# Deciding on a scope today



## Sam22 (Jan 22, 2003)

Just picked up a Tikka T3 in 30-06, slightly used. The gun had a 3..5-10 Weaver Grand Slam on it, also only slightly used. I wasn't crazy about the scope so I had the guy take it off, he wanted about 250 for it. Now I am looking at getting a scope for 300 or less. I would like to put something nicer on it, but at this point I shouldn't spend the money. I have a couple of the Nikon Prostaff scopes and am looking at the 3x9x50, very affordable and with the 50mm objective I think it will be a sweet scope. I really have a thing for Leupold, and the VX 1 3x9x40 is in the price range, I think the VX2 3x9x40 is also. I know these "Help Me Pick" threads get a little old. However they are usefull, so if you have an opinion let's hear it. I could get the weaver back, or do either of the other ones I listed, anything awesome I am missing? Should I shut up and spend 500?


----------



## Rasher (Oct 14, 2004)

If that's what you want then go for it, I bought a Bushnell Banner w/bdc back in 1980 that's still on my 7mag and still a good scope, I paid around $80 for it then, that was a fair sum then, now I guess there lower end scopes aren't what they used to be. None of my guns get "BABIED" they get a fair amount of hard use, now it would be hard for me to spend more than $200-250 for something that I might break, but that's just me.


----------



## kozal01 (Oct 11, 2010)

after alot of searching, reading up on reviews i just purchased a redfeild 3-9x40 scope for my M4 and i couldnt be happier. i had my choices narrowed down to leupold, nikon and redfield and the redfield is on par with those two brands at almost $100 less for comparable specs. redfeild is owned by leupold and the scopes are made in leupolds oregon scope plant and are tested and held to the same standards as the leupolds. they also come with a lifetime warranty, they are worth looking in to. 

http://www.redfield.com/riflescopes/


----------



## Sam22 (Jan 22, 2003)

I had forgotten about Redfield, thanks for the heads up. Does Gander or MC carry them? I am here in traverse city, so my options are slightly limited.

I think I might buy a scope today with the idea that I may sometime upgrade, move this scope onto something else. 

What are the opinions on the 50mm receiver?


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

If you are getting a 3-9, don't waste your money on a 50mm objective...especially in bargain glass like the Pro Staff. Not to mention, that weaver is better glass than the Pro Hunter. You'd have been money ahead by just getting the Weaver. Anyway, the Tikka is a nice light rifle and sticking a 50mm objective in high rings on that nice light rifle will make it an ungainly mess in the handling department. I know people are enamored with the bigger is better and think 50's are cool but they really arent in a 3-9 scope. Manufacturers know this and sell them for more money because they can. If you want some top end glass for a good price, check out the Bushnell 4200 3-9x40 in the $250-$300 range. If on a real tight budget, skip the Pro Staff and look at the Redfield 3-9x40 for $150.


----------



## kozal01 (Oct 11, 2010)

Sam22 said:


> I had forgotten about Redfield, thanks for the heads up. Does Gander or MC carry them? I am here in traverse city, so my options are slightly limited.
> 
> I think I might buy a scope today with the idea that I may sometime upgrade, move this scope onto something else.
> 
> What are the opinions on the 50mm receiver?


im not sure about gander or MC, i ordered mine from Cabelas online. from what i read about the 50mm the only real advantage besides field of view being larger was it had slightly better light gathering than the 40 mm


----------



## Sam22 (Jan 22, 2003)

The light gathering was my concern, seems to me a less expensive 50mm might be worth what a more expensive 40mm is regards to light collection. As far as FOV, that would be a benefit too. I am not crazy about having to use higher mounts, but I will if I have to. I order lots of stuff online, but to be honest I want to buy it and put it on today, take it to the range tomorrow. If all else fails I will cannibalize something off another rifle.


----------



## Sam22 (Jan 22, 2003)

Swamp Monster said:


> If you are getting a 3-9, don't waste your money on a 50mm objective...especially in bargain glass like the Pro Staff. Not to mention, that weaver is better glass than the Pro Hunter. You'd have been money ahead by just getting the Weaver. Anyway, the Tikka is a nice light rifle and sticking a 50mm objective in high rings on that nice light rifle will make it an ungainly mess in the handling department. I know people are enamored with the bigger is better and think 50's are cool but they really arent in a 3-9 scope. Manufacturers know this and sell them for more money because they can. If you want some top end glass for a good price, check out the Bushnell 4200 3-9x40 in the $250-$300 range. If on a real tight budget, skip the Pro Staff and look at the Redfield 3-9x40 for $150.


To be honest I wouldn't say I am on a "real tight budget". Months ago I had planned on buying a really nice scope, but I just don't know if I need it now. I have never been too impressed with bushnell, but I would be happy spending 300 on a "good" scope, IE something I never feel the need to upgrade.


----------



## Sam22 (Jan 22, 2003)

Called around, everyone in town is out of the redfield 3-9! Damn


----------



## ajmorell (Apr 27, 2007)

My vote would be for a Bushnell Elite 3200 or 4200. I have a 3-9x40 3200 on my X-Bolt and absolutely love it. The Nikon Buckmasters is also a lot of scope for the money, but I like by Elite 3200 better.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Sam22 said:


> The light gathering was my concern, seems to me a less expensive 50mm might be worth what a more expensive 40mm is regards to light collection. As far as FOV, that would be a benefit too. I am not crazy about having to use higher mounts, but I will if I have to. I order lots of stuff online, but to be honest I want to buy it and put it on today, take it to the range tomorrow. If all else fails I will cannibalize something off another rifle.


Size never overcomes quality!! Big and cheap is still big and cheap! My Cedar Swamp guns carry 36MM and 32mm objectives....but they are quality glass and are great in low light. Heck, todays quality 40mm objectives will allow a person to hunt well past legal shooting light in most cases...so what is gained by the 50mm? Nothing. (Unless you are using high magnification which is rarely usefull in most deer hunting situations)

FOV is NOT larger because of a 50mm objective. One look at the specs and you'll see the truth. Nikons Pro Staff 3-9x40 has a field of view of 33.8 at 3x...guess what the 3-9x50mm has? Yep, 33.8. Unless you consistantly use 8x and 9x in the field, the 50mm is a waste of money. if you buy a 4.5-14x or something in that size, the 50mm has some merit but on a 3-9 that you rarely ever turn above 6x or 7x in the field, the 50 is just added weight and cost. In mid to low power ranges the human eye can only use so much light. 

That tikka is a trim rifle with nice lines....tall rings and a big ol' objective will make it look silly to be honest. Not to mention, that rifle is light...it will kick in .30-06. With high rings you will not get a good cheek weld on the stock since you will be forced to lift your head slightly to see thru the scope. Enjoy the feel of that stock smacking you in the cheek...especially on the bench!


If you want something that will last a lifetime, just go spend $399 on a 3-9x40mm Zeiss Conquest and be done with it. That Tikka/Zeiss combo will be a great set up.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Sam22 said:


> I have never been too impressed with bushnell, but I would be happy spending 300 on a "good" scope, IE something I never feel the need to upgrade.


The Bushnell Elite line both the 3200 and 4200 are great scopes. I would not buy any of the low end Bushnells however...not impressive in the least. The 4200 is considered some of the best glass available at any price under a grand.


----------



## fishnpbr (Dec 2, 2007)

ajmorell said:


> My vote would be for a Bushnell Elite 3200 or 4200. I have a 3-9x40 3200 on my X-Bolt and absolutely love it. The Nikon Buckmasters is also a lot of scope for the money, but I like by Elite 3200 better.


http://swfa.com/Bushnell-3-9x40-Elite-3200-Rifle-Scope-P232.aspx

I Personally own an assortment of scopes as I'm sure most of us do. I presently use a Bushnell Trophy and Elite 3200, a Luepold Varix II, 2 Nikon Monarchs, and a Kahles AH as well as some other junkier stuff.

In my opinion for the money you can't beat a Bushnell Elite 3200. When looking through scopes except for truly high end stuff, brightness and clarity opinions will vary. My 3200 has been mounted on a T/C Encore and is currently on my Marlin .35 Rem. It has been an excellent scope. Have fun shopping and don't be hasty in your choice.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

I have a Bushnell 3.5-10x40mm SA Elite 3200 on my Encore and has been a great scope. The Rainguard works! Took a buck a couple years ago in a blizzard at last light and the scope performed flawlessly. It was snowing so hard that the deers tracks and blood trail were completely coverd....so was the deer in less than an hour. I would not hesitate to buy another. I think I paid $219 for it. Hard to argue with that price.


----------



## bucketmouthhauler (Sep 24, 2005)

bushnell elites are good scopes for sure. Also try to look through a vortex scope. you will be amazed at the clarity and light gathering ability. They are pretty new I think. I bought a pair of vortex fury bino's and have been thrilled with them. They were the best I could find short of swaroski's. They are being used by the military, and are grade A imo. Make sure you consider them. 

I forgot to mention all vortex optics have a lifetime unconditional warranty. Run it over with your car and they send you another.


----------



## Knight (Dec 7, 2005)

Look at the Minox ZA-3. Awesome deal for high quality glass. I picked one up two months ago and chose it over Zeiss, Leupold, and Bushnell Elite for overall price/quality combined. Bought it from Cameraland NY. They have a great open box/full warranty deal right now. I purchased the BDC model and have been extremely happy with my purchase. Cameraland NY has a great return policy as well. 

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/minox.pl?page=66000


----------



## Sam22 (Jan 22, 2003)

Well, I ended up buying back the weaver grand slam in 3.5 X 10 X 50. I seriously considered redfield but there are none to be found in traverse city. I hope I'm happy with it, didn't see some of your replies until just now. I took a pic but can't seem to post it from my blackberry.


----------



## Jim..47 (May 5, 2009)

You would be better off going with a 2x7 or 2x8. I missed a dandy shot on a nice buck cause my 3x9 wouldn't get the deer in it at the close range the shot became available at. From then on I hunt with a 2x7, plenty of power and much better at close range for a quick shot.


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

FWIW, I see Dicks has nikon monarch's 3-9x40 on sale for $200, thats a nice piece of glass for a reasonable price.

I have an elite 4200 3-9x40, I like it alot, put it on a stainless/synthetic rifle for the "messy" days.


----------



## Newcub (May 26, 2010)

Sam22 said:


> Well, I ended up buying back the weaver grand slam in 3.5 X 10 X 50. I seriously considered redfield but there are none to be found in traverse city. I hope I'm happy with it, didn't see some of your replies until just now. I took a pic but can't seem to post it from my blackberry.


Did you try Jays in gaylord..I got mine from there Clare store..


----------

