our products here in the USA, in our own factory

the word is most.the FFII is made in the P.I. not the usa.bought one and sold it.not even close to a leupold var-1.
pete