Could I get some scope recommendations...

[Marlin Junky]

for a 22" .358 Winchester bolt gun? I don't want a lot of magnification but I do want quality optics to test my cast boolit handloads.

Thank you,
MJ

[klausg]

MJ-Depends on how deep your pockets are, I am generally a big fan of Leupold. You did not state fixed or variable, but I would say you couldn't go wrong with a Leupold 4X, or their variable 2-7X 33. For the money, it's hard to beat their glass.

-Klaus

[Lloyd Smale]

ive got a couple 1.5x5 leupolds and really like them. I also have a nikon the same power level and its been a good scope.

[cbrick]

Here are several articles by Todd Spotti on shooting sports optics. Todd is retired from NASA where he dealt with optics so he is pretty well informed on the subject.

http://www.lasc.us/IHMSANewsArticles.htm

This should help you decide what you want & need.

Rick

[carpetman]

Marlin Junky---You get what you pay for is probably more true in optics than anything. You didnt mention cost,so I will. Leupold is the cheapest. How do I figure that? Go to EBAY and see what they bring---they hold their value. I watched Leupold compact 3x-9x with EFR(Extended Focus range)(adjustable objective) for about 2 years and they ALL went for atleast $275 and you could buy a new one for $307. That makes it a $32 scope at most---many went for $290. Now you might say I'm not buying it to resell. But you arent buying it to either throw in trash or send back and forth trying to get it fixed. I can tell you some true stories about that. You didnt mention brightness so I'll address that also. To begin with most people buying variables makes it more costly to manufacture a fixed power---smaller market. So as already mentioned a variable is probably your best bet. The 2x-7x 33 compact was mentioned and it would be a fine choice. Now about the light. A ratio of the power to the objectve(big one on front) lens give you the exit diameter. In the example of the 2x-x-33 you would have 33 divided by 2(at 2 power)giving you exit of 16.5MM. At 7x you would have 33 divided by 7= 4.714MM. Once this matches the size of the pupil in your eye you gain no more by going larger. The older you get the smaller your pupil. Thats why youngsters can go into a dark theater and instantly spot their friends and us old geezers cant see for awhile. I dont know your age but 6mm would be a fairly large pupil for an adult---thus 5.5 power and below you'd be getting the max you could get. If your pupil that big you probably arent too concerned about brightness anyways as you would have very good night vision. So what I'm saying is unless your cow with big pupils is shooting your gun you'd be as well served with a compact on low power as you would with one of those Palomar sized lens. Leupold would be a good first choice followed closely for 2nd choice by Leupold and 3rd would be a leupold. Actually I have not used Burris and they do have as good a reputation for both product and standing behind their product as Leupold does. Now you need some binoculars to go with that scope---I can tell you hands down about the very best buy on binoculars too if you want to know. But I need a spotting scope and don't have a clue which one to look at.

[cbrick]

I need a spotting scope and don't have a clue which one to look at.

Well, might I suggest reading the articles on shooting sports optics that I posted above? You might learn a great deal about the several spotters that have been reviewed.

Todd is thought well enough of in the optics industry that when a new product comes out they send him one to review and write up. Wish I had that deal.

Rick

[threett1]

Nikon Prostaff is great for the money. Love mine. My .02.

[Blammer]

Nikon Prostaff, have one and compared it directly to a Leupold and found very little if any difference, except on price.

[ktw]

I am a big fan of the low powered leupold variables. I have three of the VXIII 1.5-5x20s and two of the VXII 2-7x33s. I think either one would suit your needs.

-ktw

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

scary thought, but I am having great lucj with a Nikko-Sterling Nighteater 6-24X with illuminated reticle and parallax side wheel adjustment. It has stayed together for over 200-Jbullet 2400+fps loads and with my new toy, an AirForce Condor.

Rich
DRSS

[longhorn]

Very nice little dissertation, Carpetman. 4th choice is probably Leupold, too, IMHO. I own and use several old steel Weavers, but that's a nostalgia thing, not seeking the best tool for the job. Spotting scopes? I gazed through a _bunch_ and bought Kowa.

[Mk42gunner]

Leupold. The 2-7X -33 or the 1.5-5X -20 for varibles or either the 4X or 6X fixed power.



Robert

[carpetman]

Longhorn----The old steel Weavers are good. They were the poor mans scope. But like many other products--they cheapened them. The front retaining ring was replaced with plastic. I had WEAVER lens protector on my scope and when I removed it,it broke the plastic. So that they could see what caused the problem,I sent it back with the protector on it. They sent me an estimate of the repair cost. I sent a letter asking why should I have to pay when their PROTECTOR wrecked the scope? I didnt hear and dint hear and finally sent the required payment to get my scope out of ransom. Odd thing the day my check was picked up by the mailman the scope was delivered. Guess they finally agreed with me and sent the scope. They never refunded the check though---that was only problem I ever had with a Weaver--made in El Paso.

[BruceB]

We had a very extensive discussion a year or so back on the role of "inexpensive" optics in cast-bullet loading and shooting.

My take is this: for LOAD DEVELOPMENT, I often use some "bargain" scopes, because this is an undertaking where a scope problem is not disastrous, and the higher magnification/low cost make shooting developmental loads easier. For instance, I use a 6-24X Tasco, and a 36X Tasco, and a couple others of the same ilk. I don't mind switching scopes from rifle to rifle, and my rifles are certainly not "married" to one scope (most of the time).

For my hunting rifles when doing actual hunting, I want QUALITY optics, in case of unforeseen mishaps in the field. Leupolds fill the bill very well for me, although I have an old 1.5-4.5X Bushnell Scopechief that has done me extremely well for about 30 years, mostly in the sub-zero climate of the Northwest Territories. It's still going strong. Impressive performance for a less-than-top-grade scope.

Having at least one medium-to-high magnification scope to be switched around for load development on ALL one's rifles makes good sense to me. It removes one of the "what-ifs"....such as, "Hmmm...what if I'd used a higher-power scope for those tests....?"

For a .358 in the field, a 1.5-4.5X variable would be very good. So would a fixed 2.5X, for that matter. I don't think such instruments are the best for bench work in finding one's best loads, but they're certainly far from "poor" for the job. Target selection plays a big role, too, and many target designs are hopeless with irons or low-powered scopes.

[carpetman]

BruceB---My late bro had a Bushnell Scopechief made back in the 60's that was very good and provided as is still providing good service as far as I know(it was given to one of his step sons). But my experience with newer Bushnell stuff has not been good. Time was when Bausch&Lomb was made in Rochester NY their optical stuff was all top of the line---not so anymore. Most people call Tasco Trashco and it gets all kinds of bad publicity. My gunsmith surprised me when he said the top of the line Tasco(World Class)was pretty good about holding zero when moved through the variable power. I have one on my 22-250 and it has not given any trouble. You are most correct--an optical problem on a hunting trip--especially one a long ways from home is not a good thing.

[rmb721]

Leupold all the way. You can't beat their warranty or service.

They will do things that other companies won't, like change reticles in non-current models.

Some companies won't do anything to non-current models. (They give a new junker)

Anything I have sent to have something done, I usually have back in two weeks or so. I have heard of other companies that take four to six months.

My favorite Leupold is the Vari-x III 3.5-10x40 AO which is no longer made.

Any time someone is talking about scopes, they almost always say that their scope is as good as a Leupold. It must make them feel good. I am not saying that there are not scopes as good or better, because there is, but very few.

When everything is considered, (quality, warranty, service, selection, resale value) , how can you consider anything but a Leupold.

Just my $.02

[longhorn]

Good point, BruceB. Interestingly, I had a M70 Laredo with a Loopy 6.5-20 variable on it-I consistently shot better groups at 10X or so than at 20x. I think the very obvious heartbeat twitch of the crosshairs must have distracted me, led me to alter my breathing or hold or something. Mentally, it sure annoyed me to sit as perfectly still as I could manage and watch the crosshairs jump around. Not enough bench time, I suppose. The scope had AO, and I used it, so I don't think it was just a parallax problem-shooter problem instead.

[Marlin Junky]

Thank you all for the input. Now I have a question about current Leupold quality but first let me say the following: I took a new VXII 1x4 to the range today and passed it around with my old K2.5 asking other shooters who I'd call precision rifle shooting buffs in the 40 to 55 year old range if they'd compare the quality of the two scopes and all 4 that looked through the scopes preferred the image quality of the 30 year old K2.5 to the new VXII 1x4.

My question is two-fold: is the VXIII that much better than the VXII or did I just get a bad scope? I had a VXIII 1.5x5 mounted on a .458 years ago and even though the sight picture was excellent (and my eyes were way better then) the recoil of this rifle ruptured something in the scope. It was sent back to Leupold and repaired but I put it on a .375H&H just to be on safe side and bought a K2.5 for the .458. This was the same K2.5 I was showing others at the range today. This particular K2.5 was one of the steel tube models purchased about 30 years ago for 69 bucks... or about 1/2 week worth of pay.

Would you all agree that I contact Leupold to request they do something about the scope or did I just waste 300 bucks by not buying a VXIII?

Thanks again,
MJ

[Bret4207]

I'm a fan of steel tubed Weavers. If you can get a "Micro-trac" then it's as good as it gets. There is supposed to be good service to be had from the Weaver scope repair people too, although they aren't the same company that sells Weavers, if you follow.

[Bass Ackward]

I have changed my outlook on scopes tremendously.

No brand loyalty because no two scopes seem to be alike. Take 3 different 3X9 Leupolds. Same gun, same shells, same rings and groups varried by 1/2" from a sub MOA load. That's a big difference when you are that small.

I have said before how I tried several scopes on my new 223. Leupold, Burris, the accuracy winner? A 10X Bushnell. But I use a 36X Weaver for development stuff now below 45 caliber. For 45 caliber I use a 10X Springfield Armory as they eat everything else. Lost three Leupolds before I realized it. This eliminates a lot of unexplained .... fliers. You can actually see yourself losing concentration in long strings of firing that you don't notice with 12X or less. So shooing 10 shot groups isn't really testing .... the gun unless those are the only 10 shots you shoot.

[felix]

The best scopes are fixed power, and there is a trend in the BR world to have the scopes made so the crosshairs are "welded" into the optical center. In other words, back to variable mounts like in the very old days. I would love to have a scope with a large dot with the center of it perfectly clear, leaving a sighting circle with extending wires for vertical-horizontal target alignment. ... felix

[fourarmed]

You have to remember that a riflescope is first, last, and always, an AIMING DEVICE. It is not intended for viewing the girl's dormitory or the moons of Jupiter. Brightness and clarity are less important than things like maintenance of zero, tolerance of recoil, water and dust resistance, and repeatability.

I have, and still use, Texas K-6, K-4 and K-2.5 scopes. They are excellent, but they are getting old. I have retired several because I started hearing lens elements rattling from dried-out seals or o-rings. If I could have a brand new Texas K-4, I would be happy as a pig in $hi#, but I can't.

Burris' customer service is pretty good, and I treasure my old 7x IER pistol scope. I have had others that perplex me. Who would design a scope that requires offset mounts to go on a 700 Remington? Burris has. A lot of their scopes are problematic to mount on a lot of rifles. I hear that they are improving this.

I have several Sightron scopes that are good, Japanese-made scopes with lifetime warrantee. So far I have had no trouble with them, so I can't say about their customer service. They are not cheap scopes, either.

When it comes down to it, I have to go with Leupold, too. They are expensive up front, but it's worth it if you want a lifetime scope. For my use, the VariX III in 2.5-8 is one of the great hunting scopes, and has enough power at the top end for most load testing.

[sundog]

Fourarmed, yes, a scope is primarily, but not always, an aiming device for most shooters. All of my more recent acquisitions with the exception of a 2X Millet Scout Scope for a Mauser have been mil dot. A scope can be an extremely accurate range finder (ala sniper) as are iron sights that are designed for that purpose. If you never shoot further than point blank then there's not much reason to need a range finder. The latest is a Weaver V series mil dot, and so far, I'm very impressed. Mil dots make shooting 'hold off' real easy. Just need to know your external ballistics and how to read wind and mirage. All of my future scope acquisitions, depending on particular requirements, will include looking at mil dots.

[Uncle R.]

You have to remember that a riflescope is first, last, and always, an AIMING DEVICE. It is not intended for viewing the girl's dormitory or the moons of Jupiter. Brightness and clarity are less important than things like maintenance of zero, tolerance of recoil, water and dust resistance, and repeatability.


Well Said!
Optical clarity is a GOOD thing - but for a rifle scope it's certainly not the ONLY thing. For a hunting rifle I'll take a scope that's a bit less than perfect in clarity IF it's stone reliable.
That said, I've long suspected that Leupold scopes, while very good, are overpriced for what you're getting. In the last couple of years I've taken to using home-made "eye charts" for scope testing. Lines of random letters in ever decreasing size laser printed on paper and put up at 100 yards. They work very well for checking scope resolution. All B.S. is bypassed - either you CAN or CAN'T read line #6 with the scoped, sandbagged rifle. I've seen VX-IIs get beaten soundly by Burris Fullfield 2s - and even Weaver "Classic Vs" of similar size and power have trounced Leupolds for clarity in some of my tests.
I've got several Nikon Monarchs that are just outstanding for clarity and resolution. The adjustments track well. I've hunted for several years with those Nikons, frequently in sloppy weather. So far they've given excellent performance and no nasty surprises. I like them a lot.
I've shot many hundreds of other people's guns during our club "sight in days" and most of them wore el-cheapo scopes. A few years ago Tascos were everywhere. Last fall I hardly saw a single one. Where'd they all go? :twisted:
Last year's batch of cheapos was heavy on "blister packed" Bushnells and Simmons. The Chinese optics were also starting to make a showing. Performance of all of the cheapos varies a lot even in scopes that are supposedly identical. A few of them were surpisingly good optically and some of them had adjustments that worked OK. A lot of them are seriously nasty.
Col. Jeff Cooper insisted that NO scope will last forever - that recoil and age will eventually wreck them all. I didn't agree with the colonel on everything but on this matter I think he was right. I'd not trust my hunting trip to a thirty-year-old thousands-of-rounds-fired ANYTHING if it hadn't been gone through by the factory recently. I have a VXIII on my "main" deer rifle that's maybe 20 years old. It's seen a lot of hard use - and it needs repair. The scope goes badly out of focus at the end of its power adjustment range.
Does this mean that Leupolds are no good or I don't like them? Nope. twenty-odd years of hard service delivered is a good record for ANY scope. And Leupold WILL fix it - and for free.
From a strict optical clarity perspective, Leupold is no bargain. But remember, a rifle scope has to do a lot more than just provide an image. I like and use Nikon Monarchs and Burris Fullfield IIs and even Weavers on my rifles. Any of them would probably serve you well but if I was off on an Alaskan adventure of a lifetime I'll admit my rifle would probably be wearing a VX III.
Uncle R.

[1hole]

[SCOPE for a 22" .358 Winchester bolt gun? I don't want a lot of magnification but I do want quality optics to test my cast boolit handloads.]

The brand of scope, within a price range, isn't going to be as important as the magnification.

The reason the 3-9x scopes are the most popular is due to the near ideal hunting rifle balance between a wide field of view in the deep woods and usable magnification at the range or plains.

[Marlin Junky]

Well it's been a couple days since I wrote Leupold and I've received no reply by email.

I'm considering a Weaver V10 with the 38mm objective. Does anyone have that scope mounted on a short action Ruger (they call it a Hawkeye, but dimensionally I think it's a M77). I'll also take a look at what Nikon has to offer.

MJ

[Uncle R.]

I'm considering a Weaver V10 with the 38mm objective. Does anyone have that scope mounted on a short action Ruger (they call it a Hawkeye, but dimensionally I think it's a M77). I'll also take a look at what Nikon has to offer.
MJ

I have a V10 mounted on a M77 MkII in .257 Roberts. As far as optical clarity, it's an impressive scope for the money. It soundly trounced my 3-9 VX-II in the "eye chart" test. In fairness, the Leupold is over ten years old and doesn't have multi-coating while the new V10 does. Don't know how much can be credited to that factor.
The V10 mounted nicely on the Ruger, but if I recall correctly that .257 is built on a long action. I didn't do "shoot the box" testing on the adjustments but the combination sighted in without any aggravation or surprises. I can't speak for durability on this one - it hasn't seen 50 rounds fired yet.
I like the "classic" series Weavers as economy scopes. I have a Japanese made K4 that was bought new about 13 years ago at the local Farm & Barn. It's mounted on my 788 .30-30 and it's been to hellenback - hunted with extensively by my wife and my nephew. They're both a little too casual about how they handle my rifles, and the scope bears a few scratches & scars from their tender ministrations.
:roll:
Optically it's pretty nice and there've been no surprises - it just keeps on doing its job. It's a good scope for the hundred bucks I paid.

Uncle R.

[Marlin Junky]

Uncle R.

How long is the magazine box on your Ruger?

MJ

P.S. I'm actually leaning toward the Nikon ProStaff 3-9x40 because it has a bit more eye relief than the V10, it weighs a little more and Nikon has a good reputation for camera lenses. I'm also going to buy it from Midway so if it sucks, it's going back without ever touching the rifle. Too bad I mounted the VXII the night before the range session without looking through it in the light off day AND tried to save a few bucks by purchasing it from Midsouth... I really screwed myself.

[Uncle R.]

Uncle R.

How long is the magazine box on your Ruger?

MJ

P.S. I'm actually leaning toward the Nikon ProStaff 3-9x40,,,

I'll check the length of the action & magazine box this weekend (If I can flippin' remember to) and get back to you on Monday with that info. I'm pretty sure it's a long (.30-06 length) action. I'm not normally so ignorant, but that rifle was purchased at a bargain price from a co-worker and essentially put into storage as a future deer rifle for one of my boys. I mounted a new V10 and shot it with factory ammo only to confirm that it was accurate enough to be a keeper.

I've shot a few customers' rifles that carried Nikon Buckmasters and I was impressed with those scopes. They were optically nice and clear and the adjustments did what they were supposed to do. I've never used a ProStaff but I've read some stuff about them in the net that makes me a little leery of them. Take it for what it's worth - you know that you can't believe every thing that you read on some message board. :roll:
As I wrote above I own several Monarchs and I like them a lot. It appears that Nikon is redesigning the Monarch line and there are (or recently were) some great bargains to be had on closeouts on the "old" models. Check out Natchez Shooters' Supply as one possible source. You may find top-end scopes at mid-range prices.
Uncle R.

[Marlin Junky]

As I wrote above I own several Monarchs and I like them a lot. It appears that Nikon is redesigning the Monarch line and there are (or recently were) some great bargains to be had on closeouts on the "old" models. Check out Natchez Shooters' Supply as one possible source. You may find top-end scopes at mid-range prices.
Uncle R.

Thanks Uncle R.,

Coincidentally, I just received a flyer from Natchez and I purchased a Monarch 2-7x32.

MJ