3-9X40 or 10x42 for mid-long range .257

[Idahotrophyhunter]

My 10x42 ss came in this morning and a hunting buddy fell so in love with it, he is contemplating buying one, but here is the issue, wanted some feedback.

His "long range" mule deer rifle is a Vangaurd .257. He currently has a mid-high end 3-9x40 scope on the rifle that has allowed accurate shooting out to 300 yards. Were he and I hunt for mule deer is open sage mountian country northeast of Boise. There are timber pockets but most shooting is 200 plus yards with some shots going out to 4-500 plus. For this reasoning, he wants to replace his 3-9x40 with a 10x42 super sniper, but would get the HD version has his pockets are deeper than mine.

What are your thoughts about this switch?

P.S., His 3-9x40 is a Zeiss Conquest

[royinidaho]

Within this discussion I think that everything points at the reticle being the deciding factor.

The 10X SS is sufficient for shooting to 1K. I've done it. Under all conditions.

The 16X us a bit better but will leave you wanting when its not bright noon day sun. It'll chop an hour of shooting time off of both ends of the day.

The HD will be even better but "that" much better I'm not sure.

If the 3-9 has a decent reticle and turrets it should be good also. But if your buddy noticed that much of a difference between it and the !0x he'll make the change.

I get back to ID next spring. Hope to see ya at a fun shoot.....

[yote doctor]

My vote would be the 3-9 SS with the new Mil Quad reticle.

I have (2) with mil dot. One is on my Savage 243. I have to say I love these things! It claimed 3 song dogs between 400-550 yards this year. And lots of steel out to 800. It would not fall short for what he is using it for.

Also its $200 less than the 10X and you have the lower X range if you need it. Great scope at a great price.

[dig]

The Zeiss is going to have far better glass and light transmission. for 1x more power making the switch does not make sense. I am a big fan of the 14 or 15x range for plus 500 yard shots but would take better glass over magnification any day of the week. Zeiss will put target turrets in IPHY on that 3x9 for $55 each and do it quickly (just had one done) best option by my thoughts.

[royinidaho]

Originally Posted by dig

The Zeiss is going to have far better glass and light transmission. for 1x more power making the switch does not make sense. I am a big fan of the 14 or 15x range for plus 500 yard shots but would take better glass over magnification any day of the week. Zeiss will put target turrets in IPHY on that 3x9 for $55 each and do it quickly (just had one done) best option by my thoughts.

I agree fully with this assessment.

When I read the original post I neglected to notice that the 3-9 was a Zeiss.

If the reticle is not too thick It'll do well.

[Jon A]

The 3-9 Conquest's glass may edge the 3-9 SS by a bit, but not the 10XHD. Though unless stand hunting at long range only I just can't see hunting with a fixed 10X so my choice for hunting would be the 3-9. The glass is very decent, but the turrets, reticle, range of travel, etc, are what make it so nice to use for close/mid/long range all around use in a fairly compact package.

Though like many here, I like higher powers as well if he doesn't mind packing something a bit bigger.

[Bravo 4]

Originally Posted by dig

The Zeiss is going to have far better glass and light transmission. for 1x more power making the switch does not make sense. I am a big fan of the 14 or 15x range for plus 500 yard shots but would take better glass over magnification any day of the week. Zeiss will put target turrets in IPHY on that 3x9 for $55 each and do it quickly (just had one done) best option by my thoughts.

I concur...

I have an SS and my buddy's Conquest glass is vastly superior, not worth the extra 1X power on the SS. My bud had the turrets installed as well. Not expensive at all and turn around time was about two weeks.